Can someone explain to me why social media can be “interfering” with an election but the same is not said about mainstream media? CNN can stack the deck 24/7 in every airport across America and that isn’t election interference but someone posting a couple times a week on social media is election interference? How is this possible. Also, if memory serves me correctly, what changed in the algorithm was actually preventing interference. The algorithms were all stacked in alignment with mainstream narratives and changing them to actually be fair is interference? AOC is retarded.
As far as we know, election interference means flipping votes, or stuffing ballot boxes, or even voter intimidation at the polls (which does occur). One has to prove objective causality - as in: so many votes were flipped, and it caused a change in the outcome.
But this argument of AOC is subjective: election interference cannot be blamed on airing someone's opinion in public on the internet. After all, a voter must still decide for themselves and nothing can change that dynamic, no matter what. So the link between someone's opinion on the internet, and the act of voting, is tenuous, given that it is a decison made in someone's head without violence. So, the argument is that people are influenced by what they have been reading stuff the internet, on 'unauthorized' channels. One would hope that voting is serious enough for a person to read some stuff about the election before voting. And there should be no warning labels on what they are reading, either.
The feature of social media is that one can choose to read anything, and one can choose to ignore anything. So, if Social media companies can be accused of interfering, then all media must be. The issue is that she is accusing Twitter/X of 'changing the algorithm'. If anything, the code was cleaned from bots and some people had their account re-instated - which is arguably good for dememmmocracy. Also, the old algoritm was giving an appearance of left-leaning. But, that still did not change the political mood, even in 2016, or 2020. All that the censorship and bot affirmation was doing was turning people away to other platforms in disgust. In the end, just about any opinion cannot be censored, in any kind of open internet. But that is the point: they did censor and try for an appearance of Democrat dominance, and now they are butt-hurt because they lost their hypnotic grip, once consumers switched, and even more so, when the users discovered that Twitter was ass-hoe.
AOC is thick as a brick, and I doubt that any appearance of coherence is her own doing. She is told what to say.
So, they are attempting to shape a greater narrative.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am trying to separate the objective (hard) evidence, which can be used in court, for example, from the subjective, circumstantial and often useless (soft) evidence that AOC is employing.
What I am saying is that an opinion on the internet, no matter how viral, cannot be construed as 'interference', because it is not violent to express an opinion, especially if it is simply shared from another source: For that matter, an opinion, or meme, may be shared with any intention (for example, one may disagree with a link one is sharing, as in: The left can't meme), which makes it even more subjective, as evidence.
Censorship, on the other hand, IS interference, as it objectively messes with freedom of speech. It may not be violent, but it is meddling with (shaping) public opinion, and it is against the constitution.
Originally, It is two opinions expressed on the interent, The decision to believe one of them and not the other is up to the reader.
However, amplification of one over the other is pretty sus. But how does one prove that? I suppose the noise from the censored became so loud that X has gone some distance to discard stupid algos that put dampers on, but in the end, how does one prove that one's reach is limited by any social media account?
One can suspect it is going on, and one can cover bases by using multiple social media companies. That has been the modus operandi for a lot of content creators.
I suppose that this is why some people are butthurt at TicToc, because oddly, that company aren't censoring pro-palestinian content. So the fury at them is a matter of TicToc not censoring in favor of the mainstream narrative.
Also, misinformation tictocs provide endless fodder for people to debunk, so
The Powers-to-Be(PTB) are just trying to move the goal posts off of them...that is all..AOC and other idiots in congress (yes, lil' "c") are the ones who are espousing this nonsense because ONCE PDJT takes office...the gloves are off and to jail (Gitmo) they go!!!
Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.
Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us. To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”- rules. These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.
But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).
Key takeaway is that the "EPA Court" that issues fines and judgements has no authority for anything because it is attempting to usurp Article III authority per application of EPA rules which are not laws. EPA cannot make nor enforce laws per separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine appears to apply automatically to ALL administrative agencies, including the IRS, making all IRS rules not specifically passed by Congressional Bill null and void, ab initio; and uneforce-able by unconstitutional IRS "Tax Courts
Who determines "election interference" is key here...
Sorry, but wrong. Our first amendment rights (freedom of speech, expression, press, etc.) is the real key here.
Don't be led astray by talking points that try to rationalize our first amendment rights being infringed upon.
First they banned "dangerous speech." Then it was "hate speech." Then "misinformation." Now, they are just shooting for all political speech that the establishment doesn't like, by using a new weasel-word phrase "election interference."
No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.
