Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook(techtransparencyproject.org)
techtransparencyproject.org
Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook
https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/capitol-attack-was-months-making-facebook
953 comments
It was planned for months, openly on Facebook in plain view of everybody. Remember that when politicians call for more intrusive surveillance in response.
Yeah, it's weird that the discussion has centered around censorship, rather than like... why didn't law enforcement shut this down sooner? Or at least properly prepare for it?
Far-right terrorism in the US has never really been taken seriously. No one took them seriously. Until the Capitol was attacked.
The Feds are starting to roll up high ranking militia members, so hopefully they learned their lesson this time.
The Feds are starting to roll up high ranking militia members, so hopefully they learned their lesson this time.
Far-right terrorism in the US has never really been taken seriously. No one took them seriously.
That's not really true.
Far-right terror was taken very seriously in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing. The FBI hired 500 agents specifically to focus on domestic terrorism [0], particularly the then-new militia movement. Virtually every state and federal law enforcement agency established a domestic terror unit. Through continuous effort they'd pretty much quashed the militia movement by 2004, despite the shift of federal resources to the Global War on Terror post-9/11. However, far-right militias surged again in the Obama years [2].
(Much further back, U.S. Grant used the Army to crack down on the Klan [3]. Unfortunately, his successor Rutherford B. Hayes effectively ended Reconstruction and rolled back much of this progress.)
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120210125747/http://news.bbc.c... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110623153230/http://www.rickro... [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/08/148217754... [3] https://www.historynet.com/grant-takes-klan.htm
That's not really true.
Far-right terror was taken very seriously in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing. The FBI hired 500 agents specifically to focus on domestic terrorism [0], particularly the then-new militia movement. Virtually every state and federal law enforcement agency established a domestic terror unit. Through continuous effort they'd pretty much quashed the militia movement by 2004, despite the shift of federal resources to the Global War on Terror post-9/11. However, far-right militias surged again in the Obama years [2].
(Much further back, U.S. Grant used the Army to crack down on the Klan [3]. Unfortunately, his successor Rutherford B. Hayes effectively ended Reconstruction and rolled back much of this progress.)
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120210125747/http://news.bbc.c... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110623153230/http://www.rickro... [2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/08/148217754... [3] https://www.historynet.com/grant-takes-klan.htm
I apologize for being imprecise. Far-right terrorism hasn't been taken seriously until a far-right terrorist actually commits violence. Then government is vigilant for a couple of years and goes back to ignoring them.
Far-right terror was taken seriously after the OKC bombing. But the far-right terrorist threat had been steadily increasing for three years at that point. Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege contributed to a surge in far-right militias and other terrorist groups. It took someone driving a truck bomb and killing hundreds of people (in an attempt to spark a race war) to take far-right terrorism seriously.
Far-right terror was taken seriously after the OKC bombing. But the far-right terrorist threat had been steadily increasing for three years at that point. Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege contributed to a surge in far-right militias and other terrorist groups. It took someone driving a truck bomb and killing hundreds of people (in an attempt to spark a race war) to take far-right terrorism seriously.
In fact, the feds had besieged Ruby Ridge in the first place due to Randy Weaver's far-right connections. They wanted to flip him as an informant on the Aryan Nations [0], a white nationalist group with ties to deadly terror cells like The Order [1]. To this end, they threatened him with the weapons charge that led to the the siege at Ruby Ridge, and ultimately to the shooting deaths of Samuel and Vicky Weaver. So far-right terror was taken seriously pre-OKC, but afterwards it was taken very seriously.
The 2017 PBS documentary "Oklahoma City" was my intro to this subject matter [2]. Excellent film, gripping presentation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#Development
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(white_supremacist_g...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/oklahoma-c...
The 2017 PBS documentary "Oklahoma City" was my intro to this subject matter [2]. Excellent film, gripping presentation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#Development
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_(white_supremacist_g...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/oklahoma-c...
Another way of looking at it is that the federal government entrapped Randy Weaver on weapons charges when he didn’t want to do their leg work, and when he didn’t show up to court, they killed his entire family.
In other words, taking terrorism “seriously” sometimes is done in ways that involve killing innocent people and inciting more blowback in the long run.
In other words, taking terrorism “seriously” sometimes is done in ways that involve killing innocent people and inciting more blowback in the long run.
Yep, Ruby Ridge and Waco were fiascos which led directly to the bombing of the Murrah Building. McVeigh explicitly called out those events as his motivation for the bombing.
The lessons learned were apparent in the government’s approach to the 2016 wildlife refuge standoff. Rather than dash in guns-blazing, the government simply established a perimeter and waited for the occupiers to run out of Clif Bars. Took the ringleaders into custody with a minimum of force when they attempted to leave. Of the 30-40 occupiers, only one was shot as he reached for his gun. No law enforcement officers were harmed. World of difference compared to Waco, where 4 ATF officers and 82 Branch Davidians were killed.
