It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler

from the a-new-record dept

You may recall that last summer, we mocked how Parler was speed running the content moderation learning curve. It seems that every year a new social media service pops up, insisting that it believes in “free speech” and won’t “censor” anything. And then… reality hits. And it realizes that if you do no moderation at all, your website is a total and complete garbage dump full of spam, porn, harassment, abuse and trolling. And just as Parler learned it needed to do some moderation (and its then CEO even bragged about kicking off “leftist trolls”), every new platform learns the same damn thing eventually. Though, amusingly, it seems to happen faster and faster each time.

We already wrote about GETTR, the “new Parler” for Trump fans, which also claims to be “free speech” supporting, even as it’s funded by a “mysterious Chinese billionaire” who is known for suing news organizations for reporting he disagrees with (which doesn’t seem very free speechy). Indeed, his lawsuits were so clearly SLAPP suits that in the dismissal of the case against CNN (one of many of the lawsuits), the judge noted:

Here, plaintiff fails to even allege that the defendants’ statements… are an inaccurate depiction of the counterclaim…

Again, not exactly the kind of “1st Amendment” supporting person I’d put behind my free speech site, but what do I know?

In the meantime, GETTR has been doing the whole speed run thing at a faster pace than Parler before it. There were reports that the site was quickly filling up with “Sonic the Hedgehog furry porn” and My Little Pony porn alongside… um… “pictures of old men in their underpants.”

And thus, Jason Miller discovered that it’s all nice and good to say anything goes on your “free speech” supporting website, until reality shows up. Reality has a nice way of destroying the myth that no moderation is a reasonable stance.

Even more fun, Tim Miller (I am pretty sure no relation to Jason) from The Bulwark, stepped in to explore the world that is GETTR and it’s an amazing read. It kicks off with a clear explanation of why every site needs to do some level of housecleaning, lest it end up being filled with junk (including pictures of men’s junk). Miller set up an account named @PayChildSupport. And he discovered that GETTR has a content moderation problem.

For starters, Gettr?s verification system is a mess because the platform hasn?t figured out how to resolve the tension between freedom of speech and the freedom to spoof. Which is to say, if you?re a Newsmax anchor, you can get a special red Verrit V, meaning that you are who you say you are. Other accounts are stuck with a black V that I could not determine the significance of. Still other accounts display a homemade checkmark.

And the pranksters got me! My very first brand follow?@SonicFastFood?was not a representative of America?s heritage of innovative and tasty drive-in cuisine, but rather a digital gathering space for furry porn. Of which there is a lot on Gettr.

Look, that?s not my bag of beans but no judgment. If MAGAs are into that sort of thing, that?s cool. But let me just say that during my first day on Gettr I didn?t come across a single substantive exchange of ideas?but I was exposed to a very great deal of Sonic the Hedgehog erotica. What a world.

He goes into a lot more detail (perhaps more than you might reasonably need), but on the whole, about what you’d expect:

Taken as a whole, my Gettr newsfeed was a mash-up of catfishes and spoofs, conspiratorial craziness from real-life right-wingers, racial slurs from anonymous Nazi accounts, and pornographic trolling from (I assume) bored libs. The Algonquin Round Table this is not. The marketplace of ideas was barren.

But hey, it?s the internet, new sites with dumbass trolls and nutty power users are a dime a dozen. The most revealing part of the Gettr experience wasn?t what was on the platform?but what wasn?t.

Because it turns out that this cesspool would have been even worse if not for the fact that Jason Miller was doing exactly the same thing that Facebook and Twitter and all the other Big Bad Tech Oligarchs do: moderating his site?s content in order to provide a more usable product for his audience.

Yes, as expected, Miller and GETTR very quickly started banning accounts, rather than living up to what they claimed were their ideals of a moderation free website. Apparently, it’s “okay” to moderate when its content you don’t like. And it’s not okay to moderate when it’s content you like. The fact that “you” is a very subjective “you” seems to be lost on the supporters of GETTR and others who believe that no moderation is some sort of even remotely possible ideal.

As (Tim) Miller notes:

Funny how the entire premise behind these ?free speech? platforms?and the GOP policies targeting tech censorship and the endless faux outrage on cable news?is negated the minute the complainers are put in charge.

Because what these people inevitably find is that there?s no lib cabal targeting them. No grand conspiracy of Silicon Valley billionaire bros.

Instead the founders of Gettr have been crushed by the same banal challenge that every neckbeard site admin and anxiety-riddled Zoomer slaving away at the dystopian Facebook content-moderation farm has confronted from the moment the internet birthed this vast catch basin of human knowledge and obscenity and allowed people to post on it anonymously. The problem is the users. You can?t live with ?em. But you can?t live without ?em.

There’s a lot more in Miller’s piece, which should be required reading for anyone who insists it makes sense (or is even possible) to run any internet forum online without some level of moderation.

Oh, and of course, you know how all this ends? With GETTR banning Tim Miller:

I’m having trouble seeing how anything Tim wrote violated any of GETTR’s policies — and it sure as hell looks like Jason Miller kicked Tim Miller off GETTR because he just didn’t like what he had to say. This is something that Twitter and other social media companies don’t actually do. They actually do have policies in place, and don’t remove people unless they can show a policy that was violated. In other words, GETTR didn’t just speed run the content moderation learning curve (while claiming otherwise), it appears to be more aggressive and more willing to ban people for simply stating things that GETTR management doesn’t like.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: gettr

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
174 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

DebbyS (profile) says:

Patreon apparently also practices censorship

A contributor to "Veterans Today" reports his realization that Patreon has been, in effect, censoring (or at least punishing) him by refusing to pass along $$$ from fans and supporters, for… reasons. A not insignificant amount and apparently for no good reason (his letters are, naturally, replied to by robots). So he is moving to "Substack" which he thinks has better terms.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship

Oh no, not veterans being censored! Let’s just look them up, shall we?

‘Veterans Today is a pro-Kremlin, antisemitic conspiracy theory and fake news website. It describes itself as a "military veterans and foreign affairs journal", but the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) had said "the anti-Israel bent on VT can slide pretty quickly into overt anti-Semitism."’

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Today

Gee, I wonder why payment processors might not want to work with them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship

Gonna need more details on that one, if they didn’t like him they could just revoke his account so offhand it’s much more likely either he screwed something up on his end or they screwed something up on their end such that payments aren’t going through for some reason, and given how much use Patreon gets with no trouble I’m guessing it’s on his end.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship

DebbyS, you are the "you" he is responding to. We are asking for more details on his inability to get money. Patreon allowing a content creator to retain their account, but withholding payouts is contrary to the standard practices of patreon. That means it sounds like a technical error, not a moderation issue. Your refusal to discuss what happens suggests you know its a bad faith arguement.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship

From Patreon terms of service

Account deletion

To summarize: You can delete your account here. We can disable your account at our discretion.
You can permanently delete your account at any time by going to our Privacy Center. On that page you can also see what information is deleted and what we continue to store after the account is deleted. We can terminate or suspend your account at any time at our discretion. We can also cancel any membership subscriptions and remove any descriptions, posts or benefits at our discretion. You may not bring a claim against us for suspending or terminating another person?s account, and you agree you will not bring such a claim. If you try to bring such a claim, you are responsible for the damages caused, including attorneys fees and costs. These terms remain in effect even if you no longer have an account.

Patreon takes action by disabling, rather than deleting accounts, and hate speech is one reason for doing so.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Patreon apparently also practices censorship

"We can terminate or suspend your account at any time at our discretion."

