This seems to suggest that because we can't always tell facts from lies, we must never act on information as being factual. That to me just seems wrong.
> Would Twitter by OK to ban people complaining about stolen elections in some Latin American country (where we can all agree that they might very well be stolen)?
They indeed were (e.g. Maduro in Venezuela is a recent one). I hope Twitter doesn't ignore such situations. There will always be a need for biased and subjective action.
> There has been no shortage of actual stolen elections and/or election fraud worldwide (and one would presume, in the US historically).
One should be really careful when talking about election fraud, to not confuse widespread systematic outcome-changing fraud (which is extremely rare) from instances of fraud (which is almost universal in any election but usually doesn't matter).
Given that, why does the fraud have to be widespread and systematic in order to be valid? Also, why silence or dismiss even the smallest amount of fraud? It definitely matters regardless of which party/politician benefits.
However, Congress spends years investigating sketchy, anonymous claims about Russian interference in 2016 elections?
Who is ignoring evidence? Courts?
> because you and others summarily deem it not widespread or systematic
"and others" includes every court presented with such evidence. As luck would have it, those weren't courts that could be said to be exactly "hostile" to the administration either. That would have been problematic.
I'm not trying to claim there is no substantial evidence of fraud. Anyone who has that evidence is free to present it in legal processes. If it has any merit, there could even be a case. There has been no such examples. That means either a) there was no significant fraud, b) there was fraud but it left no evidence, or c) there was both fraud and evidence but courts across the country rejected it because they are hostile to the administration. Which one do you suggest happened? Or put more clearly: what should happen before you believe a)?
This being said just "not agreeing" with someone is not a reason for censorship.
Which is neither here, not there. Those banned weren't those that stomed the capitol.
It is the answer to your question* though, along with a practical example of what happens when instead of stopping obvious radicals and extremists you just ask "but how do we reaaally know?".
>> * how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is?
If you are willing to take radical action with no evidence, or encourage others to do so you may be called a "conspiracist" and you are definitely a danger to society and democracy. DJT and "Stop The Steal" (whose ban you were objecting to) are today definitely way into the realm of "baseless accusations and incitement to radical actions". And it turns out reality unfolded exactly as predicted. So what was your objection to them being banned? That they were only "telling it like it is"? That it was FB and Twitter deciding? That it's just opinions and won't lead to anything more?
Your comment was in effect a mix of many mostly questions-related fallacies and vague implications but no direct, actual argument. That's no way to carry a useful, productive conversation.
But I will say it again, just not agreeing with someone is not a reason to ban them. Banning should be a protective measure when facing an imminent threat.
The facts are, the most recent US presidential election was not stolen, as confirmed by judges, experts, people in the administration, bipartisan states. It's ridiculous to claim that it was "stolen".
That has absolutely nothing to do with elections where there is actual doubt and irregularities, and where people can rightly say elections were "stolen" or influenced or cheated.
And you did nothing to address his point. Iirc, the judges and authorities and experts in Venezuela supported Maduro. Guaido nonetheless had a case and it would be wrong for a random tech company to decide if he should be deplatformed.
>actual doubt and irregularities
Again, who says what is ACTUAL doubt and irregularities? Cause I kind of don't want it to be the crowd or twitter/facebook.
If those were generally thought to be independent (as judged by other institutions e.g. internationally... there is no final arbiter here! It's turtles all the way down) then that would make a big difference. But they aren't.
This is a pretty easy thing to see subjectively. I think the mistake here is believing that
a) There could be a rigid objective framework for how this should work. A simple "manual" for how companies should act in these situations instead of having to rely on subjective or biased decisions.
or
b) In the absence of such a framework, companies must instead never take any action because it risks being arbitrary/subjective/...
That's clearly not going to happen. a) isn't possible yet b) is absolutely not desireable.
so you can see how people might disagree with you on whether someone is independent/reliable/etc.
>a) isn't possible.
Sure it is. "You deplatform someone after court order", or "you deplatform someone after measuring public opinion".These algorithms are just illustrative, before someone starts to point out why they're bad.
I just want objectivity and symmetry. Because I've seen far too many people do mental gymnastics and apply double standards when it comes to "our side" and "their side".
>b) is absolutely not desirable.
it is desirable for me. When it comes to politics, I'd prefer if everyone had a voice, even if you or I disagreed with them on a fundamental level.
I see it, and raise you a "thought-stopper"
>That has absolutely nothing to do with elections where there is actual doubt and irregularities
How so? You call them conspiracists and they might very well be. In fact, let's say they are 100% conspiracists.
If "real conspiracists" are OK to be banned, how would you discern conspiracists from realists that tell it like it is?
Just because Twitter and Facebook says so?
There has been no shortage of actual stolen elections and/or election fraud worldwide (and one would presume, in the US historically).
Would Twitter by OK to ban people complaining about stolen elections in some Latin American country (where we can all agree that they might very well be stolen)?