The lessons learned were apparent in the government’s approach to the 2016 wildlife refuge standoff. Rather than dash in guns-blazing, the government simply established a perimeter and waited for the occupiers to run out of Clif Bars. Took the ringleaders into custody with a minimum of force when they attempted to leave. Of the 30-40 occupiers, only one was shot as he reached for his gun. No law enforcement officers were harmed. World of difference compared to Waco, where 4 ATF officers and 82 Branch Davidians were killed.
>and when he didn’t show up to court, they killed his entire family.
This is true, but it misses the nuance that the letter ordering him to attend court had the wrong date listed on it. Makes the assault on the family even more egregious.
This is true, but it misses the nuance that the letter ordering him to attend court had the wrong date listed on it. Makes the assault on the family even more egregious.
They took far right terrorism seriously in the 1870s. They more or less stamped out the (original) KKK while simultaneously giving the south the requisite autonomy to enact Jim Crow. Obviously Jim Crow doesn't square with our modern view but at the time the lack of some systemic way to keep the black people down was a serious grievance that a lot of people had. The government cracked down on the extremists who were starting to get off the porch while simultaneously extending an olive branch to the people who sympathized with them (and throwing black people under the bus in the process).
The same thing happened in the civil rights era. When it looked like things might get serious the .gov caved to the MLK types to prevent the Malcom X types from gaining further sympathy from the masses.
Fast forward to the 1990s and you get the ATF trilogy. Of course the magnitude of the problem was smaller than the KKK so the reaction and adjustments were smaller. On one hand the FBI cracked down on all the extremist groups (cue jokes about how the modern KKK is just a recreation club for FBI agents) but at the same time you'll notice that when the Bundy Ranch rolled around the feds didn't just shoot everyone and botch the thing as they would had they let historical precedent be their guide. Same pattern. Crackdown on the extremists while avoiding pissing off the moderate sympathizers.
Likewise hundreds of cities are reconsidering how they allocate law enforcement and social services resources after the events of this summer while also (recently, like past month) starting to crack down on protests to prevent them from getting fiery. Same pattern.
The overarching theme is pretty clear. The government never takes people's grievances seriously until there's a "real" threat of extremists getting off the porch and causing serious problems with a large body of sympathizers to back them up.
In light of that it'll be interesting to see what if any long term changes come out of the whole capitol thing.
The same thing happened in the civil rights era. When it looked like things might get serious the .gov caved to the MLK types to prevent the Malcom X types from gaining further sympathy from the masses.
Fast forward to the 1990s and you get the ATF trilogy. Of course the magnitude of the problem was smaller than the KKK so the reaction and adjustments were smaller. On one hand the FBI cracked down on all the extremist groups (cue jokes about how the modern KKK is just a recreation club for FBI agents) but at the same time you'll notice that when the Bundy Ranch rolled around the feds didn't just shoot everyone and botch the thing as they would had they let historical precedent be their guide. Same pattern. Crackdown on the extremists while avoiding pissing off the moderate sympathizers.
Likewise hundreds of cities are reconsidering how they allocate law enforcement and social services resources after the events of this summer while also (recently, like past month) starting to crack down on protests to prevent them from getting fiery. Same pattern.
The overarching theme is pretty clear. The government never takes people's grievances seriously until there's a "real" threat of extremists getting off the porch and causing serious problems with a large body of sympathizers to back them up.
In light of that it'll be interesting to see what if any long term changes come out of the whole capitol thing.
> he government never takes people's grievances seriously until there's a "real" threat of extremists getting off the porch
I haven't noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches, and yet here we are. Women-for-equal-pay have not been observed cleaning and oiling their rifles menacingly, and yet the law was mended in their favor. And I don't think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US, but their persecution has ended all the same. You're only looking at things that became explosive, so quite naturally you will not find things that were resolved peacefully and/or timely. They still exist though, in fact they may be dominant.
It's a great comment otherwise, I enjoyed the trip down the memory lane. Looking forward to seeing you again.
I haven't noticed any gay-marriage terrorists on their porches, and yet here we are. Women-for-equal-pay have not been observed cleaning and oiling their rifles menacingly, and yet the law was mended in their favor. And I don't think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US, but their persecution has ended all the same. You're only looking at things that became explosive, so quite naturally you will not find things that were resolved peacefully and/or timely. They still exist though, in fact they may be dominant.
It's a great comment otherwise, I enjoyed the trip down the memory lane. Looking forward to seeing you again.
> I don’t think Irish or Jewish terrorism was a problem in the US
Both international terrorism (directed at the UK, but sometimes involving direct conflict with the US military) and organized crime-linked terrorism were very big things associated with the Irish in America in the 19th C.
And, on the Jewish side, more recently, Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League was a real thing.
Both international terrorism (directed at the UK, but sometimes involving direct conflict with the US military) and organized crime-linked terrorism were very big things associated with the Irish in America in the 19th C.
And, on the Jewish side, more recently, Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League was a real thing.