But if Facebook do the same they’re mean leftists even if they allow right-wing abuse more often than anything else…

"Patreon takes action by disabling, rather than deleting accounts"

I don’t particularly like the GDRP, but I find it interesting that in the EU they would be prevented from doing that and be forced to delete all data. Disabling the account but retaining the data sounds specifically shady to me, and that’s even without knowing Parler’s associations.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Jeffrey Nonken (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Patreon apparently also practices censorship

Seems like it would be easier to restore a disabled account than a deleted one. Patreon appears to be allowing for mistakes to be easily and quickly rectified while still giving the account owner the nuclear option for their own data.

I’m not sure what’s to dislike here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You mean the person you did not name or provide a source for? No need or interest, Bloof already presented a pretty solid explanation as to why if the story is accurate those transactions are likely being blocked and as such I see no reason to chase down a mention that some unnamed guy thinks that something is up with Patreon.

Provide some actual links and names for people to check and then people might dig into the matter more but as it stands you’ve provided people nothing to work with and even less reason to bother.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 “Congratulations, you played yourself.”

????: “Patreon is censoring people!”

????: “Who’s being censored?”

????: “I’unno.”

????: “Why are they being censored?”

????: “I’unno.”

????: “Why should we care about your claim, then?”

????: “Because I said so.”

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship

If you want more information because you are curious, I suggest you go to the storyteller himself. Simple, huh?

Pretty difficult to do given the fact that you don’t so much as hint at who this storyteller is or where we might be able to find out.

In the context of this thread, you’re making the claim, so we have no obligation to do research in order to support it; that’s your job.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Patreon apparently also practices censorship

That’s how this works. They make a claim and refuse to cite their source. You go and search yourself and find contradictory evidence or didn’t find what they claimed, you searched for the wrong thing. You search and find the source but it says something other than they claimed, you’re brainwashed by the liberal media. At no point will an honest opposing opinion be good enough, but he will be happy that he forced a bunch of random strangers to waste their time

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Patreon apparently also practices censorship

"A contributor to "Veterans Today" reports his realization that Patreon has been, in effect, censoring (or at least punishing) him by refusing to pass along $$$ from fans and supporters, for… reasons."

The most obvious being that "Veterans Today" appears to be an outreach rebrand of ye aulde global jewish conspiracy where visitors get told a lot about how the zion elders conspire against the gentile.

I could be wrong but as far as reasons go for Patreon to block payments, that sounds as good as any and better than most of the reasons PayPal serves up for refusing to carry transactions.

It’s all about the branding and most private entities realize that carrying waters for neo-nazis trying to recruit army veterans isn’t a good look.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bloof (profile) says:

Re: 'It's not censorship when its us doing it!'

Conservative attempts at building platforms remind me of watching a spoiled toddler. They want all the toys, they don’t want to share but they also want other kids to sit and watch them play with them. When the other kids try to do things without them, they rush over and spoil that too because the world revolves around them and they in their mind, they deserve to be the center of everything.

They want an echochamber where everyone who isn’t a republican has to sit and listen, and they’re prepared to ruin the internet to get it. No giving, only taking.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'It's not censorship when its us doing it!'

They want an echochamber where everyone who isn’t a republican has to sit and listen, and they’re prepared to ruin the internet to get it. No giving, only taking.

In other words, they want a return to the heyday when Rush Limbaugh was the king of AM talk radio and basically everyone else on AM stations was a bilious right-wing disinformer.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 'It's not censorship when its us doing it!'

"The…heyday of…five months ago?"

The gradual decline was on fast-forward in this case. Like so much else republican today.

Sane response to republicans 2010: "Mmm…not sure I’m aboard with that, there’s something off about their claims. Tactics are dirtier than usual these days."

Sane Response to republicans 2020: "Jesus H fscking Christ on a pogo stick! Jewish fscking space lasers? Cannibal cult hysteria? Overt nazi symbology at the CPAC?"

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Michael says:

Re: Re: 'It's not censorship when its us doing it!'

Conservative attempts at building platforms remind me of watching a spoiled toddler.

It reminds me of watching Republicans "govern." They always WANT to be in office, but then they get there and it turns out it’s not as easy as whining on Twitter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: innocuous leader

"I regularly comment using a VPN, and I never, NEVER have had any comment held for moderation."

Dito. Although to be fair some of my comments do get held for moderation every now and then. I usually find them released next day.

Thing is, Baghdad Bob isn’t per se using a VPN of credibility. He’s confessed to using Tor which means half his exit nodes are already highlighted as probable botnet launch points.
That on top of his lack of an account, his usual spam-liners and inability to refrain from dropping ad homs and keyword tells means he’s metaphorically the guy who set out in stormy weather on board a rubber dinghy with lead weights around his ankles and started tapdancing wearing cleats. It would be a miracle if he stayed afloat, and his commenting is in a similar state, mainly thanks to his own low self.

And then he shows up with an irate whine meaning more or less "I did my best to trigger any form of spam filter possible and got stuck in it!! I’m being CeNsOrEd!"

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 innocuous leader

He’s confessed to using Tor which means half his exit nodes are already highlighted as probable botnet launch points.

Ahhh, right – forgot about that. Then again, I might’ve missed it with all his shitposting. Just another one of his self-inflicted casualties that support his perpetual victimhood complex.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: innocuous leader

Yet this comment got through. I’d ask Mike to work on the filter since you’re still posting nonsense

Nice way to illustrate the topic!

Clearly your goal is that NO opposition to your own little notions EVER be allowed to get out.

And yet bet you, like Maz, claim to support "Free Speech"!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 innocuous leader

You are aware every time you post your drivel that gets trapped by the filter, you train it to recognize it better.

I have to wonder how stupid do you have be to loose a fight with a spam-filter on a regular basis, but you seem to have a particular aptitude for it.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:6 innocuous leader

Regarding my "typo", I have a slight phonological dyslexia compounded with that English isn’t my native language. That means I have trouble differentiating between some words that sound alike unless I very carefully think about what I’m writing and lose/loose is one of my nemesis-combinations. I tend to mix them up almost every time.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: And I'm BLOCKED again!

Anyhoo, fascists like Masnick explicitly state that they hope / wish / intend corporations to be the tools allowing them to silence political opponents, and when alternative "platforms" are made trying to avoid that corporate censorship, fascists like Masnick jeer that platform is attacked by people attempting to discredit / silence conservatives.

Masnick is consistent, that’s true.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: And I'm BLOCKED again!

As I’ve mentioned once or twice, "conservatives" are the target not only of "Democrats" but "Republicans In Name Only": both make up the Establishment and pretend to offer an alternative so as to confuse the attempt of The Rich to make themselves Royalty, wiping out the premise of America that "all men are created equal".


WEIRD. In twice, same browser session, but the SAME text went in after successful "innocuous-ing"!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: And I'm BLOCKED again!

The above is proven by that little Mikey the fascist corporatist tries to keep dissent off this tiny little site, and has succeeded, even at his LOSS because drastically reduced the audience for his corporatist views! He’s not even competent, so should re-think whether favored by God or merely luck!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: And I'm BLOCKED again!

And ya GOTTA WONDER why whatever "filters" block the text, then let it in, and also why Maz plays whack a mole this way.

But it’s intentional BLOCKING. Last Thursday, for instance, got in first click. Today, dozens of tries as usual, then NOW I’m golden. Sheesh.

Besides that, your fanboys with your/their ONE corporatist view are just plain not gonna get ya an audience.

You must allow dissent to get your own views out, which is a true paradox of "social media".

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: And I'm BLOCKED again!

