Reason Roundup

Sneaking Section 230 Reform Into the Defense Bill Is a Terrible Idea

Plus: Bar food police strike in New York, study finds COVID-19 circulating in the U.S. last December, and more...

|

Republicans aim to sneak anti-Section 230 regulation into defense spending bill. The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee may insert this measure into a new defense bill, as part of a compromise with President Donald Trump. If Democrats go with it, Trump will reportedly overlook the bill's move to rename military bases honoring Confederate leaders.

Section 230 of federal communications lawthe "internet's First Amendment"—is a federal law that helps ensure free speech online while also protecting the right of private entities to moderate content as they see fit.

It's become a bipartisan target since it makes it harder for elected officials and other government authorities to shut down speech they don't like or threaten private businesses if they refuse to give in to political whims when it comes to deciding what content to allow or promote. (It also has a lot of foes in failing industries who want a government-mandated leg up on their competitors.) Legislation to limit or abolish Section 230 has become popular in Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have introduced such measures. But with the exception of the 2018 sex-ad law FOSTA, most of these have gone nowhere.

Now, some officials are taking a different tack. Instead of pushing a standalone attack on Section 230, Sen. Roger Wicker (R–Miss.)chair of the Senate Commerce Committee—will allegedly introduce an anti-Section 230 bit into the latest defense spending bill.

"The Trump administration is pressing Congress to repeal [Section 230] as part of a must-pass end-of-year defense-spending authorization bill," reports Axios. "A source familiar with the negotiations told Axios that Sen. Roger Wicker … has proposed that his bill limiting Section 230 protections be included in the National Defense Authorization Act."

But Axios reporters Ashley Gold and Margaret Harding McGill suggest this strategy has minimal chance of working out:

The White House has pushed lawmakers to insert a repeal of Section 230 into the NDAA, as part of a compromise that would have President Trump sign the bill even though he's opposed to a provision that renames military bases that are named for Confederate leaders.

But Senate Republicans are instead trying to negotiate an alternative that would combine multiple bills aimed at reforming the law, including the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act and Wicker's Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, a Hill source familiar with the matter told Axios.

Let's hope neither finds its way to the final measure. Not only is a defense spending authorization no place for these actions, but their passage would make also be bad for national security by ensuring American's continued plunge from tech dominance.


REASON WEBATHON

Reason's annual webathon starts today! Throughout the week, we'll be soliciting donations for Reason's journalism, with a goal of raising $200,000 this year. Help us out?

Besides the warm fuzzy feeling that comes with your (tax-deductible) support for free minds and free markets, people who donate this week will also get some cool Reason swag. And if you help us reach our goal early, you'll stop seeing the annoying pop-up solicitations on this site earlier. Everybody wins!


FREE MARKETS

Bar food police strike in New York. State alcohol regulators are cracking down on bars that don't serve enough food with their booze. "The New York government is allowing the State Liquor Authority to aggressively enforce rules that require drinking establishments to serve food with alcoholic beverages they sell during the COVID-19 pandemic," note Jarrett Dieterle and Shoshana Weissmann at the Washington Examiner:

Perhaps not surprisingly, this has led to some ridiculous situations. For example, Pint Sized (a Saratoga Springs craft beer bar) was hit with an expected $1,500 fine for failing to serve what regulators deemed was enough veggies per pint of beer. Pint Sized was attempting to comply with New York's rule by offering simple bowls of canned vegetables, beans, or chili to each customer.

It turned out that customers were understandably unable to keep up with all the bowls of food landing on their tables. The bar's staff started to feel guilty about food waste, with good reason given the struggles of food banks during the pandemic, and elected to cut back portions to one bowl of food per table of customers. When undercover agents from the State Liquor Authority ordered brews at Pint Sized and received an insufficient amount of food alongside their drinks, the agency fined the bar.


FREE MINDS

More evidence suggests that COVID-19 was circulating in America before the start of this year. From The Wall Street Journal:

The new coronavirus infected people in the U.S. in mid-December 2019, a few weeks before it was officially identified in China and about a month earlier than public health authorities found the first U.S. case, according to a government study published Monday.

The findings significantly strengthen evidence suggesting the virus was spreading around the world well before public health authorities and researchers became aware, upending initial thinking about how early and quickly it emerged.

Scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found evidence of infection in 106 of 7,389 blood donations collected by the American Red Cross from residents in nine states across the U.S., according to the study published online in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.


QUICK HITS

  • Reminder: "Human beings have raised fears about the addictive nature of every new media technology since the 18th century brought us the novel, yet the species has always seemed to recover its balance once the initial infatuation wears off."
  • Libertarian Party (L.P.) presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen's 1.2 percent vote share was impressive, "even while amounting to just a third of [Gary] Johnson's 2016 haul," writes Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch. "With no name recognition, no money, and no media, the Jorgensen campaign helped cement the L.P.'s decadelong transformation into the third party in the United States."
  • Yikes:

  • "People with untreated mental illnesses are 16 times more likely than other civilians to be killed during an encounter with police," notes Laura Williamson at USA Today. How do we work to change that?
  • Norway has criminalized derogatory speech about transgender people as part of its general "hate speech" statute. "People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments, according to the penal code," Reuters reports.

White Fragility has two unstated assumptions about nonwhite people in general, and black people in particular. The first is that we are a homogenous mass of settled opinion with little, if any, diversity of thought—a kind of [Critical Race Theory]-aligned hive mind. I could marshal all the opinion polls in the world to refute this calumny, but it wouldn't move DiAngelo an inch. She needs nonwhites to think as a unit, or else her thesis falls apart. How could she tell whites to shut up and listen to the consensus view of nonwhites if that consensus doesn't exist?

The second unstated assumption in White Fragility—and this is where the book borders on actual racism—is that black people are emotionally immature and essentially child-like. Blacks, as portrayed in DiAngelo's writing, can neither be expected to show maturity during disagreement nor to exercise emotional self-control of any kind. The hidden premise of the book is that blacks, not whites, are too fragile.

NEXT: Donate Today To Support Reason's Journalism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Republicans aim to sneak anti-Section 230 regulation into defense spending bill.

    Speech is not compatible with national defense.

    1. Loose lips or something.

      1. 230 was a huge mistake. Internet services should have either functioned as publishers or utilities.

        Can you imagine the phone company listening in on your calls and blocking you if you say something wrong, or interrupting with a “Well ackshually…”? Or the Post Office reading your letters for badthink?

        It’s utterly anti-libertarian (remember kids, libertarianism isn’t just a good idea for governments).

        But, they got to have their cake:
        “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker”

        And eat it too:
        “(230) provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech”

        1. OPEN QUESTIONS FOR ALL ENEMIES OF SECTION 230

          The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

          This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

          Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!

          QUESTIONS FOR YOU THE JUROR:

          “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

          “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

          Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month criminal trial! And a 4-month civil trial!

          1. Sqrlsy dear, don’t forget to take your Adderall… and please remember that it’s not polite to do poopy in Mrs. Bergstrom’s herb garden. It kills her basil, and you like basil don’t you.

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simpley job to do and its earnings are much better than regulaexr offices jobs and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..work92/7 online

    2. We need to bolster our defense with silence since silence is violence.

      1. Funniest comments that I have seen here in days! Kudos!

        Our national defense will be bolstered by silence, when the killing of Section 230 is completed… First thing that happens will be that the Reason.com comments (and many others) will be taken down. Web sites will NOT be able to afford all the legions of lawyers!

        Then all of the armchair warriors and chicken hawks that spend all day pecking at the keyboards will get bored, and, with their new free time, will pick up guns, bombs, and swords, and enlist in Team America, World Police, thereby making us safe FOREVER!!! YEAH Team America! Go, Team America, go!

        1. Flag. Refresh.

          1. Whoa! PhD Computer Scientist here has figured out how to move the mouse-cursor, and click on the flag icon! Congratulations, Stable Genius Junior! Maybe You could write Your NEXT Computer Science PhD thesis on HOW You do that? And thread-clutter-post it EVERY FUCKIN’ TIME that you see a post that you disagree with? And expect all the OTHER marching morons to THANK you profusely?

            Well now… Have You and any of the other marching morons ever heard of “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’?” Has it ever occurred to You, that the moderators will immediately ignore You and Yours? Now, when the time comes that Reason.com gets hacked, and some hacker posts a child-porn link to video of YOUR kid or relative’s kids… Or YOU abusing YOUR kid, or “doxes” You and Your SSN, real name, home address, and photo… OR, they post the IP address and WIP security key, access codes, etc., to the self-destruct mechanism in your battery-driven “IP of All Things” MAGA-magic underwear… And You (“The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf’”) will FLAG the post that unveils all such things… You will be IGNORED, asshole!

            You ever think of THAT, asshole who cried wolf? I, for one, will NOT flag it when they “dox” you!!! Learn your lessons by SUFFERING, ye who will NOT learn otherwise!

            1. Flag. Refreshing!

              1. Vile troll threadshitter! Change out your batteries in your MAGA-magic underwear, ye follower of the Moronic Angel who supposedly keeps you acting “Christian”! Hypocrite! MAGA-magic underwear does NOT work without SOME sort of POWER, you fool!

                1. Welp, Sqrlsy just outed himself as Killallrednecks and Hank Philips.

                  1. What are you doing here? Aren’t you overdue for your usual bout of moose-fucking today? And did the moose teach you that it is anti-Christian to call supposed “Christians” on their total hypocrisy? You know, Jesus himself call hypocrites what they are… Hypocrites! Broods of serpents!

                    1. Flag. Flag. Refresh. Reflush!

                      Gee, this thread smells better.

                    2. Remember, all ye persons who might like to be or become benevolent, decent, ethical persons… Do NOT become a follower of the Church of Morons! MANY of them apparently act like up-Chuck here! You do NOT want to become a Moron! Remember, kids, what comes around, goes around! Act like a Moron, and you will be treated like a Moron! As if you were a Moron! Which you ARE, if you act like a Moron!

                    3. SQRLSY One
                      November.9.2020 at 4:26 pm

                      Bimsday, 39 Bemberbember 2020 at 6:66 PM
                      I love to LIE my ass off, and suck Satan’s dick! Because I hate humanity! The Evil One is the Father of Lies, just as Der TrumpfenFuhrer is the Stable Genius! So, as the apple falls not far from the tree, I INSIST on telling obvious lies, all day, every day! Butt… Surprise, surprise! Other Evil Ones Junior will fall for my lies… Because they want to!