All of the examples you gave are of non-terroristic means of attempting to achieve the goals of a cause, where the groups involved generally lack violent extremists.
GP's point was about how they believe federal law enforcement has reacted to groups that necessarily included violent extremists, as those were the pawns for bargain to offer the opposition while reducing harm to the moderate sympathizers.
Yours appears to be a strawman argument.
GP's point was about how they believe federal law enforcement has reacted to groups that necessarily included violent extremists, as those were the pawns for bargain to offer the opposition while reducing harm to the moderate sympathizers.
Yours appears to be a strawman argument.
[deleted]
bsanr2(1)
It seems to me that the unpleasant, but unavoidable conclusion is that a significant fraction of the citizenry is sympathetic to the far right domestic terrorists.
Edit: If you think this is untrue, you have an extremely narrow filter bubble.
Edit: If you think this is untrue, you have an extremely narrow filter bubble.
But in 2009 Homeland Security published a report on the domestic terror threat. Republicans reacted badly. The agency backtracked and eventually closed the division.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-ang...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-ang...
They have not taken this threat seriously. You specifically mentioned militias, but the domestic terror threat is not just militias.
Look at this case for example. He has left many threatening voicemails to congress members over several years, including while under probation, and the FBI just told him to knock it off without arresting him. So he kept doing it. They only finally arrested him after the terrorist attack on the capitol.
>According to the complaint, Capriotti repeatedly called multiple Congressional offices in Washington, D.C., between October 2019 and January 2020 and left “disturbing, anonymous messages” that often included “profanity along with derogatory remarks concerning the race, religion, political affiliation, or physical appearance” of some members of Congress.
>FBI agents located Capriotti and interviewed him last February, according to the complaint, which states that Capriotti admitted making the calls but insisted he was “just f---ing with them” and “didn’t mean any ill will.”
>The agents advised Capriotti to stop making the calls, but phone records showed he continued to do so between February and November 2020. A series of voicemails Capriotti allegedly made to Congressional offices in November and December were then detailed in the complaint.
https://news.wttw.com/2021/01/12/chicago-heights-man-charged...
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/1/12/22227466/feds-a...
Look at this case for example. He has left many threatening voicemails to congress members over several years, including while under probation, and the FBI just told him to knock it off without arresting him. So he kept doing it. They only finally arrested him after the terrorist attack on the capitol.
>According to the complaint, Capriotti repeatedly called multiple Congressional offices in Washington, D.C., between October 2019 and January 2020 and left “disturbing, anonymous messages” that often included “profanity along with derogatory remarks concerning the race, religion, political affiliation, or physical appearance” of some members of Congress.
>FBI agents located Capriotti and interviewed him last February, according to the complaint, which states that Capriotti admitted making the calls but insisted he was “just f---ing with them” and “didn’t mean any ill will.”
>The agents advised Capriotti to stop making the calls, but phone records showed he continued to do so between February and November 2020. A series of voicemails Capriotti allegedly made to Congressional offices in November and December were then detailed in the complaint.
https://news.wttw.com/2021/01/12/chicago-heights-man-charged...
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/1/12/22227466/feds-a...
The rush to call the storming of the capitol terrorism is really misplaced.
By adopting words like "terrorism" you're paving the way for an overreaching response from lawmakers and law enforcement -- something that will likely end up being used against a cause you might support, like BLM.
Firstly, nobody was terrorized. No, this wasn't "our 9/11." I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.
I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds and they should be prosecuted; the violence and property damage is inexcusable. But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.
What we need right now is de-escalation.
By adopting words like "terrorism" you're paving the way for an overreaching response from lawmakers and law enforcement -- something that will likely end up being used against a cause you might support, like BLM.
Firstly, nobody was terrorized. No, this wasn't "our 9/11." I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.
I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds and they should be prosecuted; the violence and property damage is inexcusable. But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.
What we need right now is de-escalation.
> Firstly, nobody was terrorized.
This doesn’t seem to be true. Several elected officials have expressed fear they or their family would be harmed by members of the far right, most notably Rep. Pete Meijer (R-MI), who was one of the few house republicans to certify the results of the election:
“I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families,”
He also said “That was what weighed on the colleague in mind’s conscience, and the last thing that that individual said to me, concern about the safety of that individual’s family, if that individual voted to certify the election... That is where the rhetoric has brought us. That is the degree of fear that’s been created.”
In Facebook comments, one rioter wrote: “Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in.” “We get our President or we die,” they added. “NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-s...
https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-int...
Sure seems like terrorism to me.
Now, do I think we need increased surveillance? Absolutely not, it was largely planned in public on Facebook. We just need an FBI that takes this movement’s threats more seriously. Exposing that some far right elements act like terrorists is one way of calling attention to the seriousness of the problem.
Edit: I also think the appeal that they might somehow treat BLM protestors even worse is not worth considering much. I don’t identify with any “side” that uses the threat of physical violence against elected officials to change their vote, even if they were to do it for a “good cause”. I don’t want that to be an available tool for BLM or anyone either.
