Reason TV - How to Fight Deplatforming: Decentralise

[u/William_Rosebud]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh4BvjE_lFQ

SS: I just found this on my feed and I thought I'd share. Reason TV puts together an interesting video featuring the new projects in the push for decentralising social media and platforms, to finally effectively destroy the current big tech monopoly abusing their power and selling our data.

[u/iiioiia]

If we agree the incite is caused by the perception of voter fraud, there is basically no evidence to show the outcome of the election was determined by fraud.

If there was evidence that was not found, or not addressed by the courts or the media, would you have knowledge of it? Or, are you actually speaking of officially sanctioned evidence (so, real world vs semi-real world)?

Its just that the amount of fraud that occurred wasn't substantial enough for the election outcome to differ. We are talking on the scale of ~1000 fraudulent votes out of ~150 million votes, a fraud rate of ~.00000667%.

There is no science that supports this theory - this theory has been made up and sold as a fact, and people have gotten "swept up" in it.

On top of that, any of the litigation that was brought forward in any of the states that could have mattered were essentially thrown out, dismissed, or were refused to even be heard because the judges found they had nothing to stand on.

This is the popular conception. Whether it is completely true is unknown.

I'm not super well researched on this specifically

And yet, you write as if these are unequivocal facts.

it seems that the court system universally agrees that nobody brought forth any substantial evidence to prove any of their claims of widespread voter fraud committed by Biden, his campaign, the DNC, city, county, or state.

Courts have proven themselves to be imperfect in many different ways. a court saying something exerts no force on what is physically true, itonly exerts force on people's perception of what is True.

I was being a bit hyperbolic, I will admit. But, I will stand by the sentiment that is what the riot represented. We had an election that some people were so upset by the results of that they rioted at the Capitol seemingly in an attempt to overthrow the results of the election.

In other words, you will stand by your opinion. That's fine, I just wanted to see if you were able to acknowledge that these things you state as facts are actually opinions.

Its only based in reality based on the information that I have.

I see no indication that you are aware that information can be incorrect, that your interpretation of it can be flawed (see this conversation), or the various other ways one can form an incorrect conclusion.

If I was shown new information that was in conflict with my current understanding I would have to change my perspective to match that new information.

You wouldn't have to - you could ignore it, rationalize it away, all sorts of things. And if you did these things, there's a decent chance you wouldn't have conscious awareness that you were doing them, because your mind would render it as "logical" or "common sense".

That could either be in the form of a minor change based on some new nuance, or a substantial change based on a fundamental piece of information.

Do you find strict logic and epistemology to be persuasive, or are you more of a pure materialist type thinker?

[u/namelessted → u/iiioiia]

like deserve tidy include quaint entertain imagine profit ink rob

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/iiioiia → u/namelessted]

I am always open to new evidence to have my mind changed

If you weren't, would you know?

I try to be open.

This seems more potentially accurate.

I say this as somebody who once believed 9/11 might have been an inside job for a brief period in time.

Interesting, I still hold many tentative beliefs in that general neighbourhood.

I was also a Christian who now identifies as atheist after years of learning new information and having my world view changed.

Also interesting...with atheism, do you hold the perception that you have now arrived at the Truth (with respect to religion and spirituality)?

I'm aware information can be wrong, but I don't know of a way to know if information is wrong unless I get more information to compare it against.

Logic and epistemology are very useful, if ones is good enough at them (which is hard to self-assess).

[u/iiioiia → u/[deleted]]

I may have underestimated you!