                    4. Mother’s Lament
                      Bimbosday, 43 Bimbobember 2020 at 6:66 PM
                      I lust after being abused by power-mad politicians, because I am power-mad myself! And I suffer under the utterly stupid illusion that power-mad politicians will feed me, like a doggy under the table, a wee few, tiny scraps of their vast powers. Biden came up here to Canoodlestanistanistanistanistan to noodle me and my poodle, and give me nookie, with my Wookie and my bookie, but all that Biden would do, is smell my hair! So I lust after Der TrumpfenFuhrer to come up here and grab my pussy good and hard!

                  2. Flag…

                    Wait for it…

                    Refresh!

            2. Take your Adderall, Sqrlsy dear… and remember, you’re not a kid anymore so those sorts of pictures are illegal.

    3. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the GHJ web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $28775 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do …….. Visit Here

    4. Let. I can’t believe you actually donated! Waste your shekels on some hookers or drugs instead.

  2. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a terrible idea

    1. She’s infinitely more interesting than you.

      1. What an odd response…

        1. One an alcoholic always one.

          1. It takes more than a few bottles a day of Everclear to sound like sarc.

            1. Yikes! Haven’t seen that shit since I lived in the Midwest. Can’t you run a lawnmower with it?

      2. I find that an inaccurate assessment.

    2. What??? Are you being sarcastic? ENB is awesome! She’s seriously hot and smart… the total package. Take it from me, it’s not often you find a woman like that. Man I’d like to hogtie her and keep her in my basement, if you know what I mean.

    3. Yet you spend time hanging out with her every morning.

      1. Wait he actually knows her and gets to hang out with her? Jealous…

        1. I’ve heard she’s available for a small fee.

          1. …or at the very least her politics are.

      2. You can’t tell the difference between an internet discussion board and a person?

        1. Explains a lot about him.

          1. Explains most of her.

  3. November: 4,252,822

    What? Four million have DIED and all America can talk about is Biden’s roughhousing with his dog?

    1. If not for Trump, no Americans would have died since 2016. It is known.

    2. The minute Biden gets elected the ‘rona got worse.

    3. Death rate is still low. So we continue counting cases instead as if it means something. There was an interesting paper last week about the high number of covid deaths that had DNRs prior to catching covid, ie the already very sick caught it and thus were classified as dying from it. Singapore still only counts a covid death when accompanied with respiratory issues, but not here. The JHU paper showed this as well. The rates for death decreased in the major death categories this year, equalling essentially the increase in covid deaths.

      1. Medicare pays out an extra $13,000 per Covid case, not that the extra cash would influence any hospital reporting. No Covid in the deaths only means no extra money.
        It will be interesting to compare 2020 deaths with 2019 when this is all over.

        1. I actually think a 3 year average would be very interesting for a comparison. Total mortality, population adjusted for 2020-2022 vs 2017-2019.

          Years of life lost is a better total measure of the tragedy than a simple total fatalities.

          However, I don’t think, especially spoiled as we are, people are used to waiting for information. So we’re trying to hyper analyze these tiny inaccurate data points.

      2. The rates for death decreased in the major death categories this year, equalling essentially the increase in covid deaths.

        People who were dying already died faster. I am sure they and their relatives are grateful.

        The ones we should be sad about are the ones that didn’t have to die but were scared to go to the hospital or had procedures delayed. Fuck the fearmongers!

        1. I read somewhere that 89% of the ‘rona deaths were people on do-not-resuscitate orders.

          Hmmm …

    4. Just want to point out that the Biden dog story was too local for unreason.

      1. Daily Kos is thattaway

      2. Absolutely sempai, ignoring the dog story is exactly the same level as burying the Hunter Biden story, or ignoring Obamagate.

  4. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1333616147460141057?s=19

    If there really was a blue wave in a tiny number of noncontiguous counties located exclusively in battleground states that changed the process of mail-in ballots then why can’t we check the signatures?

    1. Because there was no “widespread “ fraud.

      1. They’ve moved on. It is now no hard evidence of fraud (ignore statistics and affidavits) and even saw a “no new claims of fraud” recently.

        1. And for judges it’s “doesn’t matter if it was against the law, votes were already cast!”

          1. So now there’s not only a conspiracy at the polls, but in the courts too?

            1. Hey dummy… that was the actual ruling in Pa. That the case was moot even though the claims were valid. That they waited too long. Ignore the fact that they had no standing prior to the election.

              But your bae won. So who cares.

              1. You shouldn’t throw the word “dummy” around. Here you are yesterday, talking about this one as “the Wisconsin lawsuit”:

                https://reason.com/2020/11/30/supreme-court-considers-whether-trump-can-block-immigrants-from-census-counts/#comment-8611020

                I was the one who pointed out to you that it is was in Pennsylvania.

              2. So, link to the previous lawsuits that were filed against *Pennsylvania* Article 77.

                1. 57 states.

                  1. Heinz!

            2. It’s not just the courts. Now, several Republicans are in on the conspiracy, too. Even some that were staunch Trump supporters have been thrown under the bus.

              1. Absolutely sempai, the Neocons are brave American heroes standing against the election whimsies of the evil plebian hordes.

        2. LOL, a couple of weeks ago, you tried to use the Benford’s Law talking point and f’d up and called it “Brenfords Law”. Then yesterday, you claimed that the Mike Kelly lawsuit was in Wisconsin, which is odd since it was decided in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

          And, yesterday, your buddy, lc1789, thought that the current Georgia recount is by hand, even though that was the previous recount. He lives in Georgia, but doesn’t even understand what is going on there.

          1. Just ask Jesse to fuck you already guy jeez…

            1. Sempai knows Mr. Jesse is a bad, bad man… a rogue, a rake, a devil–may-care scoundrel with an impish grin and sparkling blue eyes.
              Sempai would never fall for a man like that.

        3. BRINFERDS LAWZ!

          1. Thank goodness we can dismiss things by misspelling their names instead of debating them. Mr. Oppresso is very smart.

    2. We, as Reason libertarians, must accept the media and government as infallible. Ignore the statistical anomalies. Ignore the complete difference between primaries and the general with voter trends, fraud, and rejection rates. We must accept what our betters tell us unquestionably. Don’t even call for audits to prove or make elections better. Just accept.

      1. We, as Reason libertarians, must accept the media and government as infallible.

        As opposed to what? Alex Jones? You’re starting to sound like a flat-earther. Give it a rest.

        1. Lol. Yes. This was the first fraud free election in history.

        2. You have to admit, even Alex Jones is more reasonable and grounded than fake news CNN.

          1. Nope. Really don’t have to admit that. CNN does have a liberal bias, but less reasonable than Alex Jones … come on, man!

            1. Sempai knows that Mr. Lemon is the most honest man on the air today.

      2. We, as Reason libertarians, must endorse every crazy conspiracy theory and come off as even kookier than the rest of the world sees us. We must not rest until every single one of us has hand-inspected every single ballot in the country to make absolutely certain the results of this election!

        1. We must not rest until every single one of us has hand-inspected every single ballot in the country to make absolutely certain the results of this election!

          Nuh uh! The ballots that pushed Biden over the top were fraudulent! Can’t count them! Can only count the votes for Trump! The Biden votes were on counterfeit ballots created by the Democrat Party as part of a nation-wide campaign with the lizard people to put the Biden mask into the White House!

          1. “We put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
            -Joe Biden

            1. And that has what to do with the price of tea in China?

              1. You accept fraud when your outcome happens. You accept the narrative when it agrees with you.

                You don’t have a single concern of having free or fair elections. You don’t want the government accountable. Full stop. I call for audits on every election. No election is pristine. This election had so many firsts that it calla into question many things. Long time analysts have stated this. Statisticians have stated this. 47% of the country thinks something odd occurred. 30% of democrats. And you aren’t even interested on examining the data.

                The issue here is you.

                1. You’re supposed to find evidence and then declare fraud.

                  You’re doing is backwards.

                  1. close italics after “then” – html fail

                  2. So you are supposed to complete discovery before you can begin discovery? That is the standard you are holding you moron.

                    1. Trump campaign is something like 36-1 now in court. Most of their cases were dismissed or dropped due to complete and total lack of evidence. Rudy himself had to amend one of his cases so that it was not a fraud case.

                      There is no there there. Simply not.

                      And getting angry when the rest of the world wants to see some sort of, you know, evidence of this massive conspiracy your cult is alleging is not rational.

                    2. “So you are supposed to complete discovery before you can begin discovery?”

                      Mr. Sarcasmic can tell the future. He’s very smart.

                2. “You accept fraud when your outcome happens.”

                  My desired outcome was for Jo Jorgensen to win. But, I knew that would not happen, so I accepted it long before the election happened.

                  1. My desired outcome was for Jo Jorgensen to win, too. *wink, wink*

            2. Obviously, to anyone but a partisan hack, he meant anti-voter fraud.

              1. The partisan hacks are the ones reading words in where they don’t exist.

                1. Baloney. I see Trump fans here fall back on literalism all the time to defend things that Trump says. It is a very normal part of human discourse, and supported by massive neural circuitry in the brain, to fill in details of what is being literally using knowledge of context, facial expressions, etc.

                  1. Like telling us were Democrats just because we sound like a party political, right sempai?

            3. Yep, that was definitely Joe Biden announcing to the entire world that his campaign planned to steal the election and not…you know…Joe Biden mixing up his words again because he’s fucking ancient.

              Good to know that we’re interpreting the (soon to be) President’s words literally again. Not sure why we stopped for four years, but whatever.

              1. If you don’t accept them at their plain meaning, you’re the one compensating interpretation

          2. And back to the retarded strawman. Why are you so against even a statistical audit? Even rand Paul has publicly asked about the data. But not you. Your bae won we get it.

            1. Because the statistical anomaly claims being circulated within the right-wing social media bubble are all sore loser-ism wrapped up in mathematical clothing.

              1. Absolutely, the largest voter percentage increase in 136 years, cities reporting 200% turnout, and an incumbent losing despite a 7.3 million vote increase over the last election are the hallmarks of the most fair election in history.

                1. You need to figure out whether you are going to stay in character or not.

          3. “nation-wide campaign with the lizard people”

            Dude, that’s not a conspiracy theory…we already know that Hillary Clinton is half Reptilian. So the idea that Democrats are colluding with the Reptilians to steal the election is very plausible.

            1. *hangs head in shame*

          4. And we know they are counterfeit because they felt too nice and crisp when fondled in Republican hands.

        2. Hey strawman. I literally state the statistical evidence and the affidavits. The stuff you ignore because your outcome happened.

