Wasn't voter fraud was insigificant in 2020?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The Babylon Bee was not "banned." They were suspended for 12 hours.

And it wasn't satire. It was transphobia. (They named Rachel Levine "Man of the Year.")

And In Orwell's novel, people can be imprisoned for thought crimes. In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

Not according to an article on April 28, 2022:
"Twitter locked the humor website out of its account on March 20, and the account has remained locked ever since."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/will-babylon-bee-get-out-of-twitter-jail

In my post, I mentioned bans, people losing their jobs, and people being located and harassed at home.  I mentioned that Elon Musk enquired after the ban, which took place weeks afterwards.  Yet your reply strips out that context, and based on literally the first search result in Google, you claim this is only about a 12 hour ban.  Look at all the context you ignored in jumping to an incorrect, strongly held view.

Let me take a wild guess and say you're not going to apologize for being wrong, for labeling me ("only conservatives") without evidence, or for stripping out all the context of my post as though it didn't matter.

No, I will apologize for being wrong about the Babylon Bee. I looked it up and found a Forbes article that said it was suspended for 12 hours, but I misread the date of the article as May 21, not March 21. I was wrong.

That's it?  If you were wrong about that, why isn't the rest of this sentence worth an apology as well?

In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

Since you were wrong about "being suspended a half day", how can your comment about "only conservatives equate ..." be right when it relied on a false assumption?  When the data changes, I change my beliefs.  What do you do?

[Kris]

The Babylon Bee was not "banned." They were suspended for 12 hours.

And it wasn't satire. It was transphobia. (They named Rachel Levine "Man of the Year.")

And In Orwell's novel, people can be imprisoned for thought crimes. In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

Not according to an article on April 28, 2022:
"Twitter locked the humor website out of its account on March 20, and the account has remained locked ever since."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/will-babylon-bee-get-out-of-twitter-jail

In my post, I mentioned bans, people losing their jobs, and people being located and harassed at home.  I mentioned that Elon Musk enquired after the ban, which took place weeks afterwards.  Yet your reply strips out that context, and based on literally the first search result in Google, you claim this is only about a 12 hour ban.  Look at all the context you ignored in jumping to an incorrect, strongly held view.

Let me take a wild guess and say you're not going to apologize for being wrong, for labeling me ("only conservatives") without evidence, or for stripping out all the context of my post as though it didn't matter.

No, I will apologize for being wrong about the Babylon Bee. I looked it up and found a Forbes article that said it was suspended for 12 hours, but I misread the date of the article as May 21, not March 21. I was wrong.

That's it?  If you were wrong about that, why isn't the rest of this sentence worth an apology as well?

In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

Since you were wrong about "being suspended a half day", how can your comment about "only conservatives equate ..." be right when it relied on a false assumption?  When the data changes, I change my beliefs.  What do you do?

Good point. I edited what I said in your quote. Apparently, also the tweet was not taken down.

[Undecided]

Voter fraud not be may not be significant TO YOU (the generic YOU) but as someone who voted in a recall election ordered by the court due to voter fraud by mail, I can tell you it is real.

Which election was that?

I can't find it in a Google search.

Possibly this one: https://apnews.com/article/35c38cf1cfca48e786eb763c8d19c611

A North Carolina race where a consultant/political operative for the Republican candidate (allegedly) did enough illegal things with absentee ballots they had to rerun the race. The candidate was eventually cleared but didn't run again. The operative first plead guilty to Social Security fraud, then just recently died of cancer while still awaiting trial on the election tampering.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it was not a Rascally Republican who pulled the shenanigans, it was our city’s corrupt Democratic machine operating in typical fashion. What made this particularly horrific was that I was forced to vote for a Democrat in this election, voting for the Dingaling in order to oust the lying, cheating, No Good Very Bad Pol.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/absentee-voting-under-way-in-special-election-ordered-amid-allegations-of-fraud/article_0b5d13e9-9166-59cf-a615-c8e7e672d02d.html

Since I never know who our auspicious St. Louis Post-Dispatch will let in to read their esteemed words of wisdom, here’s another source writing about the court ordered re-do election. The court found fraudulent activity with mail-in votes. .

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/bruce-franks-jr-beats-penny-hubbard-in-special-election-landslide/Content?oid=3118772

Your links say the voter fraud was alleged, not proven.  You seem to just have an activist judge.  The loser just seemed salty that the absentee vote (narrowly!) went to his opponent.  In the meantime, you get to enjoy the waste of a second election "just in case" there was voter fraud, to assuage the loser's ego.

Coming from a state that has 100% absentee ballot voting, the handwringing over absentee ballots in states where they are optional is just so unreal.  They lower the barrier to voting so much.  No waiting in line in the hot sun (hard for the disabled and elderly).  No trying to time your vote around work (hard for all employeed people.)  More time to comfortably research candidates down the ballot.  I pity states with in-person voting.

As for the fraud being  “alleged,  “a sitting judge thought there was enough shenanigans to call for a second election. It was proven when the losing candidate won the second election by a landslide.

As for mail in balloting, there’s nothing wrong with it when it’s properly controlled and planned for. That’s not what this was. Those procedures are not in place here.

For others who didn’t read it, it was a primary, not an election.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The Babylon Bee was not "banned." They were suspended for 12 hours.

And it wasn't satire. It was transphobia. (They named Rachel Levine "Man of the Year.")

And In Orwell's novel, people can be imprisoned for thought crimes. In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

Not according to an article on April 28, 2022:
"Twitter locked the humor website out of its account on March 20, and the account has remained locked ever since."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/will-babylon-bee-get-out-of-twitter-jail

In my post, I mentioned bans, people losing their jobs, and people being located and harassed at home.  I mentioned that Elon Musk enquired after the ban, which took place weeks afterwards.  Yet your reply strips out that context, and based on literally the first search result in Google, you claim this is only about a 12 hour ban.  Look at all the context you ignored in jumping to an incorrect, strongly held view.