Yes, no matter how imperfect the actualities of "law", our founding documents state "all men are created equal"; we fought a War Between The States to keep the principle, and it’s what I fervently believe.

But little Mikey the fascist corporatist does NOT believe in that principle: he thinks he’s innately superior and ordained by God to rule over the "cattle".

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

I have One Simple Question.

I ask this of anyone who wants to argue that Twitter has an anti-conservative bias and believes the government should stop Twitter from moderating under that bias. Yes or no: Should GETTR receive that same treatment for carrying out politically biased moderation regardless of what political group GETTR targets with its moderation?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hey, what is your solution to problem you bring up?

And IN after DOZENS of tries!

Isn’t it true that YOU invite The Public right here, and yet are dismayed when accepted by those who disagree with you?

How exactly do you expect "interaction" to work? Do you expect only ONE opinion per site? And everyone just stays in their own "bubble"?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hey, what is your solution to problem you bring up?

"And IN after DOZENS of tries!"

Yes, the rest of us can see the other tries that indicate that you’re hilariously training the spam filter to more effectively block your posts.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: It's quite a problem. How do YOU handle it?

This is just to attack GETTR, not solving any problem

Identification of the problems is an important step to solving them. We have identified some problems.

  1. It is necessary to provide some sort of content moderation or your web site will become a cesspit of spam, furry porn, MAGAt droppings, troll-feeding, and neo-nazi ranting. TYou may wind up with parler, or daily stormer, or gettr.
  2. Lying is a problem. Calling yourself a “Free Speech” site does not help. What appears implicit in the article is that these sites ought to be honest: they in some ways moderate speech they do not like. They have the right to do so. However, lying about it is an unfair business practice.
  3. Inability for the MAGA crowd to provide a viable service suitable to their own needs is a problem. The solution is for them to recruit smarter people, the kind of people who can craft a viable platform. This may be the kind of people who want nothing to do with them.
  4. Lack of ability to reflect is a problem. This may be caused by excessive television, but I cannot offer much hope of a solution.

Solving these problems probably requires your level of genius. It is certainly above my pay grade. Few people are going to switch off the television and actually, you know, attend public meetings.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 It just couldn't be hypocrisy so it must be coincidence

It really isn’t other than the last example where the guy seems to have had his account revoked because he wasn’t gushing with praise for them, though given the usual reaction when comment or accounts are removed on other social media sites ‘grossly hypocritical’ would certainly be a fitting label and their actions have yet again shown that when they are screaming about the sanctity of ‘free speech’ what they actually mean is ‘only speech we agree with/said’.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 It just couldn't be hypocrisy so it must

"I’ve never supported censorship and never will."

Do you support the right a property owner has to toss an unwelcome guest out the door or a bar owner to evict a patron?

Because that’s the analogue of a platform owner swinging the banhammer.

Do you support the right of a restaurant owner to ask guests to stop disturbing the other patrons with offensive behavior?

Because that’s moderation.

Censorship now…that’s when a nation-state actor walks in and tells you that if you speak of certain things you will not be allowed to speak where others can hear ever again.

and as a footnote, if you see martians doing censorship then pot odds are they aren’t co-signatories of the UN human rights charter or the US constitution to begin with. I mean sure, feel free to tell them off but you won’t have legal standing doing so.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

"Anything goes (except what I don’t like)" isn’t a speed run of the moderation learning curve, it’s the very beginning of it.

Back in the day most amateur forums would start off with short and vague rules that basically amounted to "don’t be an asshole" and little else. If the site owner(s) could avoid breaking down and quitting over everyone having a different opinion of what an asshole is, or running the place into the ground on a power trip enforcing their own, they would eventually learn that moderating on their own whims doesn’t work.

Professional operators would usually skip this phase (because they should be employing someone who knows at least the basics of what they’re doing), but apparently that’s not the case here.

ECA (profile) says:

I think we all know

That there are REAL rules in Moderation, that are More set by the corps like the RIAA, MPAA, and a few others.
Then there are the Basic ones about being derogatory.
Then there are the ones about Staying on subject, as much as possible.
No direct comments against Others, general ones are fine.
Race, religion, politics, Generally truth rules in that, and you BETTER have enough knowledge to back it up, or get Slammed by those that know more.

A good debate is worth a Page in the sunday funnies. And most time hard to get.
Moderation is NOT easy in any forum or chat. And then we come to Ideals and countries. Just cause you can say it in the USA dont mean your Own country will let you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Any service that does not have a good moderation system on place will be taken over by trolls Spammers and users spouting weird conspiracy theory’s and fake news
And hate speech
Most users will not wade through garbage to read the posts
that are interesting or true
It seems some users are joining the service just to mess with
Conservatives and posting random content that has nothing to
do with politics or current affairs

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: No free speech

My comment, and the base premise, has NOTHING to do with what the content is — and rather, how to deal with it.

I’d just as quickly shove proud shites into the fuckturd bigots r us section. With a nice invisible link and a dozen hoops to jump before you can read it.

It’s still there, if you really want that stuff, but no chance of accidental public viewing.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No free speech

The problem with that is that the content is still on the main sections until it’s been moved and it’s still on the site even after that which sends the message that the content that was moved is welcome to be posted the only problem is that it was posted in the wrong section, which is just going to encourage more of it to be posted when you might not want any of it on your platform.

Of course this assumes a platform run by people that understand moderation is a necessary practice if you want that platform to be at all usable, if on the other hand you ran across a person/group that denigrated moderation and swore that they would create a true bastion of free speech then ‘host everything, just sort it’ would be a much more viable and less grossly hypocritical stance for them to take, but I can’t think of anyone who’d be that stupid as such a position is just daring trolls to take them up on it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 No free speech

You make valid points!

“ The problem with that is that the content is still on the main sections until it’s been moved”
Yes. Regardless of how much it little a site moderates.
The more time you get flagged for wrong category the more restrictions that are implemented on front access.
Eventually you’re driven by post restrictions to the topics you’re posts belong in, or the sandbox. And ultimately only the sand box.

“ content that was moved is welcome to be posted the only problem is that it was posted in the wrong section”
Exactly.
We have fundamentally different philosophies. Whilst I agree private companies shouldn’t be forced to host speech…
“ when you might not want any of it on your platform”
I also believe everyone has the right to be heard!
As such, I will supply you with a platform where a reader must opt in to that content.

I stand by the premise that the best platform is one that is properly moderated with no censorship.
Categories, topics, sub topics, etc.
I would never willingly censor anyone’s speech. No matter haw much I find it offensive.
The only place I draw the line and delete content is when it is illegal, and that is government censorship, not mine.

As for trolls, as for true trolls, they depend on being fed. When they are all in a room together they can feed off each other until they give up and leave or drop dead.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 No free speech

“ You are … objectionable people”
For all people. Yes. Including those we don’t like.

“ expecting the owner(s) to pick up the tab for storage and bandwidth for content they do not want on their site.”
Also yes. Anyone who is truly behind “free speech” would take that route.
Anything less than that falls short.

I’ve tried a handful of times to start open forums. The problem was rarely dealing with this he moderation of sorting rabble rousers’s posts to where they belong.
Every time it became a nightmare of DMCA issues on trolls posting links to unauthorised redistribution of content.
Mostly porn. The internet just has a thing for porn.

As a side thought, I’m starting to believe there’s some mass fetish for the act of posting porn. Not watching it, just posting it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I believe in free speech. I believe everyone, no matter who they are or what speech they espouse, has a right to speak their mind. No one should generally have the right to interfere with the speech of others.

But that doesn’t mean I believe in “free reach”.