This doesn’t seem to be true. Several elected officials have expressed fear they or their family would be harmed by members of the far right, most notably Rep. Pete Meijer (R-MI), who was one of the few house republicans to certify the results of the election:
“I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families,”
He also said “That was what weighed on the colleague in mind’s conscience, and the last thing that that individual said to me, concern about the safety of that individual’s family, if that individual voted to certify the election... That is where the rhetoric has brought us. That is the degree of fear that’s been created.”
In Facebook comments, one rioter wrote: “Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in.” “We get our President or we die,” they added. “NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/people-will-try-to-kill-us-s...
https://www.vox.com/2021/1/13/22229052/capitol-hill-riot-int...
Sure seems like terrorism to me.
Now, do I think we need increased surveillance? Absolutely not, it was largely planned in public on Facebook. We just need an FBI that takes this movement’s threats more seriously. Exposing that some far right elements act like terrorists is one way of calling attention to the seriousness of the problem.
Edit: I also think the appeal that they might somehow treat BLM protestors even worse is not worth considering much. I don’t identify with any “side” that uses the threat of physical violence against elected officials to change their vote, even if they were to do it for a “good cause”. I don’t want that to be an available tool for BLM or anyone either.
Millions of Americans watched the Capitol insurrection play out live on tv. That has an impact on the national psyche that's very similar to a terrorist attack. People aren't going to forget about it because we all witnessed it together. It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not
You honestly think that THE defining event of Trump's presidency is going to be the Capitol riot? You don't think it's the bungled response to coronavirus that landed us all locked up in our houses for over a year, the assassination of an Iranian leader on another sovereign's soil, the trade war with China, the tax reform bill he pushed through, the Mueller probe, the BLM protests, the "stolen" SCOTUS seats, or any number of other things he did?
You think the defining moment of his presidency is something that he only tangentially had a hand in that resulted in a couple arrests and a stolen podium?
That's a hot take.
You think the defining moment of his presidency is something that he only tangentially had a hand in that resulted in a couple arrests and a stolen podium?
That's a hot take.
How many of those other things was he impeached and subsequently condemned by the Republican floor leader in the Senate for?
None of those threatened Senate directly. They are simply protecting themselves.
I didn't realize that Moscow Mitch was the bellwether of history.
Being impeached twice is the landmark here. We're living some pretty important history as it's being written right now.
Those are slow burns. The attack on the capital was a severe jolt to our national psyche. You may not want them to be different, but they are.
abduhl(4)
To be honest I had almost forgotten about many of these events until you mentioned them again. There are just so many things going on that it's hard to fixate too much on one thing. That said, humans tend to focus on both the beginning and end of a time-frame. In this case, the Capitol raid has a clear advantage over the other things you listed.
The virus is in its own zone as far as memory is concerned. It's been going on for so long that it overshadows Trump to some extent
The virus is in its own zone as far as memory is concerned. It's been going on for so long that it overshadows Trump to some extent
> It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not
Trump's approval is not the lowest it's been during his presidency - it was lower in Dec 2017 [0], and even now at 39.2% it's almost twice that of Congress [1] at 20%.
It doesn't seem to have hurt him all that much. If you look at favorability rather than job approval, it even seems to be almost unchanged [2], only having gone from 45% to 43%. And if you give any weight to Rasmussen, they have Trump's total approval going up since the 6th, from 47% to 51% [3]!
[0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/poll-of-the-week-con...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-trump-a...
[3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/tru...
Trump's approval is not the lowest it's been during his presidency - it was lower in Dec 2017 [0], and even now at 39.2% it's almost twice that of Congress [1] at 20%.
It doesn't seem to have hurt him all that much. If you look at favorability rather than job approval, it even seems to be almost unchanged [2], only having gone from 45% to 43%. And if you give any weight to Rasmussen, they have Trump's total approval going up since the 6th, from 47% to 51% [3]!
[0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/poll-of-the-week-con...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-trump-a...
[3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/tru...
> Trump's approval is not the lowest it's been during his presidency
In the Gallup poll it is [0], in the particular weighting and aggregation used by 538 it is not.
> it's almost twice that of Congress
Congress isn't a person, it's an aggregate, for which any voter will not have had a voice in selecting 532 of 535 voting members. Comparison of Congress’s approval ratings to the President’s are meaningless, and only ever resorted to by people trying to make horrendously unpopular Presidents look more popular than they are.
> if you give any weight to Rasmussen,
You probably shouldn't; they've always had a pro-Republican house effect as a pollster matching their editorial tilt, which isn't too worrying, but they’ve pretty overtly gone into hyperpartisan mode since the election.
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/328637/last-trump-job-approval-...
In the Gallup poll it is [0], in the particular weighting and aggregation used by 538 it is not.
> it's almost twice that of Congress
Congress isn't a person, it's an aggregate, for which any voter will not have had a voice in selecting 532 of 535 voting members. Comparison of Congress’s approval ratings to the President’s are meaningless, and only ever resorted to by people trying to make horrendously unpopular Presidents look more popular than they are.