Let me take a wild guess and say you're not going to apologize for being wrong, for labeling me ("only conservatives") without evidence, or for stripping out all the context of my post as though it didn't matter.

There's additional context in that article, thank you for sharing it.

"The Babylon Bee refused to delete the tweet. The Babylon Bee stayed in Twitter jail. It's still there now."

So the reason Babylon Bee remains 'banned' is they refuse to delete the content that violates Twitter's hate speech policy.  As far as I can tell, Twitter is allowed to decide what content they are willing to host (other than of course, what federal law makes illegal, like child sexual assault material).  Under Musk, they are allowed to host more transphobia without consequence.  Before Musk, refusing to not be transphobic results in consequences.

I don't use Twitter, so I don't have a dog in the fight exactly.  I think it is fine that posting pro-nazi or transphobic content is met with a ban.  Twitter is under no obligation to host content for anyone, they are a private company.  Parler is equally not obligated to host pro-choice and pro-trans rights content, last I checked.

So really, should all platforms be required to host content they disagree with?  Should politics become a protected class at work?  Are we really saying that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences?

By platforms do you mean social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc?

Apparently online platforms used to be liable for posts by users, but section 230 was passed by Congress to provide protection from what users post - even if moderated.  Facebook can moderate it's platform and still be protected.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral

Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone was privately owned... but eventually the telephone company's monopoly power had to be broken up into regional companies.  Maybe Twitter is somewhere between a new invention and a public utility?

Twitter banned former President Trump for inciting violence.  In the next election cycle, does he have the right to be heard on Twitter?  (Setting aside that Mr Musk plans to buy Twitter and make this point moot).  Can President Biden go on Twitter and encourage people to vote, while his opponent's ability to do so is decided by Twitter?

[CodingHare]

There's additional context in that article, thank you for sharing it.

"The Babylon Bee refused to delete the tweet. The Babylon Bee stayed in Twitter jail. It's still there now."

So the reason Babylon Bee remains 'banned' is they refuse to delete the content that violates Twitter's hate speech policy.  As far as I can tell, Twitter is allowed to decide what content they are willing to host (other than of course, what federal law makes illegal, like child sexual assault material).  Under Musk, they are allowed to host more transphobia without consequence.  Before Musk, refusing to not be transphobic results in consequences.

I don't use Twitter, so I don't have a dog in the fight exactly.  I think it is fine that posting pro-nazi or transphobic content is met with a ban.  Twitter is under no obligation to host content for anyone, they are a private company.  Parler is equally not obligated to host pro-choice and pro-trans rights content, last I checked.

So really, should all platforms be required to host content they disagree with?  Should politics become a protected class at work?  Are we really saying that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences?

By platforms do you mean social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc?

Apparently online platforms used to be liable for posts by users, but section 230 was passed by Congress to provide protection from what users post - even if moderated.  Facebook can moderate it's platform and still be protected.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral

Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone was privately owned... but eventually the telephone company's monopoly power had to be broken up into regional companies.  Maybe Twitter is somewhere between a new invention and a public utility?

Twitter banned former President Trump for inciting violence.  In the next election cycle, does he have the right to be heard on Twitter?  (Setting aside that Mr Musk plans to buy Twitter and make this point moot).  Can President Biden go on Twitter and encourage people to vote, while his opponent's ability to do so is decided by Twitter?

I was thinking social media, yes.  Although any ruling that applies to Facebook/Twitter/etc will also apply to smaller platforms, even down to forums like this.  There's nothing unique about Facebook's user content issues compared to web forums.  Heck, even 4chan has to comply with federal law (even 'lawless' /b/ has to comply with child pornography bans.)

I do think Facebook and Twitter have grown to the point of deserving scrutiny as a public utility, similar to phones.  Currently they are all closed platforms, and the user's post at the mercy of the admins/CEOs.  In the case of Twitter, it looks like the moderation rules will change under new leadership.

Real talk, I am super pessimistic about social media.  Users have no ownership of their own data.  As it stands, these companies exist by selling the users ads.  That means their incentive is to keep you on the site and engaged as much as possible so you see more adds.  And it turns out angry users engage more than happy users.  In fact, happy users do terrible things to the bottom line by doing things like... go outside and talk to friends IRL.  The whole model of us as the product encourages radicalizing, demonizing the other, and spend baby spend.  I don't know how we can possibly moderate to encourage healthy discourse and settling on a shared set of facts when the entire business model profits from angry, fractured users.  I don't know how we can get users on platforms that aren't monetized by ads, when users generally prefer free content and free hosting provided by giving up their personal information.

Re should Trump have a Twitter platform: That's up to Twitter right now.  And it sounds like with the Musk acquisition, we can go back to hanging on Trump's executive time tweets.  To answer your hypothetical: No political candidate is entitled to a private platform right now.  Some are better than others at complying with the site usage guidelines.  Biden could be banned tomorrow if he chose to use his twitter to break the moderation guidelines (which currently include not being explicitly transphobic and not inciting violence.)  I suspect he won't choose to do that, but if he did Twitter has every right to ban him.

Actions have consequences.  Trump could have chosen differently. I don't see Mitch McConnell banned from Twitter, nor Rand Paul, nor Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton.  So it's not like conservatives are being kicked off the platform for being conservative.

[iris lily]

Voter fraud not be may not be significant TO YOU (the generic YOU) but as someone who voted in a recall election ordered by the court due to voter fraud by mail, I can tell you it is real.