Nothing in the First Amendment or any related jurisprudence surrounding that amendment/speech in general guarantees anyone the right to use private property they don’t own as a platform. No law, statute, or “common law” court ruling gives me the right to post on Twitter⁠—nor does it give a Twitter employee the right to post on an interactive web service I own/operate. I am not obligated to let anyone use my property as a megaphone for views I don’t agree with.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe in “free reach”⁠—the idea that, yes, someone is entitled a spot on a privately owned service⁠—so long as you’re the one who owns the property. But in carrying that belief to its logical conclusion, you’d be associating yourself and your property with the most vile, odious, and altogether offensive speech you can think of (and plenty that you can’t). Don’t want your service associated with Sonic the Hedgehog vore art, Twilight spanking fanfiction, pro–LGBTQ+ genocide propaganda that doesn’t actually call for violence but intimates that violence is the only “solution” to “the gay problem”, and basically anything else that repulses you, horrifies you, and otherwise makes you lose your entire faith in humanity? Too bad⁠—under your rules and your logic and everything you’ve said on the matter to date, you’d be associated with hosting all that speech regardless of whether you’d want that association.

DeviantArt is a place to find some wonderful art. It’s filled with talented artists from around the world in multiple fields of artistic expression. But take one wrong turn and bam, you’re wandering around Mpreg Country and wondering where the brain bleach is. DeviantArt is as much associated with the best examples of third-party speech on the site as it is with the “worst”. And nothing short of a sitewide purge with rules to prevent the deleted content from being reposted will ever change that fact. So when you say your service wouldn’t suffer a similar fate, you’re not just wrong⁠—you’re fractally wrong.

Containment doesn’t work with trolls. Trying to distance yourself from speech you openly allow⁠—and even welcome!⁠—on your service won’t work, either. Your service would quickly become another example of the “Worst People” Problem, only you’d seemingly have no problem with that because “eVeRyBoDy DeSeRvEs To Be HeArD”.

But you know what’d suck the most for you? In that situation, you’d also be one of the Worst People⁠—maybe even the worst of them all.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 No free speech

"For all people. Yes. Including those we don’t like."

But not anywhere. If you own a place and invite people to gather then tossing the unpleasant asshole out from your property is as vital a right as speech.

"Also yes. Anyone who is truly behind “free speech” would take that route. "

No one willingly associates with people they find to be deplorable assholes. Because in this, the best of all possible worlds, my dear Tartúffe, not everyone will act in good faith.

"I’ve tried a handful of times to start open forums."

And you’ve failed. It has to be noted that posting porn is also speech. And it has to be said that such an open forum would not be welcoming to many minorities who will be looking instead for places where significant parts of the surroundings don’t send the message that slurs and bigotry is OK.

A forum which has rules is open to a far wider audience than the forum with none. Because both the absence of rules and the presence of them actively shape the audience you’ll get.

"As a side thought, I’m starting to believe there’s some mass fetish for the act of posting porn. "

There is. Trolls will actively seek the boundaries and persistently push them. A certain type of person just likes to spend their spare time taking effort from other people in as inconvenient a way as possible. This is why we can’t have nice things. Because assholes are an infestation which once allowed into your garden will rapidly see all your flowers gone.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 No free speech

“ That just so happened to involve storming a capitol building when those inside were finalizing an election”
There were more people outside than inside. More people protesting than rioting.
Most did just what Trump said, “March peacefully”, protea, and be heard.
Some went further. Those that broke the law should be punished.

“ Because as far as I’m aware while individual republican politicians have acknowledged Biden’s win…”
A small handful still claim the election was stolen. Many more say they “think” or “believe” the election “may” have been stolen.
The majority looks to have changed it’s tune illegal fraud to ‘legally stole’ which I find both interesting and funny.

Only a fool says Biden didn’t win.
And only a fool says there wasn’t fraud.
There’s fraud in every election.
We just happen to have very public displays of it last election. Camera, video, whistle blowers.
doubtful it was more or less, just far more public.

Like the capital riot, the people who committed fraud in the election should be punished.
Breaking a window and back dating ballot envelopes are both crimes.
Punishment should be dealt out.
Those that did riot should be punished. And those that committed fraud or aided fraud should be punished.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Only a fool says Biden didn’t win.

You voted for a fool, then. Doesn’t say much about you.

And only a fool says there wasn’t fraud. There’s fraud in every election.

Was there enough fraud to overturn the 2020 presidential election results? And why has there never been accusations of widescale fraud in the non-presidential elections?

We just happen to have very public displays of it last election.

The courts asked for such evidence to back up claims of election fraud. Nobody delivered it. Take three guesses why; the first two don’t count.

Like the capital riot, the people who committed fraud in the election should be punished.

The feds have arrested more than 500 people in connection with the riot. Can you provide any credible indication that more than 500 people committed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“ Was there enough fraud to overturn the 2020 presidential election results?”
Nope: Doesn’t look like it.

“ Can you provide any credible indication that more than 500 people committed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election?”
Probably not.

Are you making more false associations? You’re proving to be good at that.
I’m not looking for evidence that doesn’t exist. I’m saying we have people on film. Arrest them.
I’m saying we have whistle blowers. Follow up.
Or do you not care about the fraud that does happen, no matter how minor?

That’s different than ’Trump won by a landslide and it was stolen.’

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Just because they went to one paper or station and not another doesn’t make them any more or less suspect.

It…kinda does, if the outlet they went to is known for pushing lies and falsehoods.

And again, I ask: How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility? How many of them offered the evidence they supposedly had to the courts⁠—or even the press?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

project veritas Broke quite a few whistle blower stories.
Most of whom went to local law enforcement following interviews.
Fox News broke a few as well.
Is it systemic? No.
But each case should be investigated.

It’s not wise to start an investigation with ‘not credible’.
Always treat each issue with equal due weight.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

project veritas Broke quite a few whistle blower stories.

Project Veritas tried to falsely accuse Roy Moore of a sex crime so they could do a “gotcha” on the Washington Post. They also have a history of selectively editing video footage to make their subjects look worse. Maybe don’t rely on them as a source for news. Their credibility is, at best, suspect.

It’s not wise to start an investigation with ‘not credible’.

If an accusation is credible, yes, investigate. But those who make a claim have the burden of proving it. No proof equals no credibility.

Again, I ask you: How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility? How many of them offered the evidence they supposedly had to the courts⁠—or even the press? Dodging these questions again will kill the iota of credibility you have left. Answer them or fuck off.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

They did go to the press. That’s how we know they exist.
That they didn’t go to your preferred press is besides the point.
If they went to CNN I have no doubts the story would be buried.

As for your premise on PV, :
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/the-washington-post-fails-to-run-both-sides-of-my-story/

Which side you choose to believe is up to you alone.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Let’s clear this up.

I didn’t ask if these whistleblowers exist. I didn’t ask which press outlet they went to. I asked whether they (and their claims) had credibility.

This will be the last time I ask you these questions. Make an effort to sincerely understand me this time, Lodos. Refuse that request and I’ll write you off as a professional troll from here on out. With that said:

  1. How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility?
  2. How many of them showed their supposed evidence to the courts/the press?
  3. If they showed that evidence, how much of it backed up claims of widescale voter fraud?
  4. If they showed that evidence to the press, does the outlet that saw the evidence treat lies, half-truths, and misinformation as facts on a regular basis?
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Let’s clear this up.

If the answer to any of those questions is anything but "zero", I’m happy to entertain the news that the rest of the world has apparently been missing. My only caveat is that if that evidence comes from an outlet like PV, which has been shown repeatedly to either lying or manipulating their evidence so far that it’s meaningless in the real world. A source that presents evidence without clear tampering would be a good launching point for any discussion.

