No, there really isn’t. Election fraud happens all the time, but there is zero evidence of it happening in any quantities here that would change anything about the results.
No, there's not. This is the point. The people driving these conspiracies are applying statistical techniques poorly and then parroting their claims on social media.
I've dug a fair bit into the statistic based claims and most of them just don't hold much water. The benfords law one that picked up steam being the main one I dug into, I even made a nice repo with fancy graphs but the meme had died out by the time I finished so I never shared it. However the main summary was "Benfords law just doesn't work for proportions of a precinct"
However, if we want to go deeper into the rabbit hole, if there was a coup to steal the election I'd expect there to be ample fake claims of election stealing that would be easy to debunk.
If it was crowdfunded somehow I’d think that. This is someone with plenty of room for their ideas (Mercers are pretty extreme in this sense!) so it’s someone making a space for others’ ideas in that case.
But more likely it’s a scheme to create a platform to deliver ideas to a specific target group. Or a way of attacking the established actors and regulation in the space. Or a way of simply creating division. Or (my guess) all of the above.
Because at this point, there is a sharp divide between conservatives who care about fiscal responsibility and family values, and "conservatives" who care about unmasking (((conspirators))) in pizza restaurants. Although to be fair, the platform will likely attract nothing but the latter.
Actually that's not what I said it all. The concept on in/out-group can be completely arbitrary, e.g. assigned by flipping a coin. The principle still holds.
That said, since you bring it up, the history of humanity is largely the history of war between different ethnic groups. So yes, hating people based on ethnicity has been the norm for most of human history. It's still largely the case in varying degrees in different parts of the world.
You did. Right here: "e.g. ethnicity". That's a quote from you. I mentioned in-group, you added ethnicity.
> There you go. And yet history proves you wrong, starting with the roman empire and the middle ages.
At this point I wonder if you are trolling. The roman empire waged war on pretty much every single other ethnic group around them and enslaved them. Which the other ethnic groups around them were also trying to do at the time. Then we have the middle ages with the crusades and such... etc etc etc
Not elected people, not respecting the most basic of constitutional principles. Not only that, but you can't enforce your "set of principles" on billion of tweets each hour of the day, not by people at least, so you defer to bots, which are incapable of discerning what is free speech. They can't apply your principles with the discernment of a human, they can't enforce what's legal or illegal, like they can't recognize copyrighted music from public domains ones.
I disagree with the constitutional angle. I do think enforcement is possible, it's really no different from enforcing the law IRL. I don't think having no terms and/or requiring private companies to have no terms is a better situation.
Ha yes because saying describing the FSF as `bigots’, is an infraction to the « Code of conduct ». If that's the case your CoC is pure bullshit designed to stifle speech.