          The real conspiracy theory is believing no fraud occurred this time even though the primaries were a fraud filled cluster fuck and cornucopia of rejected ballots.

          I get you want to ignore statistical abnormalities, your globalist won. But calling statistical reproducible abnormalities a conspiracy is your own ignorance.

          There is a reason I want an audit and you don’t.

          1. Hey strawman.

            Wow. I mean, wow. That comment is so obviously sarcasm yet you are taking it seriously? That explains a lot. I mean A LOT.

            1. Oh. We are back to the retarded comments are just jokes thing?

              1. The only retard here is the guy with the broken sarcasm detector.

                1. the guy with the broken sarcasm detector

                  It’s only sarcasm when we do it, right Mr. Sarcasmic?

              2. Logical fallacies that get called out are retconned as sarcasm or jokes. It helps mitigate the cognitive dissonance.

                1. Jesse doesn’t get that. The guy is totally serious all the time and has no sense of humor other than laughing when people he doesn’t like get hurt.

                  1. Not to get too involved in this sissy boy slap fight but you don’t know what retconned means?

                    Because it looks like you just admitted you retconned your serious posts when you realize you look stupid.

                    1. Sorry but I didn’t get that calendar for Christmas.

                    2. Is there a way to argue on a message board that isn’t a sissy boy slap fight?

                      Would more yourmomma jokes help?

                  2. Who doesn’t get what? I was agreeing with Jesse. You set up more strawmen than a Iowa farmer.

                    Post-election/orgasm sarcasmic is tedious.

          2. No one is claiming “no fraud occurred”. That is an actual strawman.

            The “statistical anomalies” are either (1) straight-up lies pushed by grifters, or (2) easily explained by either the COVID pandemic itself, and/or Biden encouraging his voters to vote by mail while Trump encouraged his voters to vote in person.

            What exactly is this “statistical audit” that you are demanding?

            1. No one is claiming “no fraud occurred”. That is an actual strawman.

              Aye

        3. chemjeff made the excellent suggestion yesterday that those who profess concern for the integrity of our elections start working on improvements to the processes and systems for the next big election.

          This is one way in which “we, as Reason libertarians” could do something positive to actually help this country, instead of whining.

          1. I know people who have worked the polls. It’s a really open process. I doubt those claiming fraud have a clue about how it works.

            1. I also know people who work polls. Not just much more worthy human beings than JesseAz and Nardz, but more worthy human beings than me.

              1. That’s unpossible.

          2. Is this a good time to point out that Mitch McConnell let 3 election security bills languish? And that those bills would have required campaigns to report when approached by foreign agents looking to illegally influence elections?

            1. Silly old turtle, if only he’d realized what we had pla… I mean most free and fair election in history.

            2. “Hi, Mr Congressman, I’m here as a foreign national to fix the election illegally.”

              Something tells me that it’s not always dead obvious as this.

    3. While I agree that we should be verifying signatures, there wasn’t a blue wave in a tiny number of counties. All over the country, Trump lost his margin of win.

      State Clinton Margin Biden Margin
      NH .4% 7.4%
      TX -9% -5.6%
      IA -9.4% -8.2%
      TN -27% -23.3%

      All over the country- even in GOP strongholds, Trump’s margin of winning decreased. (There were notable exceptions- NY, FL, HI. But the majority of the country saw Trump lose around 2 – 3% of his margin).

      Yes, the cities moved measurably (about 5 points) further towards Biden. But so did Republican Suburbs- and that is what cost Trump the election. Counties that he won by 26.9% in 2016 only went for him by around 21.5% in 2020.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/president-2020/

      1. No no, Overt. The only possible explanation is MASSIVE FRAUD. Nardz’s twitter feed told me so.

        1. Biden won. That right there is proof of fraud.

          1. Well, such a level of proof drove MSNBC ratings for four years, so why not?

            1. I wouldn’t know. Don’t have cable.

              1. I wouldn’t know

                *wink, wink*

          2. Again. You ignore any and every issue that has been raised because your bae won. That is your only concern.

      2. And Biden lost margins on minority votes. He won fewer counties than Obama. He lost most (18/19 or 51/58) “bellwether counties” by large average margins. Biden lost Ohio, Florida, and Iowa.

        Trump gained at least 10 million votes. Has any incumbent president who gained votes lost their reelection campaign?
        Trump was over 90% approval rating in R party.
        Trump had the 3rd or 4th highest primary % of any president, and set records for turnout.
        There’s plenty more.
        https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/a_compilation_of_twenty_alleged_election_facts_that_dont_pass_the_smell_test.html

        You’re not being honest, overt, you’re determined to bury your head in the sand. Don’t know what you get out of that, but I’m sure you have your reasons. I do appreciate you bringing data to the table. Maybe try looking at it objectively, instead of trying to confirm for yourself that the crazy Trump supporters are just conspiracy theorists because they’re suspicious of people who have been nonstop lying for 5 years and were determined to get rid of Trump by any means necessary, including using viral misinformation to ruin the lives of tens of millions of people (and shouting down or censoring anyone who opposed panic preached by The “Science”) to create conditions making electoral fraud incredibly easy then refusing to look into any aspect of it.

        1. The fact that he is joining jeff and sarcasmic on even dismissing an audit on the election shows his motivation. This isn’t about who won at this point it is about verifying the election was free and fair and as clean as possible. Look at their responses. They think this is only about trump and biden. But this is also about future elections. They don’t care. Their guy won. Issues be damned.

          1. Oh this is a complete load of horseshit. The only reason we are even having this conversation is because YOUR GUY LOST. When Trump won those states by even smaller margins in 2016, no one said a peep about “statistical anomalies”. But now that your guy LOST, NOW, it’s all about “just having fair elections”. You want fair elections? Then fine let’s talk about how to make changes to the system going forward. I am all ears when it comes to making the voting system better. But you are going to have to stop it with the batshit insane conspiracy crap, like “Dominion software rigged by Hugo Chavez” crap, or completely ridiculous “statistical analysis” which is simply lying with numbers to push a narrative. Stop deliberately throwing sand in the air and then saying “look at this mess, we have to clean it up”. Let’s look at the problems that exist without you and your team deliberately exacerbating them.

          2. Describe *exactly* what you want to be done in a statistical audit. Detailed, with no hand waving.

            1. He has no idea what a “statistical audit” actually is. His tribal friends are demanding it so he must demand it too, whatever it is. He’s an NPC for the Right.

              1. Big time. He checks every box, and is completely and perfectly earnest about it.

                Reads and links pjmedia, breitbart, and federalist, but then accuses others of being Vox readers? Check.

                Alleges massive conspiracies to explain simple events that conflict with his pjmedia-aquired worldview? Check.

                Is completely unable to criticize Trump, even on outright lies caught on tape or simple mistakes? Check.

                Is unable to take a joke, recognize a joke, or engage in any sort of banter, but does use insults like “dummy” and “retard” seriously? Check.

                Adorable.

                1. Is completely unable to criticize Trump, even on outright lies caught on tape or simple mistakes? Check.

                  That’s not true. JesseAz came up with a list of like one or two criticisms a while back.

                  The rest is spot on.

                2. Mr. ChemJeff is having so much fun with his sockpuppets today.

            2. Describe *exactly* what you want to be done in a statistical audit

              Yes and we want it notarized by the Saudi king.

              1. Speaking of Arabian kings. Boy, that Trump is a real peacemaker:

                https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/11/18/lawmakers-introduce-resolutions-to-block-trumps-f-35-sale-to-uae/

                “A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced new legislation Wednesday that would halt the Trump administration’s push to circumvent Congress and expedite a $23 billion sale of F-35 fighter jets, Reaper drones and munitions to the United Arab Emirates.”

                1. How horrible for some completely unknown reason…

                  Thanks sempai!

                2. Libertarians understand that free trade encourages peace.

                  Advocates of free trade have long argued that its benefits are not merely economic. Free trade also encourages people and nations to live in peace with one another.

                  https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/peace-earth-free-trade-men

          3. shows his motivation

            “Everyone who disagrees with me is fundamentally dishonest”. God, what a cunt you are.

        2. There is one key item that leads me to believe there could have been fraud: The fact that Trump won nearly every bellwether county, but then failed to win the presidency. I agree that is suspicious. Which is why it is so important to sift away nutty conspiracy theories. Among the rest of your points:

          “Trump gained at least 10 million votes. Has any incumbent president who gained votes lost their reelection campaign?”

          And no Incumbent has ever won a presidency when his percentage of votes gained slipped by 2 points nationally. In order to believe that was caused by fraud, you have to believe not in three cities’ fraud. You need to believe in fraud among hundreds of thousands of poll workers across the country- including in GOP dominated states.

          And yet here we are in an election where nearly 20 Million more people voted than in the previous election. Are you saying that Democrat-led fraud was able to manufacture 20 million votes? This isn’t just in the battleground states. In GOP and Dem strongholds around the country, millions more voted.

          “And Biden lost margins on minority votes. ”

          And the problem with minorities is that they are, erm, in the minority. As I noted above, Trump lost 5% margin in suburbs. White males and females voted against him. Mind you, I don’t think it was his base- it was new people coming out to vote.

          Trump did better with minorities, but he still overwhelmingly lost to them. Whether you get 15% of the minorities in a state, or 30% of minorities in that state, you still lose that state. **Especially** when you have record turnout. The minority vote is good news for Trump and perhaps the GOP, but it wouldn’t automatically mean a victory for him.

          “There’s plenty more.”

          That American Thinker article is exactly the point I am making. Just throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and never apologizing for being wrong.

          They claim that Trump had amazing coattails given the republican gains in the house. But if you go look at where these gains were made, they were in non-battleground states. In the battleground states, where Biden won, the Republicans generally lost. And also ignored is the fact that the GOP is only one runoff election away from losing the senate. Indeed, if anyone had said “At the end of this election, the GOP will be on the edge of losing the senate and will have failed to win the house”, no one would be praising Trump’s coat tails.

          They link in that article to an analysis showing mail-in ballots that were returned prior to or on the mailed date, despite the fact that this has been shown to be expected behavior for satellite offices that let voters go in, fill out a mail-in ballot and return it the same day.

          Even worse, too much of their “reporting” does not lead to primary sources. They lead to one of their previous articles, which sources another article, which sources yet another. This isn’t evidence. I want to see the evidence.

          What is clear to me is that we had a statistically anomalous election where we had far, far more mail-in ballots than in previous years. The Dems planned for it, and played dirty tricks to get them added. And they had a good ground game to go out and harvest these ballots.