But, as a reminder, you are talking to someone who gets most of his news from Murdoch run outlets, has claimed that anything else in the US is directly run by the Democratic party and ignores any relevant internationally-sourced news.

I’d love there to be some evidence for those claims, as that would mean that 70+ million people including our friend here did not vote for corruption and fraud in the face of a massacre of their fellow countrymen, and that there were enough people believing in that truth that it overrides the mistakes of the previous 4 years. But, I will assume that this is not the case, until verifiable evidence to the contrary is provided. That raises the further question of why that evidence is not more widely known if it’s so simply and obviously correct that it’s not been actioned, but at least it means more than people breaking voting machines to try and find bamboo. But, at least it would be a better start than having to accept that so many people are living in an alternate fantasy world.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Let’s clear this up.

"1) every case should be treated as credible. The investigation funds the truth"

The truth so far appears to be that there’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

"2) enough to get coverage"

The coverage being mostly "look at these incompetent delusional assholes willing to try and overturn an election that they didn’t like the result of, to the point of violent insurrection. Or, "they’re actually willing to destroy the very fabric of democracy because they lost, aren’t they?"

"3) I didn’t say it was wide scale."

That’s the only case in which it matters, Every election has some non-zero level of fraud and/or incorrect counting. But, the claim that it was so widespread that a 7+ million popular vote loss combined with the loss of various entire states can only be due to fraud and not due to a backlash against a uniquely incompetent and dangerous incumbent? We’re still waiting for the extraordinary evidence required to back up any part of these claims.

"4) not much coverage from WaPo so no."

Your obsession with that one specific outlet that many people here likely don’t even read, instead of presenting the actual evidence you claim exists, is noted.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Let’s clear this up.

1) “ no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”
Though fraud does exist AMD should be stamped out.

2) “…” the coverage being right saying look at these whistle blowers, left saying that they’re not credible.

3) “ That’s the only case in which it matters,”
Oh, let’s apply that to every other crime them… theft, vandalism,
Rape, murder.
Every instance should be stopped out.

4) “ Your obsession with that one specific outlet”
“ Murdoch”
See quote 4).

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Let’s clear this up.

"Though fraud does exist AMD should be stamped out."

True. The eternal question is whether the means by which this is done causes more problems than the original problem. You will never get voter fraud down to zero, as evidenced by the recent rash of Trumpers trying to prove that it exists by committing it. So, the current problem is that the methods suggested to fight a statistically insignificantly small number of fraudulent votes tend to disenfranchise far greater numbers of people – who happen to be minorities and/or people who vote Democrat.

"the coverage being right saying look at these whistle blowers, left saying that they’re not credible"

What credible evidence has been presented? From what I’ve seen, there’s been 60+ cases laughed out of court, most of the people presenting them being threatened with disbarment because they couldn’t get the legal processes right, and the MyPillow guy saying they will present the real evidence in 2 weeks if only you contribute to his defence funds. I’ve not seen any credible evidence, and neither has any court.

Bear in mind the question being asked is not "does fraud exist", but "does fraud exist at the kind of levels that explains Trump’s humiliating massive defeat". I’ve seen no evidence of such, and if you have it you might do well to share it.

"Oh, let’s apply that to every other crime them… theft, vandalism,
Rape, murder.
Every instance should be stopped out"

Methods matter. Murder, for example, can never be completely stamped out because crimes of passion exist, and no punishment will deter someone not thinking about consequences at the time. But, you can sure as hell ensure that the punishment is humane and does not run a great risk of entrapping innocent people.

"See quote 4)."

OK, in the answer to the question "does the outlet that saw the evidence treat lies, half-truths, and misinformation as facts on a regular basis?", your chosen sources invariably respond "yes, we do".

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20 Let’s clear this up.

“ does fraud exist at the kind of levels that explains Trump’s…” Close but not that close… “…defeat?”
No. I don’t suggest it does.
But fraud is fraud.
The quickest and easiest way to deter fraud is ID.
Plain and simple. Given the majority of pooled voters from every race and wealth level supports ID, that’s not a hard thing to stand behind.

“ let alone at the scale being claimed.”
Again, I didn’t claim any scale. Only that fraud happens as does in each election.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/09/04/caught-on-camera-bags-of-mail-dumped-in-glendale-parking-lot/
Or

https://www.pahomepage.com/top-stories/investigators-recover-discarded-military-ballots-in-luzerne-county/

I am not and did not claim wide spread fraud. I claimed fraud. Period. Full stop.
Stuff like the first issue can be fixed by better control laws.
Fixing dead voters can be solved by if. Which would also solve false voting.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21 Let’s clear this up.

"The quickest and easiest way to deter fraud is ID"

Also a great way to disenfranchise certain sets of potential voters, hence the opposition.

"Given the majority of pooled voters from every race and wealth level supports ID, that’s not a hard thing to stand behind."

If the suggestions were for easy, free, ideally automatic registration that doesn’t depend on vagaries of individual counties and the requirement for ID that a person doesn’t normally possess, there would probably be little opposition. But, that’s not what’s being suggested.

"Again, I didn’t claim any scale"

Then why do the current claim matter any more than the claims that happen in every election cycle, if not for the former toddler in chief claiming that he lost despite the evidence that he had a massive defeat?

"Fixing dead voters can be solved by if."

I’m only aware of one instance of a dead voter, and that was a Trump fan who fraudulently voted on behalf of his mother. There’s stories of Democrats doing this that get shared around the circles you hang around in, but I’ve never seen anything that suggests it’s a real problem that’s not already being addressed.

"Which would also solve false voting."

What problem? If you can’t prove it’s any larger than a rounding error, why are you obsessed with fixing it, when it’s apparently that a tiny amount of people will do it no matter what, and that number is not enough to affect an election result?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22 Let’s clear this up.

*Polled

“ If the suggestions were for easy, free, ideally automatic registration that doesn’t depend on vagaries of individual counties and the requirement for ID that a person doesn’t normally possess”
Like what? Most people have a government issued id.
Add collage or high school I’d and you cover the vast majority.
Something as minor as a Medicare/Medicaid card. Insurance card.
Even if you don’t have a photo; most places that currently require id will accept non-photo proof of identity.

“Then why do the current claim matter any more than the claims that happen in every election cycle”
Always mattered to me.

“I’m only aware of one instance of a dead voter”
Dead voters show up every election. Not many, but some.

“circles you hang around in”
We rarely discuss politics.

“larger than a rounding error, why are you obsessed with fixing it, “
All fraud should be fought.

“and that number is not enough to affect an election result”
As long as it exists, and is viable, it could eventually be enough to change things.
Elections get closer and closer every cycle for over 2 decades now.
Some day that one vote could be be the difference in electoral votes.

The EC and free to be faithless electors are a whole different issue

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:23 Let’s clear this up.

"Like what? Most people have a government issued id."

But not everybody, hence the problems when the typically less affluent and less mobile voters who don’t have one have to battle to retain their right to vote.

"Add collage or high school I’d and you cover the vast majority."

People who can spell college would understand why protecting the minority is important here. If barriers are to be put in their place, it should be due to it being absolutely necessary, and you have failed to prove that here.

"Dead voters show up every election. Not many, but some."

Yes, and we know about that because existing processes already weed them out, and we know they’re not statistically significant.

"All fraud should be fought."

You can’t stop it all, and there is a point where the actions you take to fight it are vastly more wasteful and damaging than the fraud itself.

