This isn't a company deciding, this is censorship urged by the government. I thought that kind of thing was illegal down there.
Not saying anything either way about the politics of the election, but isn't this blatant government censorship?
If you think it is, then why are you asking? If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)?
Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments. Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN.
>If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)?
Yes, active senators are in fact part of the government. The partisanship system does affect even active member's of the US government and this does seem to be a partisan issue driven solely by politics.
>Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments.
Then the other party should counter those arguments and wait for things to resolve as they will. This will happen whatever the average person believes. The election will be decided by the electoral college, or possibly the courts if any of those lawsuits end up having substance. People posting videos about anything won't change this.
>Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN.
The section 230 issue seems like a separate issue being spun as a response to this issue in ways that make no logical sense. But are being pushed as a response to actions like these. I don't support the repeal of this, but I do think this kind of obvious, government urged censorship is good either.
I didn't like when trump went on about fake news and I don't like when the other side of the government goes on about misinformation. I don't believe the government, either side, should be the arbiters of what is real news or real information.
When this happens, all the average person is left with is state sponsored propaganda.
> I don't believe the government, either side, should be the arbiters of what is real news or real information.
Shouldn't they?
When a murder happens, a court (which I guess is a part of a government) decides which testimony is true.
When a company makes food, FDA (or some similar department) gets to decide if their nutrition facts are correct or not.
ditto for IRS, FTC, etc.
What a government doesn't decide is if a certain opinion is right or wrong. But they usually urge public entities (e.g. media) to state the truth and suppress misinformation.
These are all issues of safety of one's very life and health. This is why there's a proper process in courts (even if stained by plea bargaining). FDA does not offer such a process, but its powers are way more limited.
None of these are in business of deciding truthiness of arbitrary statements or opinions, and they all operate in their well-defined narrow niches and run strict fact-checking procedures, collect proofs, etc.
It seems like most of the legislation is doing two things: restricting algorithmic sharing alone, not the ability to share. Leaving arbitration of what is good or bad in the context of the company.
Unless I misinterpreted what bills were brought forward.
I don't know why you are phrasing this as a both sides issue. Misinformation is an accurate description when nearly everything about the election being stolen is an explicit lie, unless we cannot rely on their own words in court as defining what is true.
> So all of the people who swore affidavits committed perjury?
Perjury is very rarely prosecuted as it's difficult to prove the person knew they were affirming a lie. So even though there have been sworn affidavits asserting fraud which was then utterly disproven by hand recounts, there still won't be many or any prosecutions of perjury. Even though these people are most likely guilty of perjury, prosecutors won't waste scarce resources building cases and prosecuting them. Judges have mostly just dismissed these false affidavits as not credible.
A better test would be corroborating evidence or some victories for these lawsuits. In most states, election systems are designed for traceability and error detection (while some like Kentucky only have auditability in 14% of precincts). If there was fraud, there would be evidence. If there's evidence, why has Trump lost 55 of 56 of these election-related cases to date (and the one victory changed nothing, because it held that that PA had to separate out ballots that arrived after Nov 3, which the PA SoS was already doing preemptively).
Seriously, read through these filings [0]. These are clearly bad faith arguments that have no basis in reality. Trump and co have raised over $170 million from the people they are blasting with these claims that can't stand up to any scrutiny [1]. One side is objectively spewing misinformation.
So many people committed perjury that the Plaintiff's discarded the ones that were obviously spam. Some unknown number of affidavits were discarded by Trump's legal team that were acquired in exactly the same manner.
Their star witness claimed that there was an error of 100k in the books when an error of 30k (necessary to swing the election) wasn't found during review. When challenged on that point she claimed the Republican was in on it. Whatever it is.
No claim has been made of general election malfiance. All accusations are specifically about the presidential election. How and why would you rig only a presidential election? You can't do that by merely rescanning ballots.
Not saying anything either way about the politics of the election, but isn't this blatant government censorship?
If you think it is, then why are you asking? If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)?
Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments. Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN.