[SR2Z]

> Tech companies have demonstrated a very clear liberal bias (which in itself isn't a bad thing necessarily).

The bias here is that the election has concluded with a clear winner in accordance with state law and the Constitution, and one man is using their platforms to make people doubt the integrity of the election.

Given how difficult it is to build trust in democracy and how easy it is to collapse it, I think that these companies would be irresponsible to continue providing a megaphone for these claims.

Alternative sites dedicated to the people who feel like they are "under attack" fail to launch because it turns out that catering to these people leads to nothing but misinformation, racism, and content that is either borderline or outright child pornography.

My 2c on this issue is that we will not resolve this situation by accommodating conspiracy theories and racism. Instead, the only way that we can reconcile these two groups of people is by ensuring that everyone sees the same news - recommenders that have partitioned the world in half need to be done away with, even if it reduces user engagement.

[nickpp]

That "one man" still has access to the nuclear launch codes. But he can’t tweet anymore.

[kortilla]

> The bias here is that the election has concluded with a clear winner in accordance with state law and the Constitution, and one man is using their platforms to make people doubt the integrity of the election.

Yes, and because of the partisanship it’s mainly liberals that don’t want to take claims of election fraud very seriously.

When Trump won in 2016 there were claims of fraud for that in addition to claims of support from Russian hacks into voting machines. None of these were taken down.

[chillwaves]

> don’t want to take claims of election fraud very seriously.

There has been no evidence to support any of the claims being made about systemic election fraud.

Zero. What is there to take seriously?

> When Trump won in 2016 there were claims of fraud for that in addition to claims of support from Russian hacks into voting machines. None of these were taken down.

I don't think those ideas were mainstream at all on the left, and even if they were, they weren't being made by people in positions of power. There's a difference between someone anon on the internet claiming fraud (because that's meaningless) vs the sitting president doing so.

I don't call Barack Obama spending the time between Nov and Jan drumming up support for an insurrection against the government. Can you show me where that happened?

I don't recall Hillary Clinton ever making the claim of election fraud, or any elected official saying those things.

Right now you have the majority of Republicans in the House making those kind of claims, in addition to the President and several Senators. The fact you would equate the two shows you are too deeply biased to talk neutrally on this subject.