          I have not yet seen ANY evidence that the harvesting was done illegally (i.e. 3rd parties taking or filling out ballots) on a scale that would flip the election. *shrug*.

          And I am doing this because I care about reality more than I care about Trump. If the Right just shrugs and says “Not my fault!!” about this election, then the Dems are going to win the next one.

          The ground game in Georgia was so good at getting turnout in Atlanta, that the state flipped by 5 points from 2016. If the Right doesn’t get its shit together, it is going to lose the senate.

          1. Thank you for being rational and patient enough to write all this.

            1. And for reiterating our boss’s narrative…

          2. Just throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and never apologizing for being wrong.

            This is the standard MO. Throw a bunch of shit at the wall, then scream “Look at that dirty mess, clearly something bad happened! We must investigate!”

            1. JesseAz never said he doesn’t poop in his hands and throw it like a monkey. So just as I tacitly supported Biden by not being sufficiently critical, JesseAz throws poop like a monkey because he never said he didn’t.

              1. Good one Mr. Sarcasmic, good thing they’re the mean girls.

    4. Because signatures are on the envelopes, which were separated from the ballots to preserve the privacy of the mail-in voters.

      1. Yes, that was very convenient.

      2. This is a key problem. The ability to audit the election is destroyed without a chain of custody for the info that validates a vote. That’s one reason why mail-in voting should have been disallowed.

        How is this handled with conventional absentee ballots? They could have the same problem.

  5. There are now just 11 prison systems allowing visitation from family as the current wave of the coronavirus slams into penitentiaries.

    The Shawshank Reinfection.

    1. +1

  6. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is resigning in January.

    Now that he’s destroyed the internet.

    1. How do you think he destroyed the internet? By rolling back net neutrality or something?

      1. I think FofE was being sarcastic

        1. Statistically, there is a probability of 1 that Fist is being sarcastic.

  7. Yikes:
    US coronavirus cases by month in 2020:

    March: 186,200
    April: 883,199
    May: 723,166
    June: 845,736
    July: 1,926,970
    August: 1,479,756
    September: 1,215,901
    October: 1,940,522
    November: 4,252,822

    Who actually cares ? These numbers are meaningless. On the bright side at least no ones getting the flu or dying of old age !

    1. Compare these to the numbers (by month) of people who wear masks.

      My prediction: we will have a very positive correlation that proves masks cause COVID.

      1. The fabric is preloaded with the virus.

        1. that has been found to be the case early on but i don’t think they are testing the mask anymore, so maybe still

    2. Yet people keep eating the numbers up.

      1. Like your bae Biden. So dreamy.

        1. One of these days you’ll say something interesting. Or not.

          1. One day you’ll go without a drink.

        2. Please link to even one comment where sarcasmic said something pro-Biden.

          1. I think he said I “tacitly” support Biden by not being sufficiently critical.

            1. I’ve had that one thrown at me, too.

              1. We didn’t vote Biden, we only enthusiastically support him in the comments because reasons.

          2. Jesus Christ you sound like my crazy ex-boyfriend

            1. Must be a pretty cool dude. Sorry about losing him.

              1. AJ’s boyfriend was a self-pitying drunk, but I’m sure you’re not like that at all Mr. Sarcasmic.

              2. sarcasmic
                December.1.2020 at 1:33 pm
                Must be a pretty cool dude

                He was physically abusive. I left him after he hospitalized me.

                1. Not cool. That sucks.

    3. How many of these are car crash victims with covid? How many were 90 years old with multiple organ failure prior to testing positive?

      Subtract out those and I might believe the numbers.

      1. I was talking with a nurse friend of mine about this last night. She told me all kinds of medical stuff about enzymes and whatnot, basically she said that those who call it a super-cold don’t know what they’re talking about. And I’ll trust her over some yahoo who gets their info from cable and talk radio.

        1. I don’t get the impression you understood anything the nurse said.

        2. She was talking about how it attacks the entire body, and that the respiratory crap is just a symptom, unlike a cold that actually lives in the lungs. I didn’t understand half of what she said, just as she wouldn’t understand if I started talking about databases, but what I did get made sense. I’m starting to reevaluate my opinion on the whole COVID thing.

          1. It’s not the fucking flu. It is worse.

            This should be terrifying to most people:

            https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02599-5

            As the pandemic ramped up, Michael and his colleagues were among many scientists who began compiling case reports of neurological complications linked to COVID-19.

            In a June paper5, he and his team analysed clinical details for 125 people in the United Kingdom with COVID-19 who had neurological or psychiatric effects. Of these, 62% had experienced damage to the brain’s blood supply, such as strokes and haemorrhages, and 31% had altered mental states, such as confusion or prolonged unconsciousness — sometimes accompanied by encephalitis, the swelling of brain tissue. Ten people who had altered mental states developed psychosis.

            Not all people with neurological symptoms have been seriously ill in intensive-care units, either. “We’ve seen this group of younger people without conventional risk factors who are having strokes, and patients having acute changes in mental status that are not otherwise explained,” says Michael.

            A similar study1 published in July compiled detailed case reports of 43 people with neurological complications from COVID-19. Some patterns are becoming clear, says Michael Zandi, a neurologist at University College London and a lead author on the study. The most common neurological effects are stroke and encephalitis. The latter can escalate to a severe form called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, in which both the brain and spinal cord become inflamed and neurons lose their myelin coatings — leading to symptoms resembling those of multiple sclerosis. Some of the worst-affected patients had only mild respiratory symptoms. “This was the brain being hit as their main disease,” says Zandi.

            The flu doesn’t cause fucking encephalitis.

            1. Yeah. She said it does all kinds of crap to the body, even without observable symptoms.

              But who are we to trust medical professionals? We should be judging information by the politics of the source.

              1. “But who are we to trust medical professionals? ”

                Credentialism!

                But seriously, I have Trigeminal Neuraliga. I saw 14 doctors before it was correctly diagnosed. The first 13 said to give it time and it would get better.

                If I had trusted medical proffesionals as you sarcastically allude, I’d still be waiting years later. And this was actual doctors.

                But nurses? They barely qualify as medical anything.

                1. Nurses do the work while the doctors make the decisions. They know more than you give them credit for.

                  1. Ok then 13 doctors nurses took two years of my life because they were terrible, even though they were credentialed.

                    Have it your way if you must.

                    1. Fine. A dozen docs got your diagnosis wrong and that means COVID is a hoax. Happy?

                    2. 13.

                      But they had credentials so I should have trusted them like you said even though they were wrong.

                    3. She’s gone to school for this shit and been in the trenches. I figure she knows more than me. That’s all.

                    4. Maybe I can try rubbing her diploma on my neuraligia and see if it helps.

                    5. Maybe you should be glad someone got it right and not impugn an entire profession because people got it wrong.

                    6. Mayve you shouldn’t pretend being degreed means being right.

                    7. So reject everyone because some people are wrong?

                    8. So accept all of their opinions because they have degrees?

                  2. Whatever dude. When someone is more knowledgeable about a subject than me and I have no reason to believe they’re blowing smoke up my ass, I generally accept what they say until proven otherwise.

                    1. I sincerely hope that works better for you than it did for me.

                  3. Nurses do the work

                    Top Men Womyn, am I right Mr. Sarcasmic?

                2. But you did trust a doctor eventually, yes? I’m guessing you did not get your diagnosis from Rush Limbaugh, no matter how many doctors he has in his rolodex.

                  1. Actually, no I didn’t trust anyone at that point I began a treatment because there was literally no other option left, and it worked. But no, at that point I expected #14 to be no better than the 13 others (including 4 specialists) who failed.

                    1. The treatment that was administered by a…doctor?

                      So you did get your treatment from a doctor, and not someone whose politics aligned with yours, right?

                      How much further would you like to parse this analogy?

                    2. What analogy? There is no analogy. I’m not talking about politics ao it is really weird that you insist on reading that into my posts.

                      You seem to have entirely missed the point sarcasmic.

                    3. Mr. Oppresso and Mr. Sarcasmic are very smart, so I can assure you that when they do miss the point, it is on purpose.

            2. Case studies are anecdotal. This is not science, it is medical-terror porn and the Proggies at Nature are all addicted to it.

              Baby jeffy is a fucking idiot who loves that lockdowns make his basement dwelling seem normal. Fuck you and go eat another cookie, you monster.

            3. A simple web search says it does.

              1. Wait wait…

                Jeff was wrong?!?!?!

                I’m sure he’ll be along any minute to own up, and admit that his apocalyptic nonsense is based on his own demonstrated ignorance.

                1. Huh, the flu can cause encephalitis. I was wrong.

                  1. “act like they have Ph.D.’s in statistics medical degrees, but in reality, they don’t even know how to use Excel google properly”

          2. Your nurse “friend” sounds retarded. In the vast majority of cases what she describes does not happen.

            Is this the same nurse from south dakota?

            1. In the vast majority of cases what she describes does not happen.

              And in some cases it does. What’s your point?

              1. Co-morbidities, fuckstick. Learn a thing or two before you scare your mom into hiding.

                1. say what?

                  1. Co-morbidities, Mr. Sarcasmic.

              2. That your nurse friend is retarded.

                1. She probably makes more money than you, so…

                  1. Nobody is more successful than Mr. Sarcasmic’s friends.

                    1. Everyone he knows is rich, popular and successful and they all like him very much and think he is handsome and Smart.

                  2. You can tell dorkasmic never went to college or he’d have fucked a ton of dumb nurses like the rest of us have.

                    1. You got me. I never fucked a ton of dumb nurses. Only two smart ones.

                      *hangs head in shame*

                    2. Gotta be honest, didn’t expect you to agree that you’re an incel, or that people the rest of us think are morons are “smart.”

                2. In contrast to the stunning intellect you are displaying here.

                  1. Nobody has a more stunned intellect than Mr. Oppresso. He is very smart.

      2. How many were 90 years old with multiple organ failure prior to testing positive?

        How is that relevant? “Because he was going to die anyway”? Well, we are all going to die at some point. So should no one be counted as having died from COVID?

        1. Seems weird that flu has taken the year off it seems.

          1. Not really. It turns out it’s hard to catch the flu when you are quarantining and wearing a mask in public, which a lot of people are doing.

            1. If we just force people to stay inside and wear masks forever, think of all the lives we could save!

              1. I didn’t say that. Just trying to answer the rather obvious question.

        2. If they could have otherwise recovered from COVID they didn’t die of COVID. Why is this so hard for you?

          1. How about if their condition was exacerbated by COVID? Say, a person who has mild asthma, gets COVID, and now has more severe asthmatic symptoms, gets a severe attack and dies. COVID or non-COVID? Can COVID be blamed at least a little bit for this?