> if you give any weight to Rasmussen,
You probably shouldn't; they've always had a pro-Republican house effect as a pollster matching their editorial tilt, which isn't too worrying, but they’ve pretty overtly gone into hyperpartisan mode since the election.
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/328637/last-trump-job-approval-...
I can't discount Rasmussen completely, because their presidential polling was among the most accurate in both 2016 and 2020.
So you just get to pick and choose which polling to use?
The first one is an aggregate, the second and third were just among the top of my Google results (and CNN has been pretty biased against Trump for his whole presidency), and I do specifically call out Rasmussen.
The capitol was ransacked by a non-homogeneous group as far as I can tell. Some people were probably there just to wave some flags and take some selfies, as you suggest. Others were erecting gallows, setting bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters, breaking windows, carrying zip-tie handcuffs into the building, actively searching the building for Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, fighting with the police, and so on. (This is just the stuff we know about.)
I think it would be a stretch to call all the rioters terrorists, but I think a lot of them would fit any reasonable definition and they were well-organized, intentional, and numerous. Even if a terrorist attack is unsuccessful or does not kill or injure a large number of people that doesn't make it not terrorism. And I think there was a real risk that members of Congress could have been kidnapped, injured, or killed if things had gone a little bit differently.
I think it would be a stretch to call all the rioters terrorists, but I think a lot of them would fit any reasonable definition and they were well-organized, intentional, and numerous. Even if a terrorist attack is unsuccessful or does not kill or injure a large number of people that doesn't make it not terrorism. And I think there was a real risk that members of Congress could have been kidnapped, injured, or killed if things had gone a little bit differently.
I'm deeply saddened to see so many people on Hacker News trying so hard to downplay this.
Saying something wasn't terrorism doesn't mean it wasn't unlawful or stupid or terrible. It just means it wasn't terrorism.
The definition - 'the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims' - seems to fit the event we're discussing.
Yup, and Antifa and BLM have caused fear in Portland for political reasons as well. They lit the mayor's apartment building on fire, but were not called out as terrorists.
The media is not even handed here.
The media is not even handed here.
Yes, there is credence to the old saying: "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter".
But I really don't think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We're talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say 'yes well X group of people are also terrorists' is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.
But I really don't think we need to devolve to whataboutism here. We're talking about the actions of people storming the capitol building, to try and say 'yes well X group of people are also terrorists' is a completely moot point and an intentional deflection.
This thread started with you saddened at folks downplaying the events at the Capitol.
I'm much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere.
I suppose that's a "what about", but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.
I'm much more concerned with the media being complicit in downplaying what we both agree is domestic terrorism elsewhere.
I suppose that's a "what about", but I fear the current structures of power colluding to form narratives more than angry trumpers.
So, there's a few things to unpack here.
1. I don't (personally) agree that the 'black lives matter' protests should be considered as 'terrorism', because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it's not quite the same as 'storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election', which is undeniably a political goal. While some BLM rioters eventually did conduct what could be described as terrorist acts, it fundamentally isn't the same thing.
2. You're welcome to disagree on that point, but it's not what's being discussed in this thread.
3. Yes, media overreach is an issue, but it's not the topic of the conversation.
4. I am still sad that people are trying to downplay the issue, and not just because some people don't want to call it terrorism. People saying 'oh in the future it won't even be remembered' etc etc is also problematic as it's downplaying the event itself.
Edit: Added point 2
1. I don't (personally) agree that the 'black lives matter' protests should be considered as 'terrorism', because fundamentally they began as a protest against the systematic mistreatment of a certain race/demographic of people. While it can be viewed as political, it's not quite the same as 'storming the capital of a country to overturn the result of an election', which is undeniably a political goal. While some BLM rioters eventually did conduct what could be described as terrorist acts, it fundamentally isn't the same thing.
2. You're welcome to disagree on that point, but it's not what's being discussed in this thread.
3. Yes, media overreach is an issue, but it's not the topic of the conversation.
4. I am still sad that people are trying to downplay the issue, and not just because some people don't want to call it terrorism. People saying 'oh in the future it won't even be remembered' etc etc is also problematic as it's downplaying the event itself.
Edit: Added point 2
Thank you; I really appreciated this comment. I’m feeling much the same way, and it’s been in my mind a lot lately. I think the heart of the issue is a failure to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. People look at each thing in isolation and say, “it’s not that big a deal”, but somehow (especially surprising for folks who frequent HN) fail to see the larger patterns.
And every single BLM fear-monger here continues to ignore that violence at those protests had outside agitators in the mix: https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-...
93% of the BLM protests were peaceful [1] despite protestors numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions - compared to the tens of thousands at the capitol. The most notable violence during the BLM protests was an incident where far right extremists, members of Bugaloo boys group involved in the capitol attack, used the protests as cover to murder cops [2].
