DNC leak

[Vedilia]

Woah, all the evidence over there, I can't handle it.

Obama's presidency saw the collapse of Syria, opening a load of diplomatic opportunities for Putin in a time where the West is desperately trying to isolate him. Obama has been a phlegmatic, irresolute blockhead pursuing overly optimistic and protocol solutions to crises that require either unpopular or very straightforward measures. Clinton is an extension of this mentality and her theoretical presidency would plunge the world deeper into a crisis, stacking the odds ever more in favour of strongmen like Putin who don't hesitate to use military options or impose their will when they see a threat. It's the democrats' passive-aggressiveness that benefits Putin more than anything else.

Er? Obama can be blamed for Syria?

Partly at least.
I mean, if you consider "he had power to influence Syria's future and (did not) use it in such a manner that it resulted in the present situation" something blameworthy.

[Bulgar Rouge]

Woah, all the evidence over there, I can't handle it.

Obama's presidency saw the collapse of Syria, opening a load of diplomatic opportunities for Putin in a time where the West is desperately trying to isolate him. Obama has been a phlegmatic, irresolute blockhead pursuing overly optimistic and protocol solutions to crises that require either unpopular or very straightforward measures. Clinton is an extension of this mentality and her theoretical presidency would plunge the world deeper into a crisis, stacking the odds ever more in favour of strongmen like Putin who don't hesitate to use military options or impose their will when they see a threat. It's the democrats' passive-aggressiveness that benefits Putin more than anything else.

So you're saying that Russia is strong because the Democrats don't think bombing the Middle East into glass is the best idea ever?

I'm saying it's stronger because the current administration created this clusterfuck by putting fuel into the fire there. The better option would have been to pressure/work with the Syrian government into stopping its excessive use of force and investigate it in the first days of the riots. Instead, they went to full retard mode with all that Libya-style "illegitimate regime" bullshit and subsequently supported completely disorganised and aimless armed groups. If Obama cared more about common sense than human rights, Putin wouldn't have an entire air fleet down there now.

[Vedilia]

So you're saying that Russia is strong because the Democrats don't think bombing the Middle East into glass is the best idea ever?

I'm saying it's stronger because the current administration created this clusterfuck by putting fuel into the fire there. The better option would have been to pressure/work with the Syrian government into stopping its excessive use of force and investigate it in the first days of the riots. Instead, they went to full retard mode with all that Libya-style "illegitimate regime" bullshit and subsequently supported completely disorganised and aimless armed groups. If Obama cared more about common sense than human rights, Putin wouldn't have an entire air fleet down there now.

We should've had an air fleet deployed instead.

[Bulgar Rouge]

I'm saying it's stronger because the current administration created this clusterfuck by putting fuel into the fire there. The better option would have been to pressure/work with the Syrian government into stopping its excessive use of force and investigate it in the first days of the riots. Instead, they went to full retard mode with all that Libya-style "illegitimate regime" bullshit and subsequently supported completely disorganised and aimless armed groups. If Obama cared more about common sense than human rights, Putin wouldn't have an entire air fleet down there now.

We should've had an air fleet deployed instead.

Or maybe an air fleet would not have been necessary at all. If, you know, Obama's administration hadn't actively pushed for regime change by proxy.

[Major-Tom]

Nothing really implicates Hillary. The Bernie Bros were right not to trust Debbie Wassermann Schultz and she has been forced to resign. So long as Hillary keeps her distance from DWS her election is all but assured.

Bout time that clown resigns. Her hairdo is tough enough to stomach, but her corription, attitude, and much more is even harder to stomach.

[Vedilia]

We should've had an air fleet deployed instead.

Or maybe an air fleet would not have been necessary at all. If, you know, Obama's administration hadn't actively pushed for regime change by proxy.

That's the whole point! By pushing for regime change we ensure two more decades of funtime in another country!

Nothing really implicates Hillary. The Bernie Bros were right not to trust Debbie Wassermann Schultz and she has been forced to resign. So long as Hillary keeps her distance from DWS her election is all but assured.