Which election was that?

I can't find it in a Google search.

Possibly this one: https://apnews.com/article/35c38cf1cfca48e786eb763c8d19c611

A North Carolina race where a consultant/political operative for the Republican candidate (allegedly) did enough illegal things with absentee ballots they had to rerun the race. The candidate was eventually cleared but didn't run again. The operative first plead guilty to Social Security fraud, then just recently died of cancer while still awaiting trial on the election tampering.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it was not a Rascally Republican who pulled the shenanigans, it was our city’s corrupt Democratic machine operating in typical fashion. What made this particularly horrific was that I was forced to vote for a Democrat in this election, voting for the Dingaling in order to oust the lying, cheating, No Good Very Bad Pol.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/absentee-voting-under-way-in-special-election-ordered-amid-allegations-of-fraud/article_0b5d13e9-9166-59cf-a615-c8e7e672d02d.html

Since I never know who our auspicious St. Louis Post-Dispatch will let in to read their esteemed words of wisdom, here’s another source writing about the court ordered re-do election. The court found fraudulent activity with mail-in votes. .

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/bruce-franks-jr-beats-penny-hubbard-in-special-election-landslide/Content?oid=3118772

Your links say the voter fraud was alleged, not proven.  You seem to just have an activist judge.  The loser just seemed salty that the absentee vote (narrowly!) went to his opponent.  In the meantime, you get to enjoy the waste of a second election "just in case" there was voter fraud, to assuage the loser's ego.

Coming from a state that has 100% absentee ballot voting, the handwringing over absentee ballots in states where they are optional is just so unreal.  They lower the barrier to voting so much.  No waiting in line in the hot sun (hard for the disabled and elderly).  No trying to time your vote around work (hard for all employeed people.)  More time to comfortably research candidates down the ballot.  I pity states with in-person voting.

As for the fraud being  “alleged,  “a sitting judge thought there was enough shenanigans to call for a second election. It was proven when the losing candidate won the second election by a landslide.

As for mail in balloting, there’s nothing wrong with it when it’s properly controlled and planned for. That’s not what this was. Those procedures are not in place here.

For others who didn’t read it, it was a primary, not an election.

Yes it was a primary election. A “primary” is an election. Does that change my  main point that there was fraud? Is it ok if in a primary election between two Democrats, one commits fraud?  If so, please explain.

And to add important context about this particular primary election, in this city whoever wins the primary election is the defacto winner of the following general election.

[Undecided]

Voter fraud not be may not be significant TO YOU (the generic YOU) but as someone who voted in a recall election ordered by the court due to voter fraud by mail, I can tell you it is real.

Which election was that?

I can't find it in a Google search.

Possibly this one: https://apnews.com/article/35c38cf1cfca48e786eb763c8d19c611

A North Carolina race where a consultant/political operative for the Republican candidate (allegedly) did enough illegal things with absentee ballots they had to rerun the race. The candidate was eventually cleared but didn't run again. The operative first plead guilty to Social Security fraud, then just recently died of cancer while still awaiting trial on the election tampering.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it was not a Rascally Republican who pulled the shenanigans, it was our city’s corrupt Democratic machine operating in typical fashion. What made this particularly horrific was that I was forced to vote for a Democrat in this election, voting for the Dingaling in order to oust the lying, cheating, No Good Very Bad Pol.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/absentee-voting-under-way-in-special-election-ordered-amid-allegations-of-fraud/article_0b5d13e9-9166-59cf-a615-c8e7e672d02d.html

Since I never know who our auspicious St. Louis Post-Dispatch will let in to read their esteemed words of wisdom, here’s another source writing about the court ordered re-do election. The court found fraudulent activity with mail-in votes. .

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/bruce-franks-jr-beats-penny-hubbard-in-special-election-landslide/Content?oid=3118772

Your links say the voter fraud was alleged, not proven.  You seem to just have an activist judge.  The loser just seemed salty that the absentee vote (narrowly!) went to his opponent.  In the meantime, you get to enjoy the waste of a second election "just in case" there was voter fraud, to assuage the loser's ego.

Coming from a state that has 100% absentee ballot voting, the handwringing over absentee ballots in states where they are optional is just so unreal.  They lower the barrier to voting so much.  No waiting in line in the hot sun (hard for the disabled and elderly).  No trying to time your vote around work (hard for all employeed people.)  More time to comfortably research candidates down the ballot.  I pity states with in-person voting.

As for the fraud being  “alleged,  “a sitting judge thought there was enough shenanigans to call for a second election. It was proven when the losing candidate won the second election by a landslide.

As for mail in balloting, there’s nothing wrong with it when it’s properly controlled and planned for. That’s not what this was. Those procedures are not in place here.

For others who didn’t read it, it was a primary, not an election.

Yes it was a primary election. A “primary” is an election. Does that change my  main point that there was fraud? Is it ok if in a primary election between two Democrats, one commits fraud?  If so, please explain.

And to add important context about this particular primary election, in this city whoever wins the primary election is the defacto winner of the following general election.

You’ve read a lot into a simple addition of some context. You’d claimed it was a “recall election,” so I thought it was going to be one thing, when it fact it was something quite different. If your general point is that election fraud is rapidly uncovered even in an open primary for a state representative seat, I’ll take that as one more reason to doubt claims of meaningful fraud on a nationwide scale in 2020.

[iris lily]

Voter fraud not be may not be significant TO YOU (the generic YOU) but as someone who voted in a recall election ordered by the court due to voter fraud by mail, I can tell you it is real.

Which election was that?

I can't find it in a Google search.