To compare the two is disingenuous.
[1] https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/boogaloo-st...
To compare the two is disingenuous.
[1] https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/boogaloo-st...
93% of meteors hitting earth are harmless.
This is not about the probability but the outcome at the tail
7% or 3% or 1% is still huge. The right number to use is 0%. Not 1% or 7% Zero. Those protests literally shut down critical stores for people in dire straits. For ex. The only pharmacy near low income seniors with limited motor ability, with the double whammy that public transport also shut down.
Cities on fire every week is not OK especially when the offenders are inmune from law enforcement.
To think that 7% is acceptable smacks of priviledge. Someone is clearly not living in the inner city, and does not know what it means to not own a car when the public transport system is halted and the only supermarket near is razed.
This is not about the probability but the outcome at the tail
7% or 3% or 1% is still huge. The right number to use is 0%. Not 1% or 7% Zero. Those protests literally shut down critical stores for people in dire straits. For ex. The only pharmacy near low income seniors with limited motor ability, with the double whammy that public transport also shut down.
Cities on fire every week is not OK especially when the offenders are inmune from law enforcement.
To think that 7% is acceptable smacks of priviledge. Someone is clearly not living in the inner city, and does not know what it means to not own a car when the public transport system is halted and the only supermarket near is razed.
Within a few blocks of where I used to live, armed “protesters” physically seized control of a police station and city park and committed four shootings—ironically, the last of these entailed the armed “security” forces misidentifying and opening fire on two black teenagers, killing one of them.
Sorry man, but the most notable violence during the BLM protests was the gangland style execution of two black teens after the "movement" had taken over six city blocks.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/shooting-at-... https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/07/seattle-times-rep... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8471219/One-man-dea...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/shooting-at-... https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/07/seattle-times-rep... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8471219/One-man-dea...
Well, just today 11 officers were injured in the MLK day protest at City Hall, NYC. The Police Commissioner Dermot Shea himself stated that this was not a peaceful protest.
What about the BLM protesters who attempted to burn down the Portland courthouse with federal officers inside ?
Why is this not actively denounced as terrorism ? https://nypost.com/2020/07/22/portland-protesters-barricade-...
What about the BLM protesters who attempted to burn down the Portland courthouse with federal officers inside ?
Why is this not actively denounced as terrorism ? https://nypost.com/2020/07/22/portland-protesters-barricade-...
BLM is protesting against systematic racism, the trumpers where trying to overturn an election.
Why would you even try to group those two things together?
How could it possibly be a problem that "the media" doesn't consider those two things equal?
Why would you even try to group those two things together?
How could it possibly be a problem that "the media" doesn't consider those two things equal?
It doesn't matter. Violence for a political reason is terrorism[1].
I'm pointing out media hypocrisy, that doesn't mean I'm condoning any violence.
Violence is wrong in support of BLM, it's wrong in support of Trump.
The ends do not justify those means (and in fact are likely to be counterproductive).
[1] ter•ror•ism tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm► n. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
I'm pointing out media hypocrisy, that doesn't mean I'm condoning any violence.
Violence is wrong in support of BLM, it's wrong in support of Trump.
The ends do not justify those means (and in fact are likely to be counterproductive).
[1] ter•ror•ism tĕr′ə-rĭz″əm► n. The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
Terrorism is one of those words that are a bit hard to define.
If you would use the definition you wrote here, a lot of things would be considered terrorism. There would probably be more terrorists than non-terrorists in the world then..
But anyway, I think we can agree on the "violence is wrong"-part, and the counterproductive part.
But saying that if any form of violence occured during a protest, then those protests should be considered equal, is, well, I don't even know what to call it; Dishonest?
Now, what I really disagree about is the "I'm pointing out media hypocrisy"-part. I really don't think you are doing that, I think that what you are doing is, complaining that "the media" seems to agree more with me than with you on this issue, and then phrasing it like your point of view is objectively correct.
If you would use the definition you wrote here, a lot of things would be considered terrorism. There would probably be more terrorists than non-terrorists in the world then..
But anyway, I think we can agree on the "violence is wrong"-part, and the counterproductive part.
But saying that if any form of violence occured during a protest, then those protests should be considered equal, is, well, I don't even know what to call it; Dishonest?
Now, what I really disagree about is the "I'm pointing out media hypocrisy"-part. I really don't think you are doing that, I think that what you are doing is, complaining that "the media" seems to agree more with me than with you on this issue, and then phrasing it like your point of view is objectively correct.
I think missing from the definition is "indiscriminate"
That makes a significant difference.
On one side, the Right's movement against the capitol was specifically targeting politicians. This movement affected a priviledged political class and the people that they employ.
In the other extreme, the BLM movement against (x) targeted (y) . This movement affected seniors, students, women, owners , employees, blacks, latinos, indiscriminately.
This is the crux of the issue. X and Y are quite random and thus lend themselves far easier to the classic definition of terrorism
That makes a significant difference.