"Elections get closer and closer every cycle for over 2 decades now"

The days haven’t changed, only the 24 hour media cycle trying to push the next batch of candidates.

"Some day that one vote could be be the difference in electoral votes."

Even with the close margin by which Trump won the election over the desires of a majority of voters it didn’t come to that. Even if it did, then recounts and other mechanisms are in place to ensure that fraudulent votes do not decide it.

At that point, I’m more concerned about "hanging chads" and other shenanigans going on over on the side of the people counting the votes than I am about the votes themselves.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:24 Let’s clear this up.

“ People who can spell college”
Give it a break on the typo issues. Seriously!

“ The days haven’t changed, only the 24 hour media cycle trying to push the next batch of candidates”
Are you just a grammar dictator, or did you really not understand that?
Election RESULTS get closer every cycle.

“ Even with the close margin by which Trump won the election over the desires of a majority of voters”
The EC was designed to protect the minority from pocketed majority.
The extent to which it still works is questionable. Given mega cities have reached the point of changing a state’s vote despite the EC. Eg, California, Illinois, New York.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:25 Let’s clear this up.

"Give it a break on the typo issues. Seriously"

Nah, it’s just fun to spot how carefully you’re paying attention to your arguments, especially since the same misspellings always seem to crop up on on side of these types of argument rather than the other. Dig aside, the point about the minority needing to be protected here is still valid.

"Election RESULTS get closer every cycle."

OK… and? More people vote in every cycle, and recounts / audits are a thing if they’re really close, mandatory in some states. Why is that so insufficient that you have to start disenfranchised people at the other end of the process?

"The EC was designed to protect the minority from pocketed majority"

Yes it was, but since it’s clear that the power dynamic has shifted massively the other way, it’s right to consider the implications of that. That’s irrelevant to the point, though, which is that even in the very close districts that ultimately decided that particular election, there was no evidence that fraud was a problem that threatened to swing it (unless, as ever, you have a study that says otherwise that can be examined).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:26 Let’s clear this u

“ crop up on on side”

There are ways to allow even the “disenfranchised” to get identified.

“ That’s irrelevant to the point, though, which is that even in the very close districts that ultimately decided that particular election, there was no evidence that fraud was a problem that threatened to swing it”

Theo’s exactly t he point. As elections get closer individual votes are more important than ever.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:25 Let’s clear this up.

The EC was designed to protect the minority from pocketed majority.

The importance of EC essentially evaporated when the states legislated FPTP.

And in regards to your naïve demand that all fraud must be stopped, why not also demand that all crime must be stopped?

Everything has a cost and demanding perfect solutions means you eschew solutions that is good enough to have a functioning society, instead you get a dystopian society that no sane person would want to live in.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:26 Let’s clear this u

The electoral college was also designed to deal with the fact that when the US was being set up, presidential candidates could not tour every state. The delay between the election results being announced and the president taking office was their to give the winner time to travel to Washington. When travel between two points could take weeks, systems have to be designed to accommodate the time involved.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Christ, you’re an asshole.

I see you committed to misunderstanding me again.

every case should be treated as credible.

A woman with no connection to any election-related job claims she saw 11,000 votes stolen from a polling place and taken to Area 51 by little gray men in a UFO. Should she be treated as credible?

Any initial accusation⁠—and the person making it⁠—need to have some semblance of credibility. It’s why random jackoffs saying the election was stolen are unbelievable.

And by the by: You never answered the question of how many of those making the claims were credible from the get-go.

enough to get coverage

Then where can I, a regular jackoff, view the evidence of the stolen election that those “whistleblowers” presented?

I didn’t say it was wide scale.

You’re being a disingenuous little shit. PaulT already proved as much.

not much coverage from WaPo

oh I get it you hate WaPo so it must be a lie factory hahahahahah fuck you

You commit to misunderstanding people. You commit to your fractal wrongness even when proven how wrong you are. You never answer a direct question with a direct, on-point answer. Either you’re a Republican lawmaker or you’re a professional troll (which can be the same thing under the right circumstances). In either case, trying to have a good faith discussion with you is pointless because you don’t commit to good faith. You’re no longer worth my time; all your comments will now be flag-on-sight.

Fuck all the way off and stay there.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Christ, you’re an asshole.

“ evidence of the stolen election”
There isn’t any. Because it wasn’t “stolen’.

“ You never answered the question of how many of those making the claims were credible from the get-go.”
Every claim should be considered worth investigating.

“ You’re being a disingenuous little shit. ”
No, I’m not. You lumped me in with the “alt-right” that I can’t stand.
You claim I’m pushing a wide scale fraud system that stole an election.
I’m not saying that. I didn’t say that.
I demanded investigation. As is my right to demand.
The government chose to do so in some places and not I. Others. As is their right.
That’s very different than running around mid 21 saying rampant fraud.

“ oh I get it you hate WaPo so it [is]sic a lie factory”

Unlike some people, I say exactly what I mean. Every time.
There is no ‘between the lines’

Notice your arguing with me about far right beliefs on a topic where my initial posting was calling out censorship by a right leaning (or right, I don’t use it) platform.
Appears I’m more consistent than you thought I would be, eh?
Gotta change the topic, eh?

Mind filling me on on where the investigation went about those bags of completed ballots found in parking lots went?

Maybe, rather than class everyone who disagrees with you, stop poking people with sharp sticks, and accept that not everyone agrees. Not everyone believes in you all or nothing approach. Some of us would rather stop fighting, investigate claims, and find the truth?
On every topic.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19 Christ, you’re an asshole.

"Every claim should be considered worth investigating."

To a point. If someone claims that they were robbed by the black guy who just moved into the neighbourhood, the claim of theft should be investigated. >If they claim it every week, and the only evidence they ever present is because the guy is black, you should eventually consider that there’s no theft and you’re just dealing with a racist.

"No, I’m not. You lumped me in with the “alt-right” that I can’t stand."

We can only judge you on your stated positions.

"I demanded investigation."

Investigation has happened. Nothing untoward has been found, apart from a tiny number of discrepancies that are either basic administrative errors or deliberate attempts at sabotage by supporters of the loser. There’s no credible evidence that any significant pro-Biden sabotage has happened at all, let alone at the scale being claimed.

"Mind filling me on on where the investigation went about those bags of completed ballots found in parking lots went?"

Into the same fantasies that the claim originated, I presume. Again, if I missed credible evidence of the claim I’d like to see it, since I clearly missed it. If you can present such a thing, both I and the courts would be very interested, though it’s way too late to change the election result now and is still far less compelling and the issues surrounding the 2000 election.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

I know this is from a long time ago, but I wanted to bring up some counterpoints that no one else addressed.

How many of these supposed whistleblowers had even a shred of credibility?

every case should be treated as credible. The investigation funds the truth.

I don’t entirely agree with that, as if someone is already known to be not credible (not just of unknown credibility), then there is no reason the testimony should be credible and therefore merit investigation.

More importantly, though, there have been investigations, and all of them have found the specific allegations to either not be true or not indicative of voter fraud or election rigging, making your counter moot.

How many of them showed their supposed evidence to the courts/the press?

enough to get coverage

All the ones shown in court either did not allege voter fraud or alleged or were intended to support claims of widespread voter fraud (this is important) but were lacking in other respects. All the ones shown to the press also alleged widespread voter fraud or were meant to support claims of claims of widespread voter fraud and also failed one of the other questions.

If they showed that evidence, how much of it backed up claims of widescale voter fraud?

I didn’t say it was wide scale.

The so-called whistleblowers did, and that was the whole point of their claims. None of the whistleblowers alleged small-scale or unknown-scale voter fraud. Their allegations all failed to support claims of widespread voter fraud, but pretending that the issue was anything less than claims of widespread voter fraud is disingenuous.