Possibly this one: https://apnews.com/article/35c38cf1cfca48e786eb763c8d19c611

A North Carolina race where a consultant/political operative for the Republican candidate (allegedly) did enough illegal things with absentee ballots they had to rerun the race. The candidate was eventually cleared but didn't run again. The operative first plead guilty to Social Security fraud, then just recently died of cancer while still awaiting trial on the election tampering.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it was not a Rascally Republican who pulled the shenanigans, it was our city’s corrupt Democratic machine operating in typical fashion. What made this particularly horrific was that I was forced to vote for a Democrat in this election, voting for the Dingaling in order to oust the lying, cheating, No Good Very Bad Pol.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/absentee-voting-under-way-in-special-election-ordered-amid-allegations-of-fraud/article_0b5d13e9-9166-59cf-a615-c8e7e672d02d.html

Since I never know who our auspicious St. Louis Post-Dispatch will let in to read their esteemed words of wisdom, here’s another source writing about the court ordered re-do election. The court found fraudulent activity with mail-in votes. .

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/bruce-franks-jr-beats-penny-hubbard-in-special-election-landslide/Content?oid=3118772

Your links say the voter fraud was alleged, not proven.  You seem to just have an activist judge.  The loser just seemed salty that the absentee vote (narrowly!) went to his opponent.  In the meantime, you get to enjoy the waste of a second election "just in case" there was voter fraud, to assuage the loser's ego.

Coming from a state that has 100% absentee ballot voting, the handwringing over absentee ballots in states where they are optional is just so unreal.  They lower the barrier to voting so much.  No waiting in line in the hot sun (hard for the disabled and elderly).  No trying to time your vote around work (hard for all employeed people.)  More time to comfortably research candidates down the ballot.  I pity states with in-person voting.

As for the fraud being  “alleged,  “a sitting judge thought there was enough shenanigans to call for a second election. It was proven when the losing candidate won the second election by a landslide.

As for mail in balloting, there’s nothing wrong with it when it’s properly controlled and planned for. That’s not what this was. Those procedures are not in place here.

For others who didn’t read it, it was a primary, not an election.

Yes it was a primary election. A “primary” is an election. Does that change my  main point that there was fraud? Is it ok if in a primary election between two Democrats, one commits fraud?  If so, please explain.

And to add important context about this particular primary election, in this city whoever wins the primary election is the defacto winner of the following general election.

You’ve read a lot into a simple addition of some context. You’d claimed it was a “recall election,” so I thought it was going to be one thing, when it fact it was something quite different. If your general point is that election fraud is rapidly uncovered even in an open primary for a state representative seat, I’ll take that as one more reason to doubt claims of meaningful fraud on a nationwide scale in 2020.

You are right, up there I did use the incorrect term “recall election.” I was thinking of it as it was a recall of the actual election, a recall  of the win.  But of course it was not a “recall” in the conventional way.

 My point is that election fraud takes place, in response to the title of this thread. I do not know how often it takes place and it’s not revealed, Therefore I do not know how “insignificant “it is.

I know that you do not know that either.

[Undecided]

Voter fraud not be may not be significant TO YOU (the generic YOU) but as someone who voted in a recall election ordered by the court due to voter fraud by mail, I can tell you it is real.

Which election was that?

I can't find it in a Google search.

Possibly this one: https://apnews.com/article/35c38cf1cfca48e786eb763c8d19c611

A North Carolina race where a consultant/political operative for the Republican candidate (allegedly) did enough illegal things with absentee ballots they had to rerun the race. The candidate was eventually cleared but didn't run again. The operative first plead guilty to Social Security fraud, then just recently died of cancer while still awaiting trial on the election tampering.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it was not a Rascally Republican who pulled the shenanigans, it was our city’s corrupt Democratic machine operating in typical fashion. What made this particularly horrific was that I was forced to vote for a Democrat in this election, voting for the Dingaling in order to oust the lying, cheating, No Good Very Bad Pol.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/absentee-voting-under-way-in-special-election-ordered-amid-allegations-of-fraud/article_0b5d13e9-9166-59cf-a615-c8e7e672d02d.html

Since I never know who our auspicious St. Louis Post-Dispatch will let in to read their esteemed words of wisdom, here’s another source writing about the court ordered re-do election. The court found fraudulent activity with mail-in votes. .

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/bruce-franks-jr-beats-penny-hubbard-in-special-election-landslide/Content?oid=3118772

Your links say the voter fraud was alleged, not proven.  You seem to just have an activist judge.  The loser just seemed salty that the absentee vote (narrowly!) went to his opponent.  In the meantime, you get to enjoy the waste of a second election "just in case" there was voter fraud, to assuage the loser's ego.

Coming from a state that has 100% absentee ballot voting, the handwringing over absentee ballots in states where they are optional is just so unreal.  They lower the barrier to voting so much.  No waiting in line in the hot sun (hard for the disabled and elderly).  No trying to time your vote around work (hard for all employeed people.)  More time to comfortably research candidates down the ballot.  I pity states with in-person voting.

As for the fraud being  “alleged,  “a sitting judge thought there was enough shenanigans to call for a second election. It was proven when the losing candidate won the second election by a landslide.

As for mail in balloting, there’s nothing wrong with it when it’s properly controlled and planned for. That’s not what this was. Those procedures are not in place here.

For others who didn’t read it, it was a primary, not an election.

Yes it was a primary election. A “primary” is an election. Does that change my  main point that there was fraud? Is it ok if in a primary election between two Democrats, one commits fraud?  If so, please explain.

And to add important context about this particular primary election, in this city whoever wins the primary election is the defacto winner of the following general election.