Bout time that clown resigns. Her hairdo is tough enough to stomach, but her corription, attitude, and much more is even harder to stomach.

I thought she was hot.

[Gravlen]

The fact is I think this whole thing has been an example of a bigger problem with political discourse at the moment?

I mean, why are people so quick to scream censorship, or bribery, or conspiracy, simply because something is happening that does not gel with our worldview? Whether it's the neoliberals, the radical progressives, the alt-right or the Illuminati, it seems like everything we don't like we do some sort of mental gymnastics to blame on them.

And quite frankly it's stifling debate when as soon as we've done that we pull out the ear muffs and the blinkers and intentionally shut ourselves off from anything that might challenge our interpretation of events.

I've been wondering the same. I mean, whatever happened to Ockham's razor? Why are people so eager to come to complicated and complex conclusions (based on a boatload of assumptions) when there's plausible alternatives which are both simpler and more straightforward (and relies on fewer assumptions)?

But then again, when people can't even be arsed to make even the slightest bit of effort at verifying the outrageous claims they come across on Twitter or Reddit, it shouldn't come as a surprise. People want to be outraged, they want to expose the Big Conspiracy, they want to believe.

This isn't just an Internet thing either, I encounter it in real life as well. When things go against some people, they find comfort in the idea that some big, unseen force is conspiring against them. It's not that they simply don't meet the requirements for whatever they want, no, someone is maliciously trying to make their lives worse and purposefully targeting them. This would never have occurred if [political party X] was in power, or if people weren't conspiring against them because [of their race / they wrote a letter to the newspaper / whatever reason].

[Alvecia]

Has there been any word from Twitter themselves?
There's this Tweet from the Twitter PR and a quote from a spokesman sourced by HuffPo

But Twitter says it uses an algorithm to automatically identify and promote trending topics, and remove ones that are no longer trending.

“As elections approach in countries around the world we hear conspiracy theories about political trend manipulation, from activists on the left, the center, and right,” a Twitter spokesman told The Huffington Post. “But the actual reason a topic doesn’t trend is because its popularity isn’t as widespread as supporters believe.”

Is there anywhere else that can corroborate, given that HuffPo gets treated like the Fox News of the left?

[Alvecia]

The fact is I think this whole thing has been an example of a bigger problem with political discourse at the moment?

I mean, why are people so quick to scream censorship, or bribery, or conspiracy, simply because something is happening that does not gel with our worldview? Whether it's the neoliberals, the radical progressives, the alt-right or the Illuminati, it seems like everything we don't like we do some sort of mental gymnastics to blame on them.

And quite frankly it's stifling debate when as soon as we've done that we pull out the ear muffs and the blinkers and intentionally shut ourselves off from anything that might challenge our interpretation of events.

I've been wondering the same. I mean, whatever happened to Ockham's razor? Why are people so eager to come to complicated and complex conclusions (based on a boatload of assumptions) when there's plausible alternatives which are both simpler and more straightforward (and relies on fewer assumptions)?

But then again, when people can't even be arsed to make even the slightest bit of effort at verifying the outrageous claims they come across on Twitter or Reddit, it shouldn't come as a surprise. People want to be outraged, they want to expose the Big Conspiracy, they want to believe.

This isn't just an Internet thing either, I encounter it in real life as well. When things go against some people, they find comfort in the idea that some big, unseen force is conspiring against them. It's not that they simply don't meet the requirements for whatever they want, no, someone is maliciously trying to make their lives worse and purposefully targeting them. This would never have occurred if [political party X] was in power, or if people weren't conspiring against them because [of their race / they wrote a letter to the newspaper / whatever reason].

It's been studied, I believe, and it was found that those who believe in one conspiracy are significantly more likely to believe other unrelated conspiracies. It's a state of mind.

[Mericoa]

The Left censoring things they don't like nothing new here.

[Community Values]

No, don't force corporations to allow free speech. There will always be another company that allows what other companies won't- I'm sure 4chan isn't censoring the DNC leaks. Competition n' stuff.

[Vassenor]

The Left censoring things they don't like nothing new here.