            1. Thank you for saving the narrative Mr. Chemjeff.

            2. Nope. A death occurring during an asthma attack is a death due to asthma. If they have COVID it should be listed as a complicating factor. This was the standard right up until COVID became a political issue.

              Your refusal to acknowledge what changed this year and why it changed is expected, but still pathetic.

    4. Covid is a miracle. It has cured the flu, cancer, heart disease, diabetes. We have tried for years to make progress in curing those diseases.

    5. pathway to heard imunity

    6. Agree partially. The most interesting statistics are the number of hospital ICU beds available, and the number of health care workers that cannot come into work because they are infected or quarantining.

      1. No, the most interesting statistics are where the actual case increases are coming from, which is colleges, prisons, and nursing homes.

        1. Those are interesting, too.

        2. How about bordellos? Asking for a friend.

  8. https://twitter.com/EricMMatheny/status/1333575403542376451?s=19

    I’m old enough to remember when the Democrats considered the 35-year-old half-assed recollection of crazy-ass Christine Blasey Ford to be evidence.

    1. Some say recollection, some say deliberate fabrication.

    2. Not only that but writers here were convinced that more accusations made the underlying premise more credible and countered accusations of conspiracy.

  9. I have seen several commenters claim that “In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch”, and that this kind of statistical anomaly is impossible. Similar claims are made about other states.

    Simply put, this claim is false and stems from bad data analysis. I’ll explain.

    The source of the claim, or at least the site that popularized it, is Gateway Pundit. You can see a video describing the claim here:
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/caught-part-6-michigan-georgia-like-pa-va-caught-pattern-biden-gained-lead-massive-vote-dumps-remainder-votes-possessed-biden-trump/

    There are also screen shots of their spreadsheets. I was able to reproduce their spreadsheets exactly. Here is what they did (I will use the variable names they did in the spreadsheet).

    They calculated votes_for_dem and votes_for_rep by multiplying votes by vote_share_dem and vote_share_rep, respectively.

    They did this for each update.

    They calculated incremental_vote_for_dem and incremental_vote_for_rep by subtracting the current votes_for_dem and votes_for_rep from the numbers they calculated for the previous entry.

    They calculated incremental_vote_pct_dem and incremental_vote_pct_rep by dividing incremental_vote_for_dem and incremental_vote_for_rep by the sum of incremental_vote_for_dem and incremental_vote_for_rep, respectively.

    In math, this is the formulate for calculating the percentages they attribute to Biden and Trump from each batch of votes (the numbers 1 and 2 refer to two adjacent updates). I will give the formula for Biden.

    (votes2*vote_share_dem2 – votes1*vote_share_dem1)/(votes2*vote_share_dem2 – votes1*vote_share_dem1 + votes2*vote_share_rep2 – votes1*vote_share_rep1)

    Now here is the fundamental problem with their analysis: THEY ONLY USE vote_share_dem and vote_share_rep REPORTED TO THREE DIGITS, AND THE ACTUAL CHANGE IN votes IS EXTREMELY SMALL, SO THEY DO NOT SEE THE ACTUAL CHANGE IN vote_share_dem AND vote_share_rep.

    Look at their spreadsheet again. vote_share_dem and vote_share_rep do not change (when reported to three significant digits) between any of their updates.

    This means that, in the formula I gave above, vote_share_dem1 is equal to vote_share_dem2, and similarly for vote_share_rep1 and vote_share_rep2.

    Work through the math for yourself when this is true, and you will see that the incremental_vote_pct_dem reduces to the following formula:

    vote_share_dem/(vote_share_dem + vote_share_rep)

    Then substitute the actual numbers (again, using Georgia as example, but you can do this for other states)

    0.494/(0.494+0.493) = 0.50050658

    Which, when converted to percent and reported to three decimal places, is 50.051.

    You can do the same thing for Trump and reproduce their numbers.

    THERE IS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THIS. IT IS A BAD ANALYSIS OF DATA THAT IS NOT REPORTED WITH SUFFICIENT ACCURACY FOR THE ANALYSIS THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

    The fundamental claim is just plain wrong. It doesn’t matter if the actual split of votes in each batch were 90% Trump and 10% Biden. The calculations they are doing GUARANTEE that they will think the split in that batch was 50.051% Biden and 49.949% Trump because they are doing bad math on data never meant to be used for this purpose.

    There are other warning signs of this:

    1) They report fractional values for vote_for_dem and vote_for_rep when these numbers MUST be integers. Again, this is a consequence of not using vote shares reported to sufficiently high accuracy.

    2) They calculate incremental vote percentages that are in excess of 100% for Joe Biden and negative for Donald Trump in one of their entries. This is mathematically impossible in real life, and it happens because (again) they are deriving these values by relying on data reported with insufficient accuracy.

    And why does the data not have sufficient accuracy? Because it was scraped from the NYT website and was only mean for graphical display purposes in their election tracking graphics. It is NOT official vote counts and was never intended for the type of detailed analysis Gateway Pundit (or whoever they are relying on) was trying to do.

    Don’t take my word for it. You can reproduce all of these results yourself with Excel and/or a pencil, paper, and some basic algebra.

    Please stop spreading this claim. It is fundamentally wrong.

    1. What drives me nuts is that there is a commenter on Gateway Pundits’ own articles that pointed this out to them over a week ago, and they have not done A SINGLE THING to correct it.

      This is what flipped me. At the beginning of this, I saw plenty of signs of fraud. But I did not find anyone on the right genuinely interested in following through. They are just compiling lists that they hope no one will check in order to get clicks.

      1. Well it’s good that you finally see this. Most of us saw this as the standard MO of the right-wing media bubble years ago. They throw a bunch of sand in the air and then look around and say “boy it sure is hazy out here, there must be something suspiciously wrong about it!”

        1. That pipe really broke tho.

        2. Thank you for saving the narrative Mr. Chemjeff.

      2. Show me the consistency, overt.

        1. Because those “lists” you so intently dismiss show a lot of inconsistency with recorded history and fundamental human behavior.

          You are determined to find bullshit and ignore everything else, just like the people you feel compelled to dismiss.

          1. “Because those “lists” you so intently dismiss show a lot of inconsistency with recorded history and fundamental human behavior.”

            Which lists? Over and over people bring up things like the example above. Gateway pundit STILL, to this day, has those articles insisting that they found DNA evidence of fraud. It is bullshit. It is wrong. And they are doing you, myself, and anyone on the right a disservice by failing to own up to their mistake. They also still link to that analysis by Dr Shiva, that was shown to be laughably, absurdly wrong over 2 weeks ago. And Dr Shiva still refuses to own up to it.

            “You are determined to find bullshit and ignore everything else, just like the people you feel compelled to dismiss.”

            I would like no better than to find evidence of fraud, which is why seeing bullshit repeated makes me so angry. It is noise.

            1. “And they are doing you, myself, and anyone on the right a disservice by failing to own up to their mistake”

              Agreed.

              But where is the rest of the story?
              For instance, why are we ok with GA reducing their average mail in ballot rejection rate from 3-4% to <.5%?
              Why the inconsistency in mail in ratio in PA and MI vs the rest of the states?
              Why isn't it suspicious that this election deviated from ALL previous elections in so many ways?
              Because there's some bullshit, it's all bullshit?
              The same people telling us "nothing to see here" are the same people who have done literally nothing but lie and censor contrary information for years. Their position alone should be enough to make you suspicious, but gateway pundit posts a bullshit article and suddenly everyone else is trustworthy?

              I'd prefer we find evidence to show fraud didn't tilt this election, because that would be slightly less bad than them getting away with it and proving they have the capacity to do literally anything to us they want.

          2. You are determined to find bullshit and ignore everything else

            I am addressing the claims that commenters here have made in an effort to show election fraud. The claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

            1. You cherry pick one item and ignore everything else, even when specifically and directly called out on it.

              Do ratio of mail ins in PA. Show us it’s not a massive outlier.

              1. OK. Ratio of mail-ins in PA to what?

                1. Other states, national average

    2. So what you’re saying is, it’s a conspiracy theory spread by a bunch of morons and grifters who act like they have Ph.D.’s in statistics, but in reality, they don’t even know how to use Excel properly. Got it.

      1. They used Excel properly, but the underlying data is simply not suitable for the analysis they are trying to do. It would have been fine if the data were reported to the necessary precision, but then they probably would not have found the “anomalies” they claim to have found here. And the data were not reported to the necessary precision because this was only intended to be used for making web graphics.

        It’s like building a really exquisite sand castle which is very pretty to look at, but then claiming that you were cheated because it collapsed when you tried to live in it.

      2. “Ph.D”

        Oooo you like suckin that PhD don’t you baby

    3. You forgot this part:

      It is KNOWN that fluoridated water is chock-full of tiny little Hunter Biden homunculi (one each per each fluorine atom, with a tiny sub-atomic Hunter Biden working the tiny little brain-control levers, and chucking an evil laugh) as they FORCED tens of millions of fluoridated-water-drinking voters to NOT vote for Trump!

      Also, left minus right = Zorro the Gay Blade!

      1. I haven’t seen that movie since.. shit I think I was eight?

      2. Flag. Reflush.

        1. Yes, PLEASE REFLUSH your stupid thread-shitting right down the toilet, where it belongs! Along with your MAGA-magic underwear! It obviously is NOT keeping you “Christian”. Does the Mormon Angel Moronic teach that thread-shitting is the way to love your neighbors? Please REFLUSH your so-called “ethics” and get better ones!

          1. Flag. SQLSRY is broken. Reboot!

      3. great movie

    4. Nerd rage!

  10. “People with untreated mental illnesses are 16 times more likely than other civilians to be killed during an encounter with police,” notes Laura Williamson at USA Today. How do we work to change that?

    Kill them at birth?

    1. I believe that the proper method is to have the police call out that the person with the gun or knife is ‘crazy ass’ and to withdraw, sending in a psychologist.
      This way, we save violent crazy people from getting shot and reduce the oversupply of people with psychology degrees.

      1. Withdraw? Without being obeyed? No cop will ever stand for that. Obey or die. That’s their motto.

        1. How progressive

          1. You know I’m not a leftist. Why do you perpetuate the narrative? Stop being an asshole.

            1. To people like Nardz and Jesse, the word “progressive” is a slur, synonymous with “doody-head”. It is just meant to insult and trigger people, that’s all. It’s not a real accusation of adherence to leftist ideology.