You’ve read a lot into a simple addition of some context. You’d claimed it was a “recall election,” so I thought it was going to be one thing, when it fact it was something quite different. If your general point is that election fraud is rapidly uncovered even in an open primary for a state representative seat, I’ll take that as one more reason to doubt claims of meaningful fraud on a nationwide scale in 2020.

You are right, up there I did use the incorrect term “recall election.” I was thinking of it as it was a recall of the actual election, a recall  of the win.  But of course it was not a “recall” in the conventional way.

 My point is that election fraud takes place, in response to the title of this thread. I do not know how often it takes place and it’s not revealed, Therefore I do not know how “insignificant “it is.

I know that you do not know that either.

I know that the word “insignificant” appears in the title. I know that claims were made of a massive attempt at fraud on the 2020 elections. I know that despite tremendous efforts to identify that fraud, it’s not been uncovered. I know what delusion looks like.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

The Babylon Bee was not "banned." They were suspended for 12 hours.

And it wasn't satire. It was transphobia. (They named Rachel Levine "Man of the Year.")

And In Orwell's novel, people can be imprisoned for thought crimes. In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

Not according to an article on April 28, 2022:
"Twitter locked the humor website out of its account on March 20, and the account has remained locked ever since."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/will-babylon-bee-get-out-of-twitter-jail

In my post, I mentioned bans, people losing their jobs, and people being located and harassed at home.  I mentioned that Elon Musk enquired after the ban, which took place weeks afterwards.  Yet your reply strips out that context, and based on literally the first search result in Google, you claim this is only about a 12 hour ban.  Look at all the context you ignored in jumping to an incorrect, strongly held view.

Let me take a wild guess and say you're not going to apologize for being wrong, for labeling me ("only conservatives") without evidence, or for stripping out all the context of my post as though it didn't matter.

No, I will apologize for being wrong about the Babylon Bee. I looked it up and found a Forbes article that said it was suspended for 12 hours, but I misread the date of the article as May 21, not March 21. I was wrong.

That's it?  If you were wrong about that, why isn't the rest of this sentence worth an apology as well?

In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

Since you were wrong about "being suspended a half day", how can your comment about "only conservatives equate ..." be right when it relied on a false assumption?  When the data changes, I change my beliefs.  What do you do?

Good point. I edited what I said in your quote. Apparently, also the tweet was not taken down.

You seem proud of your inability to read my post, but I'll help others see what you cannot:

... some tweets will cause people to lose their jobs, and potentially be located and harassed where they live.

The Babylon Bee was not "banned." They were suspended for 12 hours.

And it wasn't satire. It was transphobia. (They named Rachel Levine "Man of the Year.")

And In Orwell's novel, people can be imprisoned for thought crimes. In the real world, only conservatives equate a tweet being taken down and a social media account being suspended for half a day with being imprisoned.

... In my post, I mentioned bans, people losing their jobs, and people being located and harassed at home.
Let me take a wild guess and say you're not going to apologize for ..., or for stripping out all the context of my post as though it didn't matter.

People "losing their jobs" and "being harassed at home" is nowhere in your post, because that ruins your false assumptions about what I said.  How about suicide, can that be compared to imprisionment?  After defending their idol for days of abuse from the trans community, a trans comedian committed suicide.  I'd also add that to the list of things that might be compared with imprisionment, but I guess they must be "only conservative" as well?  Why argue in good faith and read context when you've got a label for something?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

...
Twitter is under no obligation to host content for anyone, they are a private company.  Parler is equally not obligated to host pro-choice and pro-trans rights content, last I checked.

So really, should all platforms be required to host content they disagree with?  Should politics become a protected class at work?  Are we really saying that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences?

...
Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone was privately owned... but eventually the telephone company's monopoly power had to be broken up into regional companies.  Maybe Twitter is somewhere between a new invention and a public utility?

Twitter banned former President Trump for inciting violence.  In the next election cycle, does he have the right to be heard on Twitter?  (Setting aside that Mr Musk plans to buy Twitter and make this point moot).  Can President Biden go on Twitter and encourage people to vote, while his opponent's ability to do so is decided by Twitter?

...
I do think Facebook and Twitter have grown to the point of deserving scrutiny as a public utility, similar to phones.  Currently they are all closed platforms, and the user's post at the mercy of the admins/CEOs.  In the case of Twitter, it looks like the moderation rules will change under new leadership.
...
Re should Trump have a Twitter platform: That's up to Twitter right now.  And it sounds like with the Musk acquisition, we can go back to hanging on Trump's executive time tweets.  To answer your hypothetical: No political candidate is entitled to a private platform right now.  Some are better than others at complying with the site usage guidelines.  Biden could be banned tomorrow if he chose to use his twitter to break the moderation guidelines (which currently include not being explicitly transphobic and not inciting violence.)  I suspect he won't choose to do that, but if he did Twitter has every right to ban him.

Actions have consequences.  Trump could have chosen differently. I don't see Mitch McConnell banned from Twitter, nor Rand Paul, nor Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton.  So it's not like conservatives are being kicked off the platform for being conservative.

I'd like to push that question further by asking how close Ted Cruz gets to the line decided by Twitter.  The MSNBC opinion piece below talks of "more evidence emerges tying him to Trump’s Big Lie", and "how closely Cruz worked with then-President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election results."  I'm saying what if Senator Cruz was a co-conspirator who also praises or retweets others who encourage violence.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/ted-cruz-s-ties-trump-jan-6-are-worse-we-n1293872

Going back to the question of a utility, do more people talk to each other on land lines or Facebook?  What percent of people would rather have their water cut off than for a day rather than their Facebook account?  I think about 2/3rds of people are on Facebook, so it's likely to be a lot of people favoring Facebook over their water utilities.

