Clinton was about as much of a McGovern as is possible. She's popular within the party and hated outside of the party. Plus, She lost to Trump, and Trump didn't even know what he was doing. If the "steps" didn't stop Clinton, then the steps HURT getting electable candidate.

Also, I'll stop telling the DNC what to do when at least one of two things happens:
1. They stop taking tax dollars from me to fund their party
2. We adopt an electoral system that practically allows for more than two parties.

Until then, they should be treated as a de facto part of the government, and should be criticized as such.

Those would help as well, but corruption within the DNC is a vulnerability. If they cease to be corrupt, then these methods become ineffective.

I gave them credit. They've moved to "less awful," a major upgrade from "OHGODOHGODKILLITWITHFIRE." They don't get to the point of actual praise until they can make it through at least a year without having to remove an account that should have never been available on an end-user product.

Yes, the direction the code is moving in is an improvement, but that's not good, that's less awful. But the fact that there were seven backdoor accounts to remove is a huge problem.

No, it was called "The Emperor's New Groove."

The insecure service run by Wisconsin could be reached from internet addresses based in Russia, which has become notorious for seeking to influence U.S. elections. Kentucky's was accessible from other Eastern European countries.

These could also be reached from internet addresses based in any other country, because it's facing the internet and poorly secured.

The number of people on voter rolls doesn't change anything, and meatbag impersonation is ineffective and stupidly easy to catch, which is why it's so rare. There are TONS of ACTUAL problems with our electoral system, the chief of which is that we have a system that protects the two party system, but I haven't seen the GOP ever offer a solution to a problem that exists in the real world.

I will agree that, in theory, nuclear would be optimal. Unfortunately, I feel that there is mounting evidence that we are too much uncivilized savages at this point to handle nuclear power. We're too greedy,, too petty, and too myopic to give nuclear power the kind of attention span needed for responsible usage, and irresponsible usage of nuclear power is very dangerous.

Oh, a Voight-Kampff test. I can't possibly see any downsides to this...

I'm not saying that you shouldn't prepare for such a scenario, I'm saying that such a scenario is going to be rare enough in Arizona that it should be treated as an edge case. Edge cases are important, but you don't design the entire system around them. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be backups, but that's the appropriate role for natural gas in this case: as a backup.

He speaks for those that want a habitable planet.

And you think that the entire electrical grid for the state should be built around an extreme edge case?

Ask yourself this. Who is going to be more CAPABLE of the technical task of effective censorship: A HUGE corporate conglomerate or a small-to-medium municipality ISP? Yes, you shouldn't blindly trust the government, but the major ISPs have shown themselves to have no ethics at all.

I'm not sure that's true. It is true that many more people from the right have been banned, but the right is home to much more virulent rhetoric at this point. I've also seen complaints from people on the left that progressives are being banned for relatively benign things while people on the right are able to get away with extreme content. The mail bomber Sayoc threatened multiple people on Twitter, they complained to Twitter, and he never got banned. I think the process is just too random to accurately detect bias on Twitter's part.

Yeah, I think most data shows that any corporate social media bans/censorship have the independent left taking about 75% of the bans. Unfortunately, 0% of the bans are on the corporate left, so it's easier for the right wingers to pretend that it's an attack against them. Furthermore, they tend to be more public about the right-wing bans, and they blame a lot of the left-wing bans on 'Russians.'

Basically, social media giants are making the worst possible choices on their ban policy.

That is true. Ideally you'd find some way to encourage them to behave civilly but there doesn't seem to be an easy fix for that. And I don't know how you kick off the extremists without the exiled extremists gathering together somewhere else.

I would argue that we need the very opposite approach. The way you neuter extremists is to have the opposite of bubbles. Force people into having to interact and see people with drastically different viewpoints. But that's not much in line with what users want or what advertisers want. so we end up with a machine that breeds right wing extremists.

The problem is that Gab is filling a niche that Twitter has forced open through bans, and disproportionately just that niche. Throw in the existing persecution complex of those groups and you've got a recipe for trouble, because you've created an even stronger echo chamber for the worst elements.