US Politics

Lolollooollooll.

He's still acting like a man who thinks he can win. He still has a dismaying level of support, in Congress as well as among the public.

There's quite a number of ways it could go from here. A lot of then involve him leading a virtual Confederacy for the next four years, whether or not he goes to prison. Why would he run away or kill himself when there are still millions willing to support his delusions?

Didn’t know there’s a law against being a patriot now!

Lolollooollooll.

1 Attachment

I can see that there are a lot of social, political and racial factors driving all of this, but we need to acknowledge that none of this would be possible without the unregulated environment of social media. Social media is the problem in our society IMO. Trump would not have been elected without it, he wouldn’t be able to orchestrate an attempted coup without it and that mob wouldn’t be able to organise without it.

It would be a net positive to ban unregulated social media. I don’t buy that it can be regulated. Ergo: end social media. Pls.

And the next stage is over. Biden certified.

He still has a dismaying level of support, in Congress as well as among the public.

I think 138 people in congress just voted to throw out the electoral college votes for a state. It is simply incredible.

Much as I’d like to agree with you, that ship has sailed and we’re bionic beings living half digital lives now.

If we could bring targeted advertising and other social media algorithms under control, people wouldn’t suddenly find their social media filled with conspiracy nonsense.

i'd like to add stronger press regulations into the mix. fox news, oann, newsmax etc. have all played their part in broadcasting fascist enabling bullshit with absolutely zero accountability. freedom of the press needs to come with a stronger definition of what constitutes "press" and by extension, what qualifies as "news".

Policy can regulate anything with political will and support of an electorate.

We’ve only had SM since 2007? 2014 in its current form? That ship can be sunk.

I agree that the established media has been a part in this, but their editorial demise has been incentivized and guided by social media engagement IMO. It’s still the root problem. Fox existed before, but it didn’t operate with quite such a confident agenda as it has been recently.

6MWE = 6 Millions weren't enough

lfgss is social media too

Fine by me. Worth losing this forum for the cause. No offense!

Someone needs to caption that with - Mishun cumplished - we stole back the 'lectern

Ban the internet!

I don't think hell stay in the US if they try to arrest him.

I don't think they will cause they've shown they won't, but I don't think hell stay if they do try.

He's a coward who loves the good life.

I think this is the crux, fake news ombudswomxn!

Does anyone with a better understanding than I of Congress in relation to the electoral college know what the usual tallies are like around objections? Is 138 against Pennsylvania an unusual event or is it standard sabre rattling?

In my google i got a bit lazy having waded through acres of yesterday’s debacle and highlights of arguments after 2000 and 04.

Jaron Lanier presents compelling arguments for how the internet would have been/could be different, if your inner cynic can overcome his stereotype.

Fairy snuff.

What about a Slack channel or Teams group chat at work. Should those be banned too? How about an email mailing group?

Basically I think too much of the Internet is 'social media' of one sort or another. Facebook/Twitter brought it to the masses but these things have existed in one way or another since before the Internet.

Personal, private and group communication is essential. SM has different dynamics that incentivise different behaviors.

BBC news had a ‘disinformation and social media’ correspondent last night

As if it needed saying, there are very significant differences between the way this social media forum is run and the anti-social media sites. @Velocio, who will be able to say all this much better than me, doesn't exploit data, e.g. connections, interests, and so forth, that anti-social media use to accumulate information on members and to sell targeted advertising, and this forum actually exists for the benefit of its members. Other sites most certainly don't exist for the benefit of their members. Moreover, it is actually a forum. The vast majority of interaction takes place in shared threads to which members can contribute. On the anti-social media platforms, there are huge levels of interaction on members' personal pages, i.e. not in forums, and virtually all data is exploited. Sure, because LFGSS is on the Internet, some shadowy service(s) probably gather data from LFGSS, but it's much less readily exploitable, and it's not done from behind the scenes.

On anti-social media platforms, people are left to face the onslaught of those who want to manipulate them almost defencelessly, especially unhappy people hungry for an education they were denied when young, but vulnerable people in general who look for some kind of salvation, who will be very susceptible to latching on to the first or second thing that's designed to lure them in. It's worth stressing that you get very uneducated people with PhDs, by the way, and educated people who've never seen the inside of a university. On anti-social media platforms, people are as divided as they can be just by the way these sites are organised, e.g. that, famously, different people see different things, that they're alone in running their profile, etc. Apart from @hippy, there are no algorithms on LFGSS. Sure, we have individual user accounts and we can PM, but it's a very different model to the anti-social sites, which are rightly called 'anti-social' because they essentially interpose the platform between members, who give a lot more to it than they ever get out. That's the reverse on here.

He'll do one out of the country, and stay away for a long time, before it comes to that.

It's pretty unusual -

Since the 1887 passage of the Electoral Count Act, there have been two instances of Congressional objections. In 1969, an objection was raised against the North Carolina vote due to the instance of a faithless elector, which was rejected 58-33 in the Senate and 228-170 in the House. In 2005 an objection was raised to the Ohio vote due to reported voting irregularities. This objection was rejected 74-1 in the Senate and 267-31 in the House.[1]

In 2017, several members objected to the acceptance of the electoral vote for Trump. "Mr. President, I object because people are horrified," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. The presiding officer was the vice president of that era, Joe Biden. He asked if the objection was being joined by a senator and was answered in the negative. "In that case," Biden said, "it cannot be entertained." Republicans in the chamber applauded.