Zuckbookmeta? Sure. Instagram? I fail to see how 'wymen' posting transition photos and wannabe chefs uploading pics of their latest pasta disaster qualifies as election interference. Maybe you see a different Instagram than I do. Any time I've been on there, it seems about as worthwhile as a Starbucks employee's tips on financial markets. I swear the entire thing was designed to eat up bandwidth with the most inane/mundane bullshit known to humankind.
Instagram has reels and algorithmic feeds just like facebook and tiktok. All social media platforms have copied each others features and essentially operate the same way, just with slightly different intended use-cases
Well I'm not sure where I stand now. I tend to think that anything that gives more power to government to censor, restrict is bad, but I am listening to Raheem Kassam's take on it, and it seems the bill is very specific to ByteDance (Tic Tok) and Foreign Adversary Control Applications.
Why would Raheem be for Biden position, and Trump against it except maybe Trump realizes that by stating opposition to bill he will garner more support from Tic Tok users.
Agreed. I just feel Trump knows what he's doing. Funny thing is I was slow accepting him before 2016. But now, I trust his judgement, or the white hats' (who have his back) judgement.
I'm back to my old position, and should have stuck with it, that giving the government extra power is never a good thing. Remember the patriot act that was suppose to be used to target foreign targets. Well how is that working out.
Technically, that means they could force Zuck to sell Facebook. But that's (D)ifferent
Pretty sure when it comes to Zuckerberg, it's more accurate to use a 'little' (d)... 😂🤣
I see what you did there!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🧨🧨🧨🧨
That would make for an "explosive" situation!!!
To be specific, he has (d), he IS (D).
Comment of the day!
Could probably rope YouTube into it also
Can someone explain to me why social media can be “interfering” with an election but the same is not said about mainstream media? CNN can stack the deck 24/7 in every airport across America and that isn’t election interference but someone posting a couple times a week on social media is election interference? How is this possible. Also, if memory serves me correctly, what changed in the algorithm was actually preventing interference. The algorithms were all stacked in alignment with mainstream narratives and changing them to actually be fair is interference? AOC is retarded.
You can lead a jackass to the truth, but you can't make it think.
You can lead horses to water but your can't drown 'em without a fight...
... And people in glass houses sink ships!
As far as we know, election interference means flipping votes, or stuffing ballot boxes, or even voter intimidation at the polls (which does occur). One has to prove objective causality - as in: so many votes were flipped, and it caused a change in the outcome.
But this argument of AOC is subjective: election interference cannot be blamed on airing someone's opinion in public on the internet. After all, a voter must still decide for themselves and nothing can change that dynamic, no matter what. So the link between someone's opinion on the internet, and the act of voting, is tenuous, given that it is a decison made in someone's head without violence. So, the argument is that people are influenced by what they have been reading stuff the internet, on 'unauthorized' channels. One would hope that voting is serious enough for a person to read some stuff about the election before voting. And there should be no warning labels on what they are reading, either.
The feature of social media is that one can choose to read anything, and one can choose to ignore anything. So, if Social media companies can be accused of interfering, then all media must be. The issue is that she is accusing Twitter/X of 'changing the algorithm'. If anything, the code was cleaned from bots and some people had their account re-instated - which is arguably good for dememmmocracy. Also, the old algoritm was giving an appearance of left-leaning. But, that still did not change the political mood, even in 2016, or 2020. All that the censorship and bot affirmation was doing was turning people away to other platforms in disgust. In the end, just about any opinion cannot be censored, in any kind of open internet. But that is the point: they did censor and try for an appearance of Democrat dominance, and now they are butt-hurt because they lost their hypnotic grip, once consumers switched, and even more so, when the users discovered that Twitter was ass-hoe.
AOC is thick as a brick, and I doubt that any appearance of coherence is her own doing. She is told what to say.
So, they are attempting to shape a greater narrative.
By your definition of election interference, Facebook is also innocent?
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am trying to separate the objective (hard) evidence, which can be used in court, for example, from the subjective, circumstantial and often useless (soft) evidence that AOC is employing.
What I am saying is that an opinion on the internet, no matter how viral, cannot be construed as 'interference', because it is not violent to express an opinion, especially if it is simply shared from another source: For that matter, an opinion, or meme, may be shared with any intention (for example, one may disagree with a link one is sharing, as in: The left can't meme), which makes it even more subjective, as evidence.
Censorship, on the other hand, IS interference, as it objectively messes with freedom of speech. It may not be violent, but it is meddling with (shaping) public opinion, and it is against the constitution.
So, no, FB is not innocent.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
So under your definition would amplifying one opinion over an opposing opinion constitute censoring the latter?
Originally, It is two opinions expressed on the interent, The decision to believe one of them and not the other is up to the reader.