              1. That makes sense in a really stupid kind of way.

          2. I’ll quit saying you want to kill people. Well, maybe not. Whatever.

            1. Do as you wish.
              I have no problem being honest about my humanity, nor do I shy away from stating what the situation is that we find ourselves in and what is necessary for our well being/freedom.
              Ignoring psychotic totalitarianism doesn’t make it go away.

              1. “Live and let live” isn’t an option the left tolerates, and the left has more power than any State has ever before had.

              2. Ignoring psychotic totalitarianism doesn’t make it go away.

                Nor does sweating about it. I find ignoring it makes for a far more pleasant afternoon.

              3. “being honest about my humanity,”

                Well that is one way to put it, baby McVeigh.

        2. “Withdraw? Without being obeyed? No cop will ever stand for that. Obey or die. That’s their motto.”

          Yes, it’s quite progressive.

      2. This way, we save violent crazy people from getting shot and reduce the oversupply of people with psychology degrees.

        I am completely on board with this.

    2. People with untreated mental illnesses who have issues complying with arbitrary commands given by pants-shitting authoritarians are 16 times more likely than other civilians to be killed during an encounter with police

      FTFY

    3. Have the police kill more people, and that’ll smear out any such correlation.

  11. How could she tell whites to shut up and listen to the consensus view of nonwhites if that consensus doesn’t exist?

    She’s not alone in pushing this. Every voice I’m allowed to hear on the subject makes the same assertion.

    1. This isn’t the case for simply ‘anti-racist’ woke dipshittery, it holds true for all grievance culture. The assumption that the ‘disadvantaged’ group is monolithic and helpless while the oppressor group is monolithic and predatory is endemic.

  12. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1333742408006156292?s=19

    By now, even Democrats are realizing their side had LOTS of opportunities to cheat without being witnessed and also sky-high motivation to do so. And it DIDN’T happen? That would be the most anomalous data of all time.

    1. Yup because Democrats are not monsters. Republicans are not monsters. For the MOST part, Democrat and Republican poll watchers and poll staffers are just ordinary people who aren’t willing to risk jail time over messing around with a few ballots here and there. It is just not worth it. Sure a few people probably did, and that’s wrong, and yes that’s fraud, but it’s not enough to change the outcome of the election. If there was fraud by poll workers large enough to change the outcome of the election, it would have to be this huge coordinated conspiracy, of which Trump’s team has provided zero evidence.

      1. Yes I agree with you 100% Chemjeff Radical Individualist. Why all these looney toons want to look into it is beyond me, it’s not even worth looking into. Trump lost. Get. Over. It. Imagine if Hillary had acted this way, it would be front page news. But no, she lost with grace and dignity and that is something Trump losers can’t even wrap their heads around.

        1. This is the most damning part. The people who say not to look at all.

          1. OK, now you are missing the sarcasm.

          2. This is so funny. This is so funny because you have no problem whatsoever dismissing the entire Ukraine debacle, even though all the people (and really ALL, this is not hyperbole) willing to go on record under oath said that Trump did what was alleged. All the people denying it refused to go under oath.

            But that is not at all fishy to you.

            What is fishy is everyone calling the outcome of an election won by 70 some electoral votes and 6 million actual votes.

            What planet are you from?

        2. Look, New Reason Comment Troll, go ahead and look into it all you want, and if you find actual evidence of fraud, then take it to court and deal with it. Go ahead and take a look at the practices and use whatever problems that you find to recommend changes going forward. But at this point it’s pretty clear that there wasn’t “MASSIVE FRAUD”, so stop bleating on about that.

          1. … I was agreeing with you, jerk.

          2. You’re kind of an asshole btw.

            1. A very special kind.

      2. … it would have to be this huge coordinated conspiracy,
        What is the proof of this statement?

        1. The margins of victory that we’re talking about involve hundreds of thousands of votes.

      3. “We put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”
        -Joe Biden

    2. if yo don’t have at least SOME suspicions I figure you’re just a rabid partisan. Especially if you were concerned about Russian influence into 2016 on any level.

  13. The hidden premise of the book is that blacks, not whites, are too fragile.

    To be fair, every savior infantalizes his or her charges. If you don’t have a problem only the messiah can resolve then who needs to buy that messiah’s book?

  14. https://twitter.com/CassyWearsHeels/status/1333775541808340992?s=19

    Giving Vanderbilt kicker Sarah Fuller an award for making one lousy kick in a game her team lost 41-0 is patently offensive to me as a woman.

    Women don’t need to join male sports and get participation certificates to know we’re capable of accomplishing great things.

    1. But you do to achieve Equity.

    2. It was a 20 yard kick!

      1. That’s the sad thing, there are 8th grade boys who can kick better than that and she is supposed to be a first class college athlete?

    3. Women don’t need to join male sports and get participation certificates to know we’re capable of accomplishing great things.

      Not based on any evidence that’s come out in the last 100 years.

  15. Senator Rand Paul
    @RandPaul
    Interesting . . . Trump margin of “defeat” in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.(That is, if Big Tech allows u to read this)

    Anomalies in Vote Counts; https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020/

    1. This analysis is using the same low-precision derived vote totals as the flawed analysis I addressed above. Please understand that the underlying data are simply not suitable for the type of precision analysis people are trying to use it for.

      1. No. It isnt. It has nothing to do with your analysis above. It is looking at batch counts and the deviation from the norm. Your above article links to normalized data and the incidence based on large numbers, not outlier incidence.

        Fuck man. Try at least reading the fucking page.

        1. I did read the page, in detail. They are using a fundamentally flawed data set (the exact same data set that was used in the other, separate, flawed analysis from above — you can download the data and verify it for yourself). No amount of analysis will change the fact that the underlying data is not of good quality.

          1. Just admit you are wrong. You did not read it. The analysis you linked talks about additive proportional ballot dumps being added to the total larger number count and needing more than 3 decimals to see the changes at that point.

            The one Sen Paul linked to discusses the ballot dumps as individual dumps and does not have that issue.

            You fucking lied. You didn’t read the analysis or you would have noticed the difference.

            1. I read it, downloaded the data, and re-made their plots. And it is because of that that I know that they are using the same NYT data set with low-precision vote shared and deriving the number of votes for each candidate at each update from those low precision numbers. I know they are doing a different analysis than Gateway Pundit and I never claimed otherwise. I also know they are using the same flawed data set.

              Go ahead, download it and see for yourself.

            2. You are embarrassing yourself, if that is possible.

          2. Even taking their analysis at face value, their Figure 10 undermines their entire argument. When you look at the country as a whole there is a smooth continuum in the data as they have plotted it. The updates that look like outliers within a given state no longer look like outliers. Imagine taking the color coding out of that figure and then ask yourself if you’d pick any of those points out as odd? I wouldn’t.

            I am fairly confident that they have merely rediscovered (but again, they are using a flawed data set) what lots of people already know — that urban centers have large populations and urban centers skew heavily democratic, a trend only exacerbated when you only look at mail-in ballots separately from in-person ballots (which they are implicitly doing since there is a correlation between when updates were reported and whether they were in-person or mail-in). The fact that these points look like outliers when only looking one state at a time is a consequence of the fact that most states have one large, dominant urban center.

      2. Bull shit the only time data is not suitable is when there is not enough and we have plenty or when the data is of different subsets which is not the case here. tired of your copy and paste of a lie from other sites to every thread

        1. I think you misunderstand. It’s not a problem with the quantity of data, it’s a problem with nature of that data.

          They are looking for anomalies in vote updates. But all they have to work with is the total number of votes and the running fraction of the total vote reported to 3 decimal places. From this they derive the number of votes for each candidate at each update, but the lack of precision in the vote share numbers makes these derived numbers inherently inaccurate. It doesn’t matter that there is lots of numbers if the numbers themselves are flawed.

          1. Again. Proof you ddidnt read the analysis. The linked analysis treats the ballot dumps as individual events, not cumulative. God damn man. Just stop.

            1. They are still calculating flawed numbers for each ballot dump!!!!!

              Why is this so hard for you to understand?

              1. Holy shit dude. Youre fucking retarded. The data isn’t flawed. You don’t even understand the difference in analysis techniques given. One is looking at independent trials and looking for deviation from a statistical norm. The other is looking at the drops effects on the prior cumulative count.

                Just stop man.

                1. You clearly don’t understand the data and what is wrong with it. Even though it has been explained in excruciating detail.

                  Anyone who thinks I am wrong and Jesse is right is free to download the data and reproduce the numbers yourselves. I’ll let that simple fact be my last word on this one.

            2. By the way, the Gateway Pundit analysis also treated the ballot dumps as individual events. You can clearly see this in their spreadsheets.

          2. Here. Let me clarify for you if you have any statistical background. Your previous analysis is essentially:

            P(ballot drop | cumulative count)

            The analysis would changed based on the order of the ballot drops you were analyzing.

            The one I linked to is simply

            P(ballot batch)

            He looked at each drop independently, each drop treated as an independent trial. The analysis order doesn’t matter as there is no consideration of the full numbers on a given state until the very last piece of analysis where he attempts to see what a more normal (3 standard deviations away instead of 5 or 6) would have done to the election. The majority of the analysis is as independent trials.

            Stop digging dummy. You lied and got caught.

            1. Why do you think normal distributions and standard deviations are applicable to election results? Voting isn’t rolling dice or picking cards from a deck.

          3. There are no partial votes giving you decimal places to work with you clearly don’t know what you are talking about and neither do the people you copied and pasted your comments from.

            1. Here is an actual sample line of the CSV file, along with the header, provided by the very website Jesse linked to:

              state,race_id,timestamp,vote_share_dem,vote_share_rep,vote_share_other,votes,expected_votes,eevp,eevp_source
              AK,AK-G-P-2020-11-03,2020-11-04T10:01:44Z,0.0,0.0,1.0,0,367000,0,edison
              AK,AK-G-P-2020-11-03,2020-11-04T07:47:41Z,0.352,0.605,0.04300000000000004,113744,367000,31,edison

              You will notice that no where do you see an actual integer number of votes for Trump or Biden. You only have the *total* integer number of votes, and then the vote share reported to three decimal places for each party. The vote share is a ratio, and absolutely can and will be fractional.

              To get the number of votes for Trump and Biden after each update they multiply the total votes by the fractional vote share. But the fractional vote share is only reported to three decimal places. That isn’t enough precision to get the true total number of votes for Trump or Biden, so all they end up with is a low-precision estimate, which can’t be trusted to better than one part in a 1000.