On one side, the Right's movement against the capitol was specifically targeting politicians. This movement affected a priviledged political class and the people that they employ.
In the other extreme, the BLM movement against (x) targeted (y) . This movement affected seniors, students, women, owners , employees, blacks, latinos, indiscriminately.
This is the crux of the issue. X and Y are quite random and thus lend themselves far easier to the classic definition of terrorism
Terrorism, by definition to many, requires the intentional infliction of terror to achieve those aims. That’s why it’s called “terrorism” rather than “political violence”
It's quite odd that that phrasing allows for lawful violence and intimidation.
the same people have been denying this problem for the past few years. they’ve been constantly either changing the subject or denying that the problem exists at all. mass shootings? oh no big deal. a newsroom was shot up? oh no big deal. bombs sent to every democrat leader, cnn, soros, etc..? oh don’t discuss that, discuss this instead! obvious signs of misinformation and propaganda spreading like a virus through internet forums? oh that’s not anything to worry about.
The people huddled in offices with an angry mob banging on the door were terrorized.
And so were a nation that believes in democracy and democratic elections.
True. Here in Germany, we were very frightened by the attempts of the president to attack the election. It looked like a banana republic to be honest.
There is already a huge gulf between how BLM protests were treated and how the capitol protest was. There’s a photo from a BLM protest in DC where the Lincoln Memorial steps (not the capitol building, which is widely-stated misinformation) had lines of National Guard troops stationed on it.
Compare that with the tiny Capitol Police force guarding the Capitol building while one of the most important state functions was in progress, with much of the executive branch succession and the legislative branch in attendance. National Guard troops were denied both in advance and for a while during the ensuing riot, citing concerns about “the optics.”
Any meaningful discussion of protest response and overreach, potential or actual, has to account for that disparity.
As you said, some rioters were “planning terrible deeds,” which increasingly clearly means “kidnapping or executing congresspeople and the VP for not keeping DJT in power.” This raises the issue to the level of sedition (organized incitement to rebellion) and insurrection (actual acts of violence against the state or its officers).
Maybe “terrorism” doesn’t broadly apply here, and it’s better to refer to the capitol invaders as “insurrectionists.” Trump, the other government supporters of the protest, and any private backers should be labeled as “seditionists.” I am less likely to push for a “terrorism” label if I can be confident that the other two labels will be applied and prosecuted as such.
Compare that with the tiny Capitol Police force guarding the Capitol building while one of the most important state functions was in progress, with much of the executive branch succession and the legislative branch in attendance. National Guard troops were denied both in advance and for a while during the ensuing riot, citing concerns about “the optics.”
Any meaningful discussion of protest response and overreach, potential or actual, has to account for that disparity.
As you said, some rioters were “planning terrible deeds,” which increasingly clearly means “kidnapping or executing congresspeople and the VP for not keeping DJT in power.” This raises the issue to the level of sedition (organized incitement to rebellion) and insurrection (actual acts of violence against the state or its officers).
Maybe “terrorism” doesn’t broadly apply here, and it’s better to refer to the capitol invaders as “insurrectionists.” Trump, the other government supporters of the protest, and any private backers should be labeled as “seditionists.” I am less likely to push for a “terrorism” label if I can be confident that the other two labels will be applied and prosecuted as such.
Well the left wingers have already successfully bombed the Capitol building in 1983, so it's prudent for law enforcement to be wary when they protest near it.
Alternative take: Maybe DC Police and others learned some restraint in the ~6 months in between and tried to avoid escalating the situation in the earliest moments.
Even if it was misplaced, isn't that a better opening mindset?
Even if it was misplaced, isn't that a better opening mindset?
That’s a fair take concerning the Capitol police (who are a separate force from DC police, just FYI). But even the calls to have the National Guard on standby, given new intel 1 or 2 days before the event that it was going to be bigger than expected, were denied before the event.
Then when things began to escalate, calls for National Guard assistance were denied by the Pentagon for at least a full hour. In a rapidly-evolving situation, especially when the Capitol building has been breached and it takes time to summon the troops since they weren’t on standby, that is an eternity.
Then when things began to escalate, calls for National Guard assistance were denied by the Pentagon for at least a full hour. In a rapidly-evolving situation, especially when the Capitol building has been breached and it takes time to summon the troops since they weren’t on standby, that is an eternity.
You’re onto something there. But it’s more a means to a political end, as opposed to another data point of systemic racism. Both are awful, but not entirely correlated in this instance.
Using these violent incidents as “a means to a political end” is the very definition of terrorism.
They had homemade bombs. They had firearms. They had bags full of restraints. Their intent was to kidnap and kill the politicians and they almost succeeded if it wasn’t for the hero that killed the terrorist that was breaching the only door left between them and the politicians.
You are disingenuous if for you this wasn’t a terrorist attack just because they didn’t succeed and only managed to kill some cops instead of some politicians.
They had homemade bombs. They had firearms. They had bags full of restraints.