And combining those two points, I'm saying maybe Twitter could be a public utility.  As a public utility, I assume Senator Cruz can't be denied service for what he says in a tweet (or retweets).  As a private company, their policies probably include a clause that lets them ban people at their discretion.  Senator Cruz's ability to use Twitter could depend on it being a public utility or a private company.

[Undecided]

...
Twitter is under no obligation to host content for anyone, they are a private company.  Parler is equally not obligated to host pro-choice and pro-trans rights content, last I checked.

So really, should all platforms be required to host content they disagree with?  Should politics become a protected class at work?  Are we really saying that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences?

...
Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone was privately owned... but eventually the telephone company's monopoly power had to be broken up into regional companies.  Maybe Twitter is somewhere between a new invention and a public utility?

Twitter banned former President Trump for inciting violence.  In the next election cycle, does he have the right to be heard on Twitter?  (Setting aside that Mr Musk plans to buy Twitter and make this point moot).  Can President Biden go on Twitter and encourage people to vote, while his opponent's ability to do so is decided by Twitter?

...
I do think Facebook and Twitter have grown to the point of deserving scrutiny as a public utility, similar to phones.  Currently they are all closed platforms, and the user's post at the mercy of the admins/CEOs.  In the case of Twitter, it looks like the moderation rules will change under new leadership.
...
Re should Trump have a Twitter platform: That's up to Twitter right now.  And it sounds like with the Musk acquisition, we can go back to hanging on Trump's executive time tweets.  To answer your hypothetical: No political candidate is entitled to a private platform right now.  Some are better than others at complying with the site usage guidelines.  Biden could be banned tomorrow if he chose to use his twitter to break the moderation guidelines (which currently include not being explicitly transphobic and not inciting violence.)  I suspect he won't choose to do that, but if he did Twitter has every right to ban him.

Actions have consequences.  Trump could have chosen differently. I don't see Mitch McConnell banned from Twitter, nor Rand Paul, nor Ted Cruz or Tom Cotton.  So it's not like conservatives are being kicked off the platform for being conservative.

I'd like to push that question further by asking how close Ted Cruz gets to the line decided by Twitter.  The MSNBC opinion piece below talks of "more evidence emerges tying him to Trump’s Big Lie", and "how closely Cruz worked with then-President Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election results."  I'm saying what if Senator Cruz was a co-conspirator who also praises or retweets others who encourage violence.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/ted-cruz-s-ties-trump-jan-6-are-worse-we-n1293872

Going back to the question of a utility, do more people talk to each other on land lines or Facebook?  What percent of people would rather have their water cut off than for a day rather than their Facebook account?  I think about 2/3rds of people are on Facebook, so it's likely to be a lot of people favoring Facebook over their water utilities.

And combining those two points, I'm saying maybe Twitter could be a public utility.  As a public utility, I assume Senator Cruz can't be denied service for what he says in a tweet (or retweets).  As a private company, their policies probably include a clause that lets them ban people at their discretion.  Senator Cruz's ability to use Twitter could depend on it being a public utility or a private company.

What do you think this “regulation as a utility” would require, and on what basis? The US had the “Fairness Doctrine” for OTA broadcasters for a long time, but abandoned that long ago (at least in large part because during the rise of (conservative) talk radio, conservatives claimed it stifled free speech). Cable service wasn’t subject to the Fairness Doctrine in the first place, because it wasn’t licensing public airwaves.

[MoseyingAlong]

In the last week or so, I've read a couple articles about voter fraud. The stories popped up in my news feed; I wasn't searching for them. I would guess these are the tip of the iceberg. (I hope I'm wrong about that and these are very rare instances.) More than one friend has told me about filling out the ballot of an elderly relative; some of those relatives seem like they have beginning dementia. I doubt those cases will ever be discovered/prosecuted.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-30/compton-city-council-election-overturned

[iris lily]

In the last week or so, I've read a couple articles about voter fraud. The stories popped up in my news feed; I wasn't searching for them. I would guess these are the tip of the iceberg. (I hope I'm wrong about that and these are very rare instances.) More than one friend has told me about filling out the ballot of an elderly relative; some of those relatives seem like they have beginning dementia. I doubt those cases will ever be discovered/prosecuted.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-30/compton-city-council-election-overturned

When I filled out the ballot  for my mother because her brain was starting to be affected by dementia, I had to tick  all the Democrat boxes. Very painful, but I got through it.

[iris lily]

In the last week or so, I've read a couple articles about voter fraud. The stories popped up in my news feed; I wasn't searching for them. I would guess these are the tip of the iceberg….

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-30/compton-city-council-election-overturned

Sorry, but we’ve already determined there is no voter fraud.  That is the only acceptable point of view on Mr. Money Mistache. Please move along with your thoughts of something else.

Amusingly, my voice translator heard “no butter fried” rather than “no voter fraud.” Sometimes she makes me laugh.

[Kris]

In the last week or so, I've read a couple articles about voter fraud. The stories popped up in my news feed; I wasn't searching for them. I would guess these are the tip of the iceberg….

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-30/compton-city-council-election-overturned

Sorry, but we’ve already determined there is no voter fraud.  That is the only acceptable point of view on Mr. Money Mistache. Please move along with your thoughts of something else.

Amusingly, my voice translator heard “no butter fried” rather than “no voter fraud.” Sometimes she makes me laugh.

The thing is, it’s a point of view backed by research.

[Undecided]

In the last week or so, I've read a couple articles about voter fraud. The stories popped up in my news feed; I wasn't searching for them. I would guess these are the tip of the iceberg….

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-30/compton-city-council-election-overturned

Sorry, but we’ve already determined there is no voter fraud.  That is the only acceptable point of view on Mr. Money Mistache. Please move along with your thoughts of something else.