              So, you are right that you can’t get partial votes. The fact that the analyses relying on these data end up working with partial votes illustrates why these analyses should not be trusted when accuracy is needed.

  16. But they’d never commit electoral fraud…

    https://twitter.com/PetiteNicoco/status/1333630151981199360?s=19

    EVERY FREAKING TIME
    “LA county supervisor dines at restaurant hours after voting to ban outdoor dining”

    1. The emergency didn’t start until Monday.

        1. That will be his excuse.

          1. She already said she was trying to support the restaurant before her ban for “a most dangerous activity” went into effect.

            Kinda like ordering a taco just before you light the taco truck on fire.

  17. https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1333584121692557314?s=19

    Superman Criticized As Unrealistic For Portraying A Journalist As Heroic

    1. They had a good tweet asking to hire a NYT writer who claimed they would be just as tough on Biden as they were on Trump.

  18. Pint Sized (a Saratoga Springs craft beer bar) was hit with an expected $1,500 fine

    The bureaucrats were just doing Small Business Saturday.

    1. Everyone knows a bowl of beans protects you from the ‘rona.

      1. Yeah, but it doesn’t protect others. Flatulence can spread the virus.

        1. Wear another mask!

        2. Whoa, didn’t know this. Thanks for the heads up. Or bottoms up, I guess.

    2. they should just put the can of beans on the table with a candle a bowl and can opener leave it up to the customer if he wants to heat it up. no waste that way

  19. and this is where the book borders on actual racism

    Borders on? The whole book is full blown racism.

  20. ENB is the best!! Thanks Reason for all that you do. I can’t wait to donate. Hope all of you donate too 🙂

    1. For sure, I love Reason. Heck, I’m about to donate for a second time! Have a good day, fellow Reason lover.

      1. Wow, glad to see so many Reason lovers here. I read this web pages every day and love it. Definitely donating as much as I can this year. Can’t wait!

    2. Haha yes, ENB is a great writer. She gets a lot of guff here I’ve noticed, but honestly she does a very very good job. Also you’re handle is great, I too love Reason. (<3)
      I just got laid off and am barely making ends meet right now but I think I’m still going to donate because I love this website so much. The commenters here are kind of insane, wish they would moderate them but the articles are amazinggggg. ENB is so hot and smart, wish she would go out with me. Sigh lol.

      1. Where did this sudden dump of Reaon supporters come from? Anyone seen any Dominion reps sneaking around with flash drives?

        1. Grr *Reason

        2. Lol

          I think it’s satire…

      2. What the heck is going on

        1. It certainly isn’t widespread fraud , if that is what you are asking.

  21. https://twitter.com/Networkinvegas/status/1333569355741679616?s=19

    Here is the fake Nevada parking garage hospital picture that our moron governor tweeted, proving it’s all a scam. No patients, folded up beds, wrapped up equipment that’s never been used! They spent millions on this scam and never seen a single patient in this fake hospital!

  22. Sneaking Section 230 Reform Into the Defense Bill Is a Terrible Idea

    You mean a great idea – Congress has a long history of getting terrible bills passed by the simple expedient of shoving it into an unrelated must-pass omnibus bill. The fact is, it works. Whether or not the Section 230 reform bill itself is a terrible idea is a separate question, whether or not using chicanery to get the bill passed is a great way to get the bill passed is not questionable at all.

  23. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1333632634937888770?s=19

    Chinese Sociologist Dr. Li Yi: We Are Driving America to Its Death; COVID-19 Has Been Beneficial for China, North Korea; There Will Be No U.S.-China War, But We Will Take Over Taiwan

    1. With Biden in power China can walk right in to Taiwan any day after Jan 21

    2. But We Will Take Over Taiwan

      Now that Biden has been installed, it’ll be easy.

  24. Sneaking Section 230 Reform Into the Defense Bill Is a Terrible Idea

    Which is the surest sign that they’ll do it. Terrible ideas are the only ones Congress has left.

  25. https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1333519754011750403?s=19

    Hey @sophiaankel—was not aware until now that George Soros was a “Holocaust survivor,” like my grandfather who was in Auschwitz. What camp was Soros in? Sounds like a fascinating story.

    Do journalismers not know the rest of the world has access to the internet?

    seriously there’s a 60 minutes interview with Soros saying he has no remorse confiscating property from jews as a teenager

    In other words Soros stole from those who were in concentration camps. He learned to steal from others to get what he wanted and he didn’t care. He’s still doing it today.

    1. His name is pronounced Re-yeaaaah-booooiii.

  26. And if you help us reach our goal early, you’ll stop seeing the annoying pop-up solicitations on this site earlier.

    Personally I don’t respond well to extortion.

    1. Indeed. I have created a few new filters in my blocklist today. I recommend visiting the reason.com website while using Firefox with NoScript and AdBlockPlus.

  27. When undercover agents from the State Liquor Authority ordered brews at Pint Sized and received an insufficient amount of food alongside their drinks, the agency fined the bar.

    Sounds like some real hard core Serpico types here. Karens with badges.

  28. The new coronavirus infected people in the U.S. in mid-December 2019, a few weeks before it was officially identified in China

    Wouldn’t that be a few weeks before the Chinese government officially admitted they were seeing a new virus? I seem to recall there being a whistle blower doctor from Wuhan who was forced to publicly apologize for “fear mongering” or some such horseshit for trying to warn people as early as November of last year. The one who later died of the coof in February ( I’m sure his Communist overlords made sure he got the best of care).

  29. The second unstated assumption in White Fragility—and this is where the book borders on actual racism—is that black people are emotionally immature and essentially child-like.

    That doesn’t border on racism it is racism, full God-damned stop. But then again, no one should be surprised. The Progressives have always been racists since the very beginning. They’re just better at hiding than groups like the Klan. Hell, in many ways that makes them worse than the Klan. At least they’re open and honest about their bigotry.

    1. Progressives aren’t racist! They understand that some races are inferior and need a helping hand from government! That isn’t racist! The racists are those assholes who want to treat everyone the same!

      1. So, 3D racism?

        1. equity vs equality.

          And I hate that I know that. One of the side effects of attending college late in life.

  30. Oh look, I think we figured out who Nardz really is.

    https://thebulwark.com/trump-lawyer-dhs-whistleblower-should-be-executed/

    “DHS whistleblower should be executed”

    1. He posted a link a few days back and said it was him. A YouTube thing. Looked like a Duck Dynasty reject. I didn’t keep the link.

        1. Dude, I thought you posted something where you said it was you interviewing someone, and the guy had a beard that would make a circus freak jealous. Maybe it was an imposter. I didn’t highlight the name to see if someone had added spaces or something.

          1. Several of the Trump fan commenters here do this thing where they quote from twitter and other sites, but don’t bother putting quotation marks around the quoted text. At first, I was confused because I thought they were posting their own words.

            1. It’s really not hard. My words go above the link, quoted below it.
              I am very consistent on that.
              I do pity your struggles with pattern recognition though.

          2. Probably a Jack Murphy interview.
            Don’t know if I posted it, or what you’re referring to, but Jack Murphy has a long ass beard and I do follow him on Twitter.
            However, I’ve never stated that I do interviews.
            Incidentally, we do have a commenter here that has the handle “Jack Murphy” but I doubt it’s the same guy.

            1. That’s probably what I was thinking of. Dang. And here I thought you were a fire hazard. Talk about an image let down.

        2. He is drunk again. But he finally has a real friend in jeff. He is happy now.

  31. Get ready for National Bike Lanes: Rahm Emanuel is going to be Transportation Secretary.

    https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-rahm-emanuel-cabinets-chicago-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-63b287d9701f7d1a6f8ccaafacb170a8

    1. We have those here. They ride two abreast with one on the white paint meaning I still have to move over. Obnoxious assholes.

    2. Interstate bike lanes, ftw.

      1. You know who else really liked freeways?

        1. Jim Morrison

        2. Aretha Franklin

  32. GODDAM IT!

    Stop worrying about case rates. You test more, you get more cases. Why is that SO FUCKING HARD to understand?!?

    You people were screaming like crazy for more testing, saying without testing, we can’t know infection rates. You weren’t so stupid as to say that the absence of tests showed no infections. Why are you so stupid now as to say that increased case reports from increased testing has any significance at all?

    If the cops stopped issuing speeding tickets, would you be so stupid as to say no one was speeding?

    And you want more donations for this kind of stupidity.

    1. exactly. deaths from the virus have dropped from the peak and remain steady despite the rise in cases. hmmmmmmm

      1. You might want to check on that. Daily deaths is rising quite rapidly. From less than 1000/day average in mid October, to 1500/day average in mid november, and rising still.

        https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths

        1. Uh, you do realize that chart shows it dropping off from a peak 6 days ago, right? Unless a drop-off from a peak equals “rising still” in some new language we haven’t discovered.

          1. The death counts are not fully tallied for about 2 weeks. The most recent days will always have lower numbers until they are fully updated. Also check multi day averages to smooth them out.

            1. You literally said “rising still” when your own chart shows a dip.

    2. all this.

  33. “Senate Republicans are instead trying to negotiate an alternative that would combine multiple bills aimed at reforming the law, including the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act and Wicker’s Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, a Hill source familiar with the matter told Axios.

    I maintain that the primary effect of repealing Section 230 will be to force every social media company to comply with a forthcoming consent decree, which is the primary objective of almost every antitrust action.

    I haven’t read Wicker’s Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, but IF IF IF it does anything like what it sounds, it might be better than an outright appeal of Section 230.

    Forcing all social media companies to tolerate the speech of conservatives may not be libertarian, but it’s far better than the consent decree, where we’re currently headed, which would effectively require all social media companies to ban the speech of conservatives.

    Banning Section 230 is a means to requiring all social media companies to sign onto a consent decree (in exchange for immunity) that requires them to take down any comments that oppose abortion because that’s misogynist, supports building a wall because that’s xenophobic, opposes gay marriage because that’s homophobic, and opposes affirmative action because that’s racist.

    In addition to banning that kind of “hate speech”, they also intend to ban “conspiracy theories”, like the suggestion that Hunter Biden is a crook, and “violent threats”, like support for the Second Amendment on the basis that we need to be armed in case it ever becomes necessary to defend ourselves against or overthrow a tyrannical U.S. government.

    Once again, a bill that requires social media platforms to tolerate speech they don’t want on their own property is by no means libertarian, but the consent decree Biden plans to negotiate with Facebook and Google (and Facebook and Google want to sign) is all about purging conservative voices from public discourse.