Fraud is fraud. One bad ballot. On me bad signature. Every case needs to be investigated.

  1. And they have been investigated. The ones that found genuine evidence of fraud were prosecuted, but they were very sporadic.
  2. It is literally impossible to have exactly 0 fraud when dealing with many millions of people voting. That’s just how the law of large number works. If something is remotely possible, even if unlikely, given a large enough sample of cases, that something is going to occur no matter what you do.
  3. No one is arguing that individual cases of voter fraud shouldn’t be dealt with, but if it doesn’t indicate a larger pattern and is already sufficiently dealt with in the current system, there is no strong reason to make a change to what we’re doing, especially if the proposed change presents undue hardship.

If they showed that evidence to the press, does the outlet that saw the evidence treat lies, half-truths, and misinformation as facts on a regular basis?

not much coverage from WaPo so no.

Even assuming without conceding that WaPo is an outlet that “treat[s] lies, half-truths, and misinformation as facts on a regular basis”, they are far from the only outlet to do so, and I’m sure you know that.

If you had said that before immediately clarifying by pointing out press coverage of these whistleblowers from outlets that don’t “treat lies, half-truths, and misinformation as facts on a regular basis”, that would’ve been fine as a small quip, but as a standalone answer, it is severely lacking.

Also, Stephen explicitly asked you to “[m]ake an effort to sincerely understand me this time” when answering his questions. Deliberately misunderstanding the question to give a glib answer like that does not qualify.

Also, these questions were clearly meant to be understood collectively. If no whistleblower makes it past all four, then they are not a credible source worth mentioning.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

How many news outlets will publish retractions, and lots of reports that nothing was found to substantiate a story? Given the partisan nature of news outlets, and that non stories are not worth printing, this is one case where silence speaks volumes as to the credibility of the original stories.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 No free speech

Eventually you’re driven by post restrictions to the topics you’re posts belong in, or the sandbox. And ultimately only the sand box.

Except that restriction is beyond trivial to get around, simply create a new account under a new IP address, such that all you’re really doing is making the trolls and assholes have to jump through an ever so minor hoop before they get right back to posting the worst they can find/think of in the main areas for users and moderators to deal with.

I also believe everyone has the right to be heard!

I mean sure, but where I and others seem to differ is that we don’t consider there to be any obligation to offer a platform for others to speak from. Bigots of all stripes can speak if they want but I wouldn’t lose any sleep whatsoever if I set up an event and included a ‘if you start making racist remarks your ass is out the door’ clause.

I stand by the premise that the best platform is one that is properly moderated with no censorship.
Categories, topics, sub topics, etc.

There’s a reason sites like 4chan and 8… whatever it’s called these days have such abysmal reputations in general, because they do roughly that and as a result have some downright delightful content on their platforms(seriously, if you want to see what that mindset looks like in practice go over and have a gander). You also run into the problem that for that idea to even begin to work you need your users to be acting in good faith, because a platform where users have no idea what they might run into on any given day because just about anything is allowed it’ll just be shuffled around at times is not likely one that a majority of people are going to want to use.

I would never willingly censor anyone’s speech. No matter haw much I find it offensive.

Setting aside the argument of ‘not on my property’ not being censorship as you seem to have a different view of that that’s fine and all as a personal choice, you just need to keep in mind that it’s not an ideal that’s going to work very well for any platform designed for mass involvement. If you’re fine with a smaller and likely not too great community then have at it, but it’s not really something most people are likely to see as a workable ideal given they’d rather not deal with certain people/groups.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 No free speech

“Except that restriction is beyond trivial to get around”
Yep wak-a-mole

“a platform where users have no idea what they might run into on any given day because just about anything is allowed it’ll just be shuffled around at times is not likely one that a majority of people are going to want to use.”
And yet it worked, and attracted millions. CIS defaulted to this method since the early days of public access to the service.
AOL pushed “objectionable” material to the deep basements of the virtual tower but rarely attempted active deletion prior to the early 2000s.

As for hosting…
You’re right. I like not bumping into q-nuttin freaks.
Nor do I like bumping into eco terror loons.

But the entire debate got decimated by MSM calling everything not Democrat playbook alt.

Let’s go back to where I first got annoyed. And what made me point the finger and yell censorship:
Masking.

And I’m not talking about the Tucker not-me and the nope crowd.
But there was a legitimate discussion underneath both sides political nonsense.
The right said masks don’t protect the user and are of minimal use.
In terms of disposable paper masks: it is technically correct.

The left said using a mask or other face covering helps reduce the spread of the virus. Also correct.

Shutting down all discussion created hostility and anger.

In reality; use of a proper filtering mask proposes 95% effective protection to the user and to the public.
Single use disposable masks offer some minor protection; better than no protection.

A discussion could have lead to the general understanding that there is a type of mask that does offer great protection that we should all use. And it’s not the one CNN is pushing.

I wonder how many not me types are out there, who would willingly put on a mask, when armed with the complete truth.

Or CRT.
The base platform of CRT is actually well thought out. And generally accurate in its perception.
It has issues in the way it’s being militantly rolled out. The left ignores the problems with it.

The right only looks at the problems.

Could not discussion help the entire premise of instruction?

Yes, there are people out there who are just pure shite scum. Both sides.
white suprematists and black power.
Strip-mine the planet and bomb the oil company.

As a collective, social species, I don’t believe humans are inherently bad.
I have no, personal agenda to host the worst of the worst.

My problem is that the current large media companies have gone out of their way to create a thought bubble.

Now we have Twitter vs Parler, Fox vs CNN, the Post vs the Times. YouTube vs, whatever it’s called.

This isn’t healthy. There’s no discussion anymore.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

When conservative assholes complain about a “media bubble”, it’s often a read-between-the-lines way of saying “the media doesn’t let me say mean things about [marginalized group] any more” or somesuch. Like, those assholes think “the gay issue” should still be an “issue” that’s up for “debate”, but they can’t say that out loud, so they use “mEdIa BuBbLe” and “i’M jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs” and other such horseshit to disguise their prejudice.

Considering how you’ve said you’d be fine with hosting bigoted speech and how you voted for Donald “let’s kick trans people out of the military” Trump? I hope you can understand how I got the same impression from you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“ conservative assholes ”
Not a conservative, strike one.

“ marginalized group”
I AM, what the dems. Say Are part of that group. Now straight, not christian, poor…

I voted for someone who would secure the open border, protect my right to arm myself, support US independence, not propagate Ukrainian genocide, bring our troops home, and not bow to every company that offered him money.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Not a conservative

If it walks, talks, and votes for the GOP like one… ????

I voted for someone who would yadda yadda yadda

Were the GOP able to translate their platform into law, said platform would deny people like you equal access to your civil rights. Hell, if the GOP listened to the religious extremists trying to institute Christian sharia in the United States⁠—or took them 100% seriously, anyway⁠—people like you would probably be in jail (or in the ground) for even existing.

When you voted for Old 45, you voted for the GOP. You voted for their anti-queer bigotry, their unwillingness to forcefully denounce and take action against white supremacy, their apathy towards the climate change crisis, their hatred of the poor as “lazy” and “weak-willed”, and their hatred of anything that even remotely calls into question the greatness of the shining city on a hill that is the United States (including the teaching of accurate history that doesn’t whitewash the white supremacy away). Even if you say you voted for him for other reasons, you have to own your vote for the entire GOP platform, which it crafted specifically for Trump. (If you don’t believe me: The GOP literally reused its 2016 platform word-for-word in 2020.)