Amusingly, my voice translator heard “no butter fried” rather than “no voter fraud.” Sometimes she makes me laugh.

The thing is, it’s a point of view backed by research.

Clearly there is some voter fraud, but assuming you mean no significant fraud, then it’s not just “research”—even the most brazenly politically-motivated recount efforts, carried out by partisan hacks, didn’t find it. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/25/1040672550/az-audit?t=1655099675776

You have to keep in mind that American conservatives just have a harder time distinguishing between truth and lies in the current environment. https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
Somehow I doubt that the founding fathers anticipated the massive spread of disinformation, and the hyper-narrowing of media providers, at a level where it creates a broad class of definitively misinformed voters. I do wonder how many of them know that they’re allowing themselves to be misinformed, as a way of justifying their existing beliefs.

[Kris]

In the last week or so, I've read a couple articles about voter fraud. The stories popped up in my news feed; I wasn't searching for them. I would guess these are the tip of the iceberg….

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-us-congressman-and-philadelphia-political-operative-pleads-guilty-election-fraud

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-30/compton-city-council-election-overturned

Sorry, but we’ve already determined there is no voter fraud.  That is the only acceptable point of view on Mr. Money Mistache. Please move along with your thoughts of something else.

Amusingly, my voice translator heard “no butter fried” rather than “no voter fraud.” Sometimes she makes me laugh.

The thing is, it’s a point of view backed by research.

Clearly there is some voter fraud, but assuming you mean no significant fraud, then it’s not just “research”—even the most brazenly politically-motivated recount efforts, carried out by partisan hacks, didn’t find it. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/25/1040672550/az-audit?t=1655099675776

You have to keep in mind that American conservatives just have a harder time distinguishing between truth and lies in the current environment. https://news.osu.edu/conservatives-more-susceptible-to-believing-falsehoods/
Somehow I doubt that the founding fathers anticipated the massive spread of disinformation, and the hyper-narrowing of media providers, at a level where it creates a broad class of definitively misinformed voters. I do wonder how many of them know that they’re allowing themselves to be misinformed, as a way of justifying their existing beliefs.

Yes, that is what I meant. I chose not to engage with the strawman argument.

[bacchi]

In the last week or so, I've read a couple articles about voter fraud. The stories popped up in my news feed; I wasn't searching for them.

Unless your newsfeed clicks are wiped each and every time, it's learning based on what you've searched for before.

Use an anonymous tab for your newsfeed.

[Rubyvroom]

Last year I moved from metro to rural Minnesota. The election fraud rhetoric out here is so much stronger than I ever realized. The messaging is consistent and continuous.

Pretty quickly I went from, "Huh, interesting, I guess people out here are actually really worried about election integrity," to realizing that each candidate in each debate led with a furious, "The 2020 election was STOLEN and the most important issue I hear from voters is election integrity."

Huh, it seems weird that you all are saying the same... it's almost like you're telling people what they should... wait a minute.

Based on video recordings obtained by Politico of various GOP trainings and workshops, this messaging appears to be from a detailed playbook that is designed to create chaos at our next election. Politico picked it up first but PBS, NPR, Rolling Stone, and other various outlets have vetted stories pertaining to strategies being put into place to disrupt the next election cycle.

This all scares the shit out of me, because the level of emotion I'm seeing in these "discussions" sometimes climb to borderline frenzy, and the ability to critically think, search for facts, and form data-driven conclusions is being rendered obsolete.

Anecdotally, last week I received an email from a GOP candidate for state senate in my district inviting me to go to a 2000 Mules showing for the public. The candidate stated: "Election Fraud in 2020? See for yourself!" When I emailed him back asking to be removed from the mailing list, I told him I would never vote for a candidate that peddles 2020 election fraud rhetoric because it's harmful to our country and democracy. He doubled down in his reply "challenging me" to watch the video because I would find the evidence convincing.

This person has been an elected representative of Minnesota since 2013. He didn't just come out of the woodwork. He's well educated and has plenty of political experience serving on a number of committees over the years. Yet he doubled down on this lie in an email response to me. Does he actually believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen? Is he merely saying anything to win votes? I am losing my ability to identify politicians who truly believe this tripe from the ones who will simply say and do anything to retain power.

In my own corner of the world I've decided to stop pussyfooting and shut down this rhetoric as often as I can (rhetoric that specifically refers to "stolen 2020 election" nonsense). It is absolutely infecting public discourse in such a way that people are no longer able to have a discussion about their real thoughts or fears or actions we can take to improve our free and fair elections, where we can be specific and use examples and come to informed decisions. After two years of laying off and taking it easy on people because I know how much it sucks to lose an election you thought was REALLY important, after each election "theory" (massive dumps, mules, dead people, etc.) and potential for voter fraud was investigated, wound its way through the courts, and was either found to have no impact on the election or debunked as erroneous, I can't entertain these lies anymore. I won't.

PS - None of this was directed at anyone in particular in this thread. I appreciate the topic and the subsequent discussion.

[iris lily]

Last year I moved from metro to rural Minnesota. The election fraud rhetoric out here is so much stronger than I ever realized. The messaging is consistent and continuous.

Pretty quickly I went from, "Huh, interesting, I guess people out here are actually really worried about election integrity," to realizing that each candidate in each debate led with a furious, "The 2020 election was STOLEN and the most important issue I hear from voters is election integrity."

Huh, it seems weird that you all are saying the same... it's almost like you're telling people what they should... wait a minute.

Based on video recordings obtained by Politico of various GOP trainings and workshops, this messaging appears to be from a detailed playbook that is designed to create chaos at our next election. Politico picked it up first but PBS, NPR, Rolling Stone, and other various outlets have vetted stories pertaining to strategies being put into place to disrupt the next election cycle.

