It's weird that people campaign on Facebook after Cambridge Analytica. Campaigns will follow where the people go though, even if it's a terrible platform that can't handle a livestream of two people talking. I think both "sides" would agree it's less a matter of endorsement and more a symbol of desperation (or "engagement" if you want to be modest).
I know it's not being talked about as much, but they're now run by a guy who believes the cloud, backup datacenters, and microservices are superfluous. Maybe he doesn't have a good plan for scaling quickly?
said account was reinstated and has 128,000 followers. Its funny that HN users actually quote CNN despite engaging in dis/misinformation itself and low quality journalism.
Do you have any evidence that site was being overloaded by normal traffic without access to the logs? Do you think the engineers at X cannot be trusted and will lie about seeing bandwidth saturation? Do you realize you are using your own conjecture and projection of your bias here to arrive at the conclusion that the DDOS was faked?
The clear issue with your post is that doesn’t mention the several high profile cases in which X clearly was banning accounts and posts related to things like rival services or for criticizing musk. I’d post a summary here but there are lists you can Google.
Also you seem to be falling into the trap of “if you disagree with me then you must be biased”.
> far more concerning that American platforms like Meta and Google are engaging in essentially election interference through censorship and mis/disinformation
This is a problem for riots. It’s a problem for last-minute polling rumours. It’s not for broad discussions over longer periods of time.
It’s nonsense to position it as subversion of democracy because if this is subversion, we have never had a democracy. Ever. It has always been citizens’ duty to inform themselves. Often their only choices were heavily biased. (Or explicitly partisan. What do you think the pamphlets in our country’s birth were about? Was democracy impossible before the printing press and universal literacy?)
Both parties engage in this crap. But it’s a bit more ridiculous when one does so under the guise of free speech.
> fully expect this comment to be flagged
“Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading” [1].
its not censorship that searching said assassination attempt of Tr- in search suggestions did not yield the most relevant and recent news even after Google themselves admitted to election interference?
Seems to me you are just denying all these things because you don't like the political party or its candidate and going off tangent about democracy.
My original comment was flagged and now it is unflagged because it didn't violate any rules which you pointed out and its important because its relevant to the topic of censorship on platforms which we are discussing here contrary to your claims that its "boring" (your own subjective biases being projected here again I should add).
As you can see all I did was simply observe one political campaign utilizing a non-American platform which isn't even worthy of censorship or rule breaking:
It's interesting that Kamala's campaign is making heavy use of TikTok to promote itself to younger audience on a platform that is obviously affiliated with CCP
> its not censorship that searching said assassination attempt of Tr- in search suggestions did not yield the most relevant and recent news even after Google themselves admitted to election interference?
Straw man. I said “it’s nonsense to position it as subversion of democracy.”
It is censorship, or more accurately, editorial discretion. One can similarly complain about why X’s technical difficulties during Trump’s interview not being highlighted on the Wall Street Journal or Fox. (Or vice versa, his unsubstantiated claims about being DDOS’d being front page.) But that’s private actors taking decisions around assembly and speech. There is a concentration in media and tech problem that exacerbates this, but it doesn't rise to the level of subversion.
For this to be subversion we would have to be talking about otherwise-Trump voters who won’t vote for Trump simply because autocomplete wasn’t perfectly accurate about an ongoing assassination attempt four months before the election. (And who never again bothered to educate themselves on the topic or hit enter without waiting for autocomplete.) Like, that is the voter you’re hanging your definition of the legitimacy of a democracy on?
Where the current landscape is novel is when the misinformation prompts action before the truth can be sussed out. The riots in the U.K. are one example. People posting fake news about violence at polling sites or misinformation on where they are on and around polling day another (hypothetical).
> original comment was flagged and now it is unflagged because it didn't violate any rules
It did as does this one. You’re commenting on voting, whether inviting downvotes or complaining about them.