Your vote was a vote for bigotry, for the bootlicking of the rich, for the suffering and despair of millions. More than 400,000 people paid the ultimate cost for Donald Trump and his lackeys in the GOP to “own the libs”. I hope all of those bodies were worth your support for that misogynistic, narcissitic, sociopathic elderly game show host feeding his ego while trying to play at being president as if it were an acting gig instead of a public service. Because in voting for him after the four years in which he shat upon every norm of the office, every ally of the country, and damn near everything good and decent about America (like peaceful protests), you supported everything he ever did in office⁠—the bad with whatever minimal good he managed to accomplish.

I don’t have to worry about my conscience in that regard. I voted for the Democrats. For all their cowardice and incompetence, at least they’re not actively trying to kill me as part of an effort to “own the right-wing nutjobs”.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 No free speech

Yep wak-a-mole

The problem isn’t that it would be a game of whack-a-mole, that’s a problem all moderation faces, the problem is that it would be a self-perpetuating game of whack-a-mole because you wouldn’t be telling people ‘this content is unacceptable to a majority of our users, if you post if here it will be deleted and you will be warned and then kicked off if you persist’ which would gradually winnow out those that keep getting the hammer and got bored creating new accounts while keeping the general user base’s exposure to the content in question minimal, instead they would know that anything they posted would stick around even if they didn’t, encouraging them to keep doing so as the worst they’d face is being told to stick to their dedicated cesspit part of the site.

And yet it worked, and attracted millions. CIS defaulted to this method since the early days of public access to the service.
AOL pushed “objectionable” material to the deep basements of the virtual tower but rarely attempted active deletion prior to the early 2000s.

And uh, how’s that worked out for them today in comparison to platforms that do engage in more stringent moderation?

As for hosting…
You’re right. I like not bumping into q-nuttin freaks.
Nor do I like bumping into eco terror loons.

And yet by your own argument the ideal platform would host both and give them a platform to speak from making it far more likely that you and many others would ‘bump into’ them.

But the entire debate got decimated by MSM calling everything not Democrat playbook alt.

Let’s go back to where I first got annoyed. And what made me point the finger and yell censorship:
Masking.

Ooh, bad choice if you wanted me to have any sympathy for one of the sides. I’ll let you figure out which but it should be really obvious in short order.

The right said masks don’t protect the user and are of minimal use.
In terms of disposable paper masks: it is technically correct.

And how often were did they make sure to make crystal clear that they were only talking about that specific type of mask when they argued against masks, such that when they said ‘masks don’t protect the wearer'(they weren’t meant to, they were meant to protect those around the wearer) people understood that they were talking about only one particular type of mask rather than in general? Because based upon the number of maskholes I have seen and heard about they didn’t seem to be operating under the idea that paper masks weren’t a good choice but others were.

The left said using a mask or other face covering helps reduce the spread of the virus. Also correct.

By a far greater degree than the ‘masks aren’t a big deal’ claim.

Shutting down all discussion created hostility and anger.

Bollocks, the self-entitled maskholes being told ‘you’re selfish idiots who are putting everyone around you in danger’ and refusing to give a damn is almost certainly a much bigger source of ‘hostility and anger’ on both sides, but only one of those sides was actually justified in their anger. When you’ve got one group of people doing what they can to mitigate an ongoing pandemic even if it costs them and another group acting as though their personal comfort and convenience is all that matters there’s not much room for ‘discussion’.

I have no, personal agenda to host the worst of the worst.

You have however stated that you think the ideal platform would host them, which is sending mixed messages just a titch as either that’s a good thing that should be done even if you personally wouldn’t do it or it’s not.

This isn’t healthy. There’s no discussion anymore.

Perhaps not, but the thing is if you want a productive discussion both sides need to be coming into it in good faith, and as just one example when one of those sides tries to brush an insurrection under the rug and is still clinging to the claim that the 2020 election involved the the most amazing case of election fraud in US history despite having no demonstrable evidence of it ‘good faith’ kinda goes out the window.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 No free speech

“ specific type of mask”
About as often as the Left mad clear you can protect yourself only with a specific type. Rarely.

“ ideal”
Ideally we wouldn’t have the extremes from either side at
All.
Ideally isn’t reality.
As an active monitor and moderator I’ve gone so far as locking by IP to a limited subsection.
I’ve even outright banned users, and their IP. Often for continuous illegal content posting.

“ insurrection under the rug ”
Riot.

“ 2020 election”
Yes, those fools are out there claiming fraud.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 No free speech

For those involved in looking after patients, an n95 mask, plus face shield, plus hospital level hygiene practices protects medical staff. In public and especially in enclose spaces, and form of face mask plus social distancing protects other people.

Note, the question is not just how effective is a mask, but rather how effective is a mask coupled with other equipment and practices.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 No free speech

About as often as the Left mad clear you can protect yourself only with a specific type. Rarely.

Yeah, even by your argument the left was still vastly more correct and less likely to get people killed. Certain types of masks are better than others but wearing them is still a hell of a lot better than not doing so so one side telling people ‘masks are useless’ and maybe occasionally clarify that they meant paper masks(which would still be wrong) is far, far worse and more dangerous than the other telling people ‘wear masks’ but not telling them ‘but these ones are more effective than other ones’.

Ideally isn’t reality.

Never said it is, just that what you yourself have opined as an ‘ideal’ platform would be extremist friendly despite the fact that you claim you don’t support them or want to deal with them.

Riot.

That just so happened to involve storming a capitol building when those inside were finalizing an election that the screeching mob were convinced wasn’t legitimate and needed to be stopped? Yeah, calling that a ‘riot’ is complete and utter bullshit, they were trying to interrupt if not stop a presidential election from going through via violent and destructive means because they refused to accept the outcome, that goes well beyond a ‘riot’ and into ‘failed insurrection’ territory.

Yes, those fools are out there claiming fraud.

And has the republican party as a group refuted and reputed those claims, making clear that they may not like that Biden won but he did so legitimately and that anyone claiming otherwise at this point is just fueling baseless conspiracy theories that’s already seen the capitol attacked once as a result? Because as far as I’m aware while individual republican politicians have acknowledged Biden’s win as legitimate the party in general hasn’t, though I’d love to be proven wrong on that and learn that republican politicians are in fact consistently calling out those still claiming fraud as conspiracy theorists at best.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 No free speech

Now we have Twitter vs Parler, Fox vs CNN, the Post vs the Times. YouTube vs, whatever it’s called.

This isn’t healthy. There’s no discussion anymore.

I have some old news for you, back in the day when newspapers were where most of the discussions occurred, the papers were divided along political lines, and the discussion still occurred somehow. The same continued with radio and T.V. All those silenced publicans sure have a loud voice, and can get elected to office.

Discussion can occur without it being single threaded and/or a single platform, and hyperlinks make cross site discussion easily managed.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I also believe everyone has the right to be heard!

Your belief is bullshit. Everyone has a right to speak; nobody has the right to an audience.

When they are all in a room together they can feed off each other until they give up and leave or drop dead.

Unless you send a message that trolls are more than welcome to shit up part of your service, in which case the number of trolls will quickly multiply. Given how often you’ve said you have no problem hosting everything from racial slurs to Nazi propaganda, you’d be sending that exact message. And if you think “containment” would do anything to stop them, I will again remind you that 4chan’s /pol/ board was intended to be a containment board and it failed miserably at that job. Your service wouldn’t be any different unless you were able to afford 24/7 moderators to move speech the instant it breaks out of containment⁠—and if Facebook can’t do it, neither could you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...