However, amplification of one over the other is pretty sus. But how does one prove that? I suppose the noise from the censored became so loud that X has gone some distance to discard stupid algos that put dampers on, but in the end, how does one prove that one's reach is limited by any social media account?
One can suspect it is going on, and one can cover bases by using multiple social media companies. That has been the modus operandi for a lot of content creators.
I suppose that this is why some people are butthurt at TicToc, because oddly, that company aren't censoring pro-palestinian content. So the fury at them is a matter of TicToc not censoring in favor of the mainstream narrative.
Also, misinformation tictocs provide endless fodder for people to debunk, so
The Powers-to-Be(PTB) are just trying to move the goal posts off of them...that is all..AOC and other idiots in congress (yes, lil' "c") are the ones who are espousing this nonsense because ONCE PDJT takes office...the gloves are off and to jail (Gitmo) they go!!!
I don't think that banning social media companies is within the scope of government , TBH. That would be censorship.
Even if it is Chinese owned.
User beware. That's all.
We can't let their sneaky, underhanded ways to get at President Trump and by extension, Truth Social, succeed. We must fight this.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1767636879677984822 (Now it makes sense why Trump is against the legislation. Not because he is bought.)
Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.
Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Key takeaway is that the "EPA Court" that issues fines and judgements has no authority for anything because it is attempting to usurp Article III authority per application of EPA rules which are not laws. EPA cannot make nor enforce laws per separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine appears to apply automatically to ALL administrative agencies, including the IRS, making all IRS rules not specifically passed by Congressional Bill null and void, ab initio; and uneforce-able by unconstitutional IRS "Tax Courts
Sorry, but wrong. Our first amendment rights (freedom of speech, expression, press, etc.) is the real key here.
Don't be led astray by talking points that try to rationalize our first amendment rights being infringed upon.
First they banned "dangerous speech." Then it was "hate speech." Then "misinformation." Now, they are just shooting for all political speech that the establishment doesn't like, by using a new weasel-word phrase "election interference."
Good point. First Amendment is more fundamental and upstream of “what is interference?”.
Nail well and truly driven down.
It is a stealth attack upon the First amendment, and you have just shown the progression of tyranny via changing the language.
That's the point he is making
No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.
Truth really interferes with the election then....
Sounds like a fresh 1st amendment attack, dubbed "election interference."
And by "interference" they mean anyone who has an opinion contrary to the Democrat agenda and shares said opinion on social media...
u/#q862
Then let's step back further to 2020. Cant have your cake aaand eat it too.
Fine, force Elon to sell and allow TMTG to buy it.
If white hats are in control, then Facebook and Instagram will be forcibly sold. kek
Zuckbookmeta? Sure. Instagram? I fail to see how 'wymen' posting transition photos and wannabe chefs uploading pics of their latest pasta disaster qualifies as election interference. Maybe you see a different Instagram than I do. Any time I've been on there, it seems about as worthwhile as a Starbucks employee's tips on financial markets. I swear the entire thing was designed to eat up bandwidth with the most inane/mundane bullshit known to humankind.
Instagram has reels and algorithmic feeds just like facebook and tiktok. All social media platforms have copied each others features and essentially operate the same way, just with slightly different intended use-cases
no ELECTIONS ARE FREE AND FAIR AND SECURE WITH SAFEGUARDS NO SUCH THING AS FRAUD NO SUCH THING AS ELECTION MEDDLING THIS IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY
I just live how the lefties can "say" something, and it's treated as truth. No proof, no evidence, just conjecture.
They want to rule the world on conjecture.... 🤔🤔
Oh look, its the Democrats cutting off their nose to spite their face
I hope the good guys get more serious, and soon.
Facebook, Truth Social, Twitter, Reddit, probably even Google could fall in scope. It’ll get tossed as unconstitutional
Dude, are you serious. You think 5D chess is giving the government more power? If I am missing what your implying, I apologize.
Trump came out against this TikTok bill. He was being accused of selling out.
Well I'm not sure where I stand now. I tend to think that anything that gives more power to government to censor, restrict is bad, but I am listening to Raheem Kassam's take on it, and it seems the bill is very specific to ByteDance (Tic Tok) and Foreign Adversary Control Applications.
Why would Raheem be for Biden position, and Trump against it except maybe Trump realizes that by stating opposition to bill he will garner more support from Tic Tok users.
Agreed. I just feel Trump knows what he's doing. Funny thing is I was slow accepting him before 2016. But now, I trust his judgement, or the white hats' (who have his back) judgement.
I'm back to my old position, and should have stuck with it, that giving the government extra power is never a good thing. Remember the patriot act that was suppose to be used to target foreign targets. Well how is that working out.