They are noise generators with a goal of raising the noise floor above the pain threshold, in essence they’re using free speech to shut down free speech itself.
I’d say the same about social media. However IMO the value of free speech isn’t in having a clear message to directly improve things, the value is being able to steal ideas from anyone. “Obamacare” was originally a Republican idea, but once an idea is out there anyone can take it.
Ideas don’t need to win on day one, if it takes 30 years that’s still plenty useful.
Kids who grow up watching commercials start distrusting them. Free speech is not about any one issue but all topics. In many ways curating so people see the kinds of things they agree with is vastly more harmful than propaganda.
1.The majority of people are not intelligent. Source is polls on whether there was wide spread election fraud
2. Politicans want money and power. They have no issues lying or manipulating people to get it
3. In a country like Russia the government can counter any information with widespread arrests and fear.
4. In a country with free speech there is little to no recourse.
Meaning that Russia, China, etc can use misinformation against us and we can't do anything. On the other hand we can try the same but they can simply use authoritarian tactics to supress it.
5. Trump has shown that the threshold for lying was set artificially low by past politicians. His success while lying about events that are easily disproven multiple times is evidence for all future politicians to lie.
“The number of people overall who believe the election was fraudulent has hovered around 35% since November 2020, but this percentage has not increased significantly as the claim purports.” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/02/viral-imag...
Which is different than asking if voting fraud changed the outcome and more importantly different than asking which side benefited. Someone who calls targeted overly aggressive culling of voter registrations fraud has something of a point, even if that’s a long way from stuffing ballots or meaningful changes in results.
I don't think taking all political affiliations into account makes sense. Let me use another poll that had a similar outcome of your poll for all political affiliations:
A 2023 poll found that 71% of Republicans believe the election was illegitimate. [1]. The exact question in the poll was "Thinking about the results of the 2020 presidential election, do you think that Joe Biden legitimately won enough votes to win the presidency, or not? Do you think there's been solid evidence of that, or is that your suspicion only?"
All - Note legitimate Solid + suspicious = 38%
Republican - Not legitimate: solid evidence - 41% suspicious only - 30%
1. Democrats or liberals (poll allowed for either) who didn't vote for Trump or dislike him are going to say the election was legitimate regardless of evidence and outcomes of investigations. This is why I only use what Republican voters think (about 2020) as an indicator of public stupidity *
2. This poll was in 2023, after court cases and numerous state investigations/recounts. Therefore saying it's "suspicious" is as stupid as saying there is "solid evidence".
If you have a suspicion a crime occurred, then multiple investigations find nothing or show the evidence your suspicious were based were fake, and you don't change your view that's stupid.
> Which is different than asking if voting fraud changed the outcome...
That's what Trump and many of the key players on his side claimed.
> Someone who calls targeted overly aggressive culling of voter registrations fraud has something of a point..
No, they don't. They are misusing the term "fraud" in an election situation (a.k.a "election fraud) [2]. Voter/Election fraud is clearly defined by the US government [3]. Voter suppression through a legal action isn't fraud. You can claim that it's "wrong" or "immoral" but not fraud.
The difference is clear if you look at something as either an opinion or fact. An opinion is not falsifiable.
"Widespread election fraud is why Trump lost the 2020 election" - This either happened or it didn't. It's not an opinion/judgement. [4]
"Aggressive culling of registrations caused a candidate to win/lose" - Since culling of registrations legally happens [5] whether or not it's aggressive is a judgement because "aggressiveness" is subjective.
> even if that’s a long way
It's not on the same scale because one is a crime. I think I need more to understand why you want to merge different accusations of fraud or suppression when discussing different elections.
[2] Wikipedia's article on Election fraud describes it better.
"Electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election manipulation, voter fraud, or vote rigging, involves illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of a favored candidate, depressing the vote share of rival candidates, or both. It differs from but often goes hand-in-hand with voter suppression. "
[4] You can say "I believe X happened" which is an opinion however this is a judgement that needs a factual base. If the evidence is fake, doesn't exist, or you were lied and you are aware of this, then you're lying about the basis for your opinion which invalidates it (imo)
[5] I'm assuming you meant legal culling
* There's similar high numbers for Democrats talking about Trump's win in 2016 though most polls ask about Russian interference helping him, which is a judgement not a lie since this did happen, but it could also be an indicator. The 2020 situation was just much more obvious because the claim by Trump is of cheating NOT influence. The lie is that Trump was directly involved and to a high degree but blah blah complicated.
> Therefore saying it's "suspicious" is as stupid as saying there is "solid evidence".
Hardly, I find quantum mechanics suspect without having a better option. I’m not saying there’s any kind of conspiracy or anything and sure it fits the experiments we have done. Yet, I suspect most people who actually learn the details have similar reactions it doesn’t fit our experience. Sadly the universe doesn’t care it it seems consistent to us.
There’s a deep cultural divide in the US to the point where people have trouble remembering how close support is for each party. Because politics is so regional it’s easy for each side to overestimate how popular that side is. Imagine living in a county where 80% are voting for one side and almost all roadside posters are supporting one candidate. Suddenly the other side winning just doesn’t fit everyday experience.
When either side wins a huge number of people will find it suspicious, that’s just how our heuristics and pattern matching work. A historian looking back on 2020 and 2024 isn’t going to find the election results odd because wider forces definitely favored the winning side in those elections, but people today don’t have that separation. Thinking there’s widespread and obvious fraud is different.
Everyone doesn’t fit those criteria. Motivated reasoning exists with and without propaganda. The specific words used may end up mimicking “a message,” but you can find millions of disgruntled people after any election.
There’s a great deal of talk around how much social media etc changed the landscape but American politics looks basically the same before and after Facebook.
>American politics looks basically the same before and after Facebook.
Trump and MAGA Republicans lie more openly than traditional Republicans. American politics are not the same.
Here's an easy exercise.
This is a post from MGT. Show me anything even close to this insane from an elected person in high office (house, senate, president) in the last 50 years
That’s fairly mild, but it’s not so easy to link to 20+ year old clips. There’s some real bangers of homophobic rants in your time frame, but you may be a little young to remember any of them.
In terms of lies here’s one that was a central tenant of the part of the party line for decades. Social security isn’t an income tax because we have a tax called the income tax.
>but you may be a little young to remember any of them.
I'm 45
> Social security isn’t an income tax because we have a tax called the income tax.
I took too long to be able to edit my other comment but I should have asked who said this? Because "social security" isn't a tax at all. In my other comment I assumed you meant tax we pay to fund SS but this still leaves me confused, can you provide me with a quote that shows the lie?
> Homophobia isn't lying, it's an opinion/ judgement
The lies about gay people are actual lies, even if they come from homophobia.
Luring people into gayness, crap about destroying the institution of marriage etc etc.
> SS tax is a tax on your income, "Income Tax" is a type of tax. Both are true
When taking about “tax burden,” there’s no excuse around the names. I’ve got little interest in digging up 20 year old clips, but you’re 45 you should remember that phrase.