This all scares the shit out of me, because the level of emotion I'm seeing in these "discussions" sometimes climb to borderline frenzy, and the ability to critically think, search for facts, and form data-driven conclusions is being rendered obsolete.

Anecdotally, last week I received an email from a GOP candidate for state senate in my district inviting me to go to a 2000 Mules showing for the public. The candidate stated: "Election Fraud in 2020? See for yourself!" When I emailed him back asking to be removed from the mailing list, I told him I would never vote for a candidate that peddles 2020 election fraud rhetoric because it's harmful to our country and democracy. He doubled down in his reply "challenging me" to watch the video because I would find the evidence convincing.

This person has been an elected representative of Minnesota since 2013. He didn't just come out of the woodwork. He's well educated and has plenty of political experience serving on a number of committees over the years. Yet he doubled down on this lie in an email response to me. Does he actually believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen? Is he merely saying anything to win votes? I am losing my ability to identify politicians who truly believe this tripe from the ones who will simply say and do anything to retain power.

In my own corner of the world I've decided to stop pussyfooting and shut down this rhetoric as often as I can (rhetoric that specifically refers to "stolen 2020 election" nonsense). It is absolutely infecting public discourse in such a way that people are no longer able to have a discussion about their real thoughts or fears or actions we can take to improve our free and fair elections, where we can be specific and use examples and come to informed decisions. After two years of laying off and taking it easy on people because I know how much it sucks to lose an election you thought was REALLY important, after each election "theory" (massive dumps, mules, dead people, etc.) and potential for voter fraud was investigated, wound its way through the courts, and was either found to have no impact on the election or debunked as erroneous, I can't entertain these lies anymore. I won't.

PS - None of this was directed at anyone in particular in this thread. I appreciate the topic and the subsequent discussion.

And why don’t you then also, in addition to talking to people ( which I assume is face-to-face, and that is a very good thing! )  take action to ensure democratically elected candidates win by working at a poll.

Every place I know in my Midwestern state is desperate for poll workers. Many of the oldsters  have retired. I would love to see young woke Internet warriors step out of their computer rooms and work at a polling place, or an election office counting ballots, , or whatever is needed.

Be the change you want to see. And in that case she will have first hand knowledge where you can speak with authority about what happened at your polling place.

A couple days ago I talked down a Trump stir who is sputtering about voting, when I related real facts about a provisional ballot in my state. It’s not Fox News facts, it’s a real fact about how a provisional ballot is handled here and that came straight from the horses mouth of DH who work at the polls. You will find that you have intricate knowledge that is useful in encountering faux facts.

…

[Apples]

Ahhh, folks, what you're missing here is how high the hurdle is to get evidence to prove election fraud, and that if you think the election officials are in on it...how would you ever prove the fraud?!  That's why people jumped on the footage of the cases being pulled out from under the tables, or the girl in AZ being told by an election worker to fill out her ballot in marker, but then going online and saying AZ only accepts pen marks so this worker is just discarding all these ballots!!1!  Or when ballot updates are Democrat-supporting in the middle of the night...ignoring they were mail in ballots and from already Blue areas, so mail in is likely to be extra-blue.  Part of the gig is that not much election fraud can be proven if the officials involved are corrupt.

Interlude to note that I don't think there's large amounts of fraud, the above is based conversations with my mother, coworkers, and neighbors.

So then it becomes how do you convince these people that there isn't election fraud.  The proof they want is based on more stringent election laws and monitoring, which is something Republicans already want anyway.  So it has a bonus of feeding into that for them.  As Iris Lily says, getting some of these people working the polls or being official election watchers could help.  One problem there is the situation in Detroit in 2020 where disingenuous poll watchers said they were kicked out, when really it was above capacity and the rule said to make sure there was an even number from both parties.  So they sell it as "targeting" them and getting rid of them to let the Dems get away with fraud. And in my state mail in ballots can't start being counted until election day itself, so municipalities with larger populations (leaning Democrat) usually don't get done with that until several days later.  And the entire time, Republicans in areas where the counting is all done in one day are crying foul.

But pointing to cases that went to court and saying look, there's very very little fraud...misses the mark. 

[Just Joe]

Saw this today: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/magazine/stop-the-steal.html

Interesting timeline story. These conservative activists voters really get fixated on the topics coming from the far right. They seem easily manipulated.

[malacca]

** The 2020 election was STOLEN!  **
 
Well, almost. Trump tried like hell to steal it, but failed. Complete loser.

He was the President. Had majority in Senate. Had majority of Governors as Republicans. Controlled the FBI, etc.

He directly asked many people to cheat for him. He had a team of 'electors' cheating for him.

And he still FAILED to steal the election.

Now, who would want such a loser as President?

[ATtiny85]

Now, who would want such a loser as President?

It’s possible the USA does. We will see in a couple years.

Trump was/is a sore loser. I believe he always has been, including decades before he won the election in 2016. Some people are sore losers, heck I was pretty whiny at times as a kid in sports. The (one of actually) unfortunate situation is that Trump was in a position of significant power when he lost. That gave him the ability to really allow his “sore loser”ism to manifest itself in a way that looks, and is, wholly nuts. But it’s just a scaled version of me throwing my glove in the trash and kicking dirt after losing a teeball game in the 70s. I wonder a bit about how things would have gone in 2016 if he had not won. He didn’t have the power to wreak as much havoc, but surely something would have still happened.

[Just Joe]

...but surely something would have still happened.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016-presidential-candidates/

None of the GOP candidates looked great to me but none quite as bad as Trump. I'd choose a moderate as usual if forced to vote Republican. But who was the moderate?