So a tag not trending for as long as people want is censorship now?

[Liriena]

The Left censoring things they don't like nothing new here.

So a tag not trending for as long as people want is censorship now?

I'm so proud of Western civilization right now. :^)

[Community Values]

The Left businesses that have terms and conditions that a member must follow if they want to continue being on that site censoring things they don't like nothing new here.

ftfy

[Imperializt Russia]

No, don't force corporations to allow free speech. There will always be another company that allows what other companies won't- I'm sure 4chan isn't censoring the DNC leaks. Competition n' stuff.

I would argue that A, 4chan isn't in competition with Twitter, and that B, an image board is a relatively closed space, compared to a social media service like Twitter and Facebook, expressly intended to reach wider audiences.

[Community Values]

No, don't force corporations to allow free speech. There will always be another company that allows what other companies won't- I'm sure 4chan isn't censoring the DNC leaks. Competition n' stuff.

I would argue that A, 4chan isn't in competition with Twitter, and that B, an image board is a relatively closed space, compared to a social media service like Twitter and Facebook, expressly intended to reach wider audiences.

4chan was just an example. If Twitter censored the DNC leaks, but Facebook didn't, then it makes next to no difference. People would just go to Facebook to discuss the DNC leaks. If Twitter wants to have a biased site, then who is the government to go in and force them to become a fair, inclusive one?

[Gravlen]

I mean if you want to dilute both arguments it's:
a cake vs. a hashtag

Well when you put it like that, the cake is indeed more important.

So how about:

The ability of people to participate in a country as full and equal citizens without discrimination denying them access to sections of the economy, and the ability of people to participate in democracy and political discourse without it being controlled by large corporations for their benefit.

Hm.
They both sound kind of important.

Why haven't we nationalized all of the newspapers yet? As well as all the news channels?

[Alvecia]

Looking into trending algorithms it seems that one of the biggest factors about whether or not something is trending is the rate of increase in mentions.
So for example, if something goes from not being talked about, to everyone talking about it, then it would make it onto the trending list.
If, however, it then maintained that level of interest, it may very well fall off the list, because there has been no dramatic increase in mentions.

This seems entirely consistent with what has happened here.
The hastag was trending initially because of the sudden increase of people talking about it.
Presumably the numbers then leveled out, or even dropped a little after it had been out there for some time. As such, it fell off the trending list.
People noticed this and threw a big hubabaloo about how Twitter was censoring it, and as a result, the dramatic increase in people talking about it again, albeit in a different context, caused it to rise back up to the trending list, which people interpreted as Twitter putting it back up there.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would argue that A, 4chan isn't in competition with Twitter, and that B, an image board is a relatively closed space, compared to a social media service like Twitter and Facebook, expressly intended to reach wider audiences.

4chan was just an example. If Twitter censored the DNC leaks, but Facebook didn't, then it makes next to no difference. People would just go to Facebook to discuss the DNC leaks. If Twitter wants to have a biased site, then who is the government to go in and force them to become a fair, inclusive one?

Facebook blocked the links citing user's safety, as Wikileaks is apparently known to host viruses. Given that Facebook's audience probably consists of people best described as... not tech-savvy, that's fair.

Twitter claims it didn't censor anything. There's no actual evidence, to my knowledge, that it was censored. Except that it didn't trend and therefore it MUST be censorship.

[Unified Governments]

Twitter is in the tank for the Democrats. Is this news?

[Hirota]

Except that it didn't trend

It DID trend. https://twitter.com/KateKisset/status/756661336373768192

[Alvecia]

Except that it didn't trend

It DID trend. https://twitter.com/KateKisset/status/756661336373768192

For a little while at least

[Imperializt Russia]

Except that it didn't trend

It DID trend. https://twitter.com/KateKisset/status/756661336373768192

And then stopped.

[Gravlen]

It DID trend. https://twitter.com/KateKisset/status/756661336373768192

And then stopped.

CENSORSHIP!!1!

[Xadufell]

Not sure if someone already pointed this out but Wasserman Schults is to resign.