    If it’s anything like the consent decree in which the five largest tobacco companies willingly signed away their right to advertise in exchange for limited liability for their products, it will feature a clause which allows other companies to sign onto the consent decree in exchange for limited liability as well. In the case of tobacco, every other tobacco company in the U.S. was eventually forced to sign to protect themselves from lawsuits, and the same thing will happen to every social media company in the U.S. if and when Section 230 is kicked out from under them, and they’re forced to forced to grab onto the consent decree to keep themselves from hanging.

    Protecting the speech of conservatives through an act like this may be justified under these circumstances and may be even desirable from a libertarian perspective as a superior alternative to what the Biden administration is planning to do.

    1. Good heavens Ken. Once again you are trapped in the false dichotomy between choosing between Team Red’s plan and Team Blue’s plan. Maybe, just maybe, both plans suck and shouldn’t be endorsed at all.

      I have no idea what this consent decree is that you’re talking about. I’ll take your word for it that it will probably be bad. But I do know what Wicker’s Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act is about.

      https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/9/wicker-graham-blackburn-introduce-bill-to-modify-section-230-and-empower-consumers-online

      It would take away a platform’s ability to decide for itself what content it would like to have *on its own platform*, and replace it with a list of only government-approved reasons for when a platform can take down content on its own site. It is COMPLETELY unlibertarian for a number of reasons, most importantly being that it is trying to dictate to private property owners how they may use their own property! This is true not just for Google and Facebook, but also for the little guy running a hobbyist forum. It is ridiculous.

      So no let’s not side with Team Red because you think it is better than Team Blue. They’re both sounding like they are going to be very bad on this issue.

      1. Twitter, Facebook, Tik Tok, reason.com — they didn’t built that. The people who created those social media sites have no right to decide what content they host.

        1. But they totes have a right to be preemptively protected from liability!

          1. Section 230 is an example of a well-made law: uniform, simple, short and to the point, and solves a real problem: separating liability for what the website’s owners said from liability for user-provided content.

    2. On my first read of the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, I find it to be less than awful.

      “The Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act would:

      Clarify when Section 230’s liability protections apply to instances where online platforms choose to restrict access to certain types of content;

      Condition the content moderation liability shield on an objective reasonableness standard. In order to be protected from liability, a tech company may only restrict access to content on its platform where it has “an objectively reasonable belief” that the content falls within a certain, specified category;

      Remove “otherwise objectionable” and replace it with concrete terms, including “promoting terrorism,” content that is determined to be “unlawful,” and content that promotes “self-harm.”

      Clarify that the definition of “information content provider” includes instances in which a person or entity editorializes or affirmatively and substantively modifies the content created or developed by another person or entity but does not include mere changes to format, layout, or basic appearance of such content.

      https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/9/wicker-graham-blackburn-introduce-bill-to-modify-section-230-and-empower-consumers-online

      Not good, but better than the consent decree we’re slouching towards at the moment.

      1. Maybe we shouldn’t settle for whatever Team Red or Team Blue are offering at the moment.

      2. You’re right; I read the link you provided and it does look better. Personally I’d take out everything but “illegal” because the other categories are subject to very broad interpretation and should already be covered under the removal of illegal content.

        But these are privately-run and privately-financed forums. The First Amendment addresses government incursions on free speech. If the government inserts itself into the relationship between people who choose to participate in a privately-run forum and the forum itself, doesn’t this potentially become a Constitutional issue?

        Ultimately the same might occur with the consent decree to which you referred, but I haven’t read it so I don’t know.

        The courts might be our biggest ally here.

        1. “The First Amendment addresses government incursions on free speech. If the government inserts itself into the relationship between people who choose to participate in a privately-run forum and the forum itself, doesn’t this potentially become a Constitutional issue?”

          The question is whether the platforms in question need to answer in court for the things they do. They can still do what they want. It’s just that they won’t have protection from liability for it necessarily.

          Meanwhile, there is no good reason why third parties should be responsible for what other people write on their platforms anyway. The whole point is to protect these platforms from frivolous lawsuits.

          The alternative, a consent decree arising from the antitrust cases is likely to be far worse. The reason the government coming in and telling the tobacco companies that they can’t advertise anymore isn’t a First Amendment issue is because they signed onto the consent decree willingly (or so the theory goes). Again, there, the question was about escaping liability.

          The point is that the sure to come consent decree (which is the goal of pretty much ever antitrust action) is likely to be awful for free speech. The Democrats and Biden have made it clear what they want from the social media companies, which boils down to banning what I outlined as “hate speech”, “conspiracy theories”, and “violent threats”, and now that Biden’s (instead of Trump’s) Justice Department will be negotiating the consent decree, we should expect it to follow their preferences.

          Meanwhile, the big social media companies themselves–Facebook, Twitter, Google–are all begging for rules that look more or less exactly what the progressives want them to be. They want to use the sure to come consent decree as a means to rent seek–and make any future contenders abide by the same rules in the consent decree that the Democrats want. The way to do that is to withdraw their liability protections by repealing Section 230 and then make joining the consent decree open to anybody. That way, every social media company will need to choose between suffering a never ending deluge of lawsuits or abide by the terms of the consent decree that Facebook, Google, and Twitter signed onto.

          If The Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act preserves Section 230’s immunity from lawsuits over content written by third parties it is the superior option compared to repealing Section 230. Unfortunately, the option where there is a consent decree negotiated by the Trump administration went out the window when Biden “won” the election.

          1. Thanks for the explanation. But I do see a problem comparing this consent decree to the one tobacco companies signed. They forfeited their own freedom of speech in a specific context – advertising. They can still express opinions about tobacco policy and whatever else they may want, I assume. Here, wouldn’t the social media companies be forfeiting the public’s free speech upon the demand of the government? I’d hope that wouldn’t pass judicial muster.

            1. There may be an argument to make that by killing off all the legal avenues to say these things, they’re infringing on a customer’s right to free speech. But you still have the right to say what you want on your own property. You can even start your own instance on a service like Mastodon.

              I doubt the courts will object to a consent decree on behalf of users of that service. Facebook and Google will get the consent decree they want, and as parties to the antitrust action, if they don’t object to the consent decree, the courts probably won’t object on their behalf. The courts didn’t really stick up for third parties when Section 230 was in place, and I doubt that logic will change when the controlling authority is a consent decree rather than a law like Section 230.

              Tobacco advertising isn’t the only example of parties giving away their First Amendment rights in a consent decree, too. The consent decree that broke the studio system in Hollywood also would seem to violate the rights of theater owners and the studios in various ways. If the studios consented, that’s pretty much the end of the discussion. I don’t think anybody objected on the basis that movie goers weren’t being allowed to see the movies they wanted. You don’t have a right to dictate to the studios what kind of movies they make or where they’re shown.

              We can make a case for these things being the way we want them to be. I can rationalize the courts protecting the speech of third parties on these platforms, but whether that actually happens is another story. I don’t think it will happen at the consent decree level anyway. At some point users may sue the government or the platforms for acting in accordance with the consent decree, but their standing will be an issue. We just don’t have a right to use other people’s property without their consent.

              Start your own website or register on Mastodon.

              1. Believe me, neither way is the way I want this to be. Section 230 should have been left alone before FOSTA in 2018. That law, opposed by the Justice Department, has actually made it harder to catch sex traffickers. But it was supported by virtually every politician on both sides. So, I really see no great friends here on either the right or the left. That’s why I say the courts may be our only one. If not, you’re right, set up your own website or just keep your mouth shut. Welcome to the future.

  34. “The new coronavirus infected people in the U.S. in mid-December 2019, a few weeks before it was officially identified in China and about a month earlier than public health authorities found the first U.S. case, according to a government study published Monday.”

    Well, damn. Communist China lied to us? And the rest of the world?

    “”People with untreated mental illnesses are 16 times more likely than other civilians to be killed during an encounter with police,” notes Laura Williamson at USA Today. How do we work to change that?”

    Oh, I don’t know; maybe provide safe hospitals where they can be treated without putting the general population at risk? Any chance at all that would work?

    1. Oh, I don’t know; maybe provide safe hospitals where they can be treated without putting the general population at risk?

      Surely you’re not implying that the insane asylums should be reopened? That would be “cruel.” It’s much more humane to let the mentally ill roam the streets homeless, pissing and shitting everywhere and leaving used syringes all over the place while their mental state deteriorates into a downward spiral of drug addiction and insanity. /sarc

      1. And stabbing social workers…

    2. Hmm. And what do we call hospitals for people that have to be treated against their will?

      1. New York Nursing Homes?


  35. Yikes:

    US coronavirus cases by month in 2020:

    Now do deaths. (Hint: not spiking)

    1. Maybe someone else knows how to read a chart, and won’t be misled by your disinformation.

      https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths

  36. the Eat at Joe’s guy putting a French Laundry sign up is fucking beautiful.

  37. Another great Roundup, ENB. I donated just so we could keep getting great Roundups. Keep spreading the libertarian message girl, you’re a rockstar. Doing god’s work, well if he actually existed, that is.

  38. Il Forno, you’re fucked. But can I get some of that risotto first?

  39. ENB – Thank you for quoting Coleman Hughes. More of this please. Less NYT, Vox and never Matt Yglesias.

  40. https://twitter.com/dougducey/status/1333603735855976450?s=21

    “Arizona didn’t explore or experiment this year.”

    1. How is it not outright fraud for Republicans to keep holding these party events and calling them “hearings”.

  41. https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1333535486690910210?s=21

    “One of the witnesses in Sidney Powell’s new Michigan lawsuit says in a declaration he thinks there’s something fishy about election returns in Edison County, MI. Thing is, there is no Edison County in Michigan.”

  42. https://news.yahoo.com/u-justice-department-found-no-200212104.html

    Barr just told AP the DoJ has found no widespread voter fraud. Reportedly, he has currently been summoned to the White House, where presumably he is receiving a dressing down and a firing.

  43. Here we go again as government designated free speech means we will be controlled by the control freaks.

  44. Private entities can moderate (read censor) their customer’s speech…or better way to saying it..FB can discriminate in their offering (which is just an electronic bulletin board when you think about it). Do we allow phone companies to listen to our conversations and cut off our service if they don’t like what we are saying? Of course not. Social Media firms have to allow free speech period. If you threaten someone using FB then you are liable not FB. As for the Defense Bill…I can’t think of any more important defense in that of my natural rights. FB/Twitter/Google are acting like soverign nations at war with our Bill of Rights…they need to be brought to heel…broken up and new management if necessary but to start they should not be able to censor or discriminate in the services (speech) of their customers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.