> Firstly, nobody was terrorized.
I can count six DC-area thousand+ employee firms that provided grief counseling in response. And as a reminder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - even if a subset of people implemented violence with political ends in mind (breaking in, beating innocent people, attempting to take hostages, all in the name of overturning a legitimate election), at the very least, that subset meets the precise definition of "terrorists."
> No, this wasn't "our 9/11."
The Capitol was breached as part of a coordinated and failed plot. Last time this happened was 1814.
> I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds, and the violence and property damage is inexcusable.
Yes, using the rest of the people in the crowd as human shields, but nonetheless:
> But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.
This isn't a valid defense to any crime literally ever.
I can count six DC-area thousand+ employee firms that provided grief counseling in response. And as a reminder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - even if a subset of people implemented violence with political ends in mind (breaking in, beating innocent people, attempting to take hostages, all in the name of overturning a legitimate election), at the very least, that subset meets the precise definition of "terrorists."
> No, this wasn't "our 9/11."
The Capitol was breached as part of a coordinated and failed plot. Last time this happened was 1814.
> I have no doubt a few of the rioters really were planning terrible deeds, and the violence and property damage is inexcusable.
Yes, using the rest of the people in the crowd as human shields, but nonetheless:
> But most of these people just seem to be caught up in the moment -- taking selfies and LARPing around the capitol after hours.
This isn't a valid defense to any crime literally ever.
If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism.
The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.
The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.
The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.
The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.
I think you're underestimating the intent of people who showed up with pipe bombs and flex cuffs and gallows.
Sure, there were a lot of play acting idiots hanging on and joining in, like that girl who seemed somehow incensed that she got pepper sprayed when "all she'd done" was "shown up for the revolution and trespassed on The Capitol", but not all of them were just clueless morons.
Some of them had plans and intent that would 100% be called "terrorism" if they were of middle eastern descent, and should 100% be called terrorism even though they're home-grown American citizens.
Sure, there were a lot of play acting idiots hanging on and joining in, like that girl who seemed somehow incensed that she got pepper sprayed when "all she'd done" was "shown up for the revolution and trespassed on The Capitol", but not all of them were just clueless morons.
Some of them had plans and intent that would 100% be called "terrorism" if they were of middle eastern descent, and should 100% be called terrorism even though they're home-grown American citizens.
So what was the goal of storming the Capitol? You keep saying it wasn't terrorism, so what was the purpose?
It seems pretty obvious to me the purpose was to intimidate elected officials in some misguided attempt to prevent them from completing their constitutional duties. That is literally terrorism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
>Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
It seems pretty obvious to me the purpose was to intimidate elected officials in some misguided attempt to prevent them from completing their constitutional duties. That is literally terrorism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
>Terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
> If you expand the definition of terrorism to such an absurd degree (anybody who may need grief counseling) you're diluting actual terrorism.
> The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.
> The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.
Interesting. What makes 9/11 a terror attack that doesn't similarly make the Capitol Insurrection one? Because they both left a similar imprint on the people, and they were both implemented by groups with extremist ideologies and political objectives in mind.
I note that you tossed the reference to the definition of terrorism and focused on grief counseling. Interesting decision.
> The Pulse nightclub is what real terrorism looks like. And the Christchurch shootings. And 9/11.
> The storming of the capitol was not at all similar.
Interesting. What makes 9/11 a terror attack that doesn't similarly make the Capitol Insurrection one? Because they both left a similar imprint on the people, and they were both implemented by groups with extremist ideologies and political objectives in mind.
I note that you tossed the reference to the definition of terrorism and focused on grief counseling. Interesting decision.
I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year.
Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too
Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too
> I'd say intent to kill is what makes them terrorists. What makes this muddied is the varying degrees of intent from all the people who stormed the capital. Some saw it as a chance to kill people. Others just went to protest -- not really unreasonable since we've been having protests nonstop for like a year.
> Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too
I'm straining my neck to understand how you equated the litany of protesters who broke into the Capitol building (excluding the terrorists who came equipped with pipe bombs, tactical gear for hostage-taking, and who planned the insurrection for months) with innocent bystanders on doomed flights on 9/11.
> Calling both kinds of people terrorists feels sort of like calling the passengers of the 9/11 flights terrorists too
I'm straining my neck to understand how you equated the litany of protesters who broke into the Capitol building (excluding the terrorists who came equipped with pipe bombs, tactical gear for hostage-taking, and who planned the insurrection for months) with innocent bystanders on doomed flights on 9/11.
> tactical gear for hostage-taking
You're talking about people who wear tactical gear to go to the corner store. Who carry guns and flex-cuffs because they are desperate to be some kind of "big man".
Probably a handful of them intended to actually "do" something.
But mostly they just milled about looking like penguins escaping the zoo.
You're talking about people who wear tactical gear to go to the corner store. Who carry guns and flex-cuffs because they are desperate to be some kind of "big man".
Probably a handful of them intended to actually "do" something.
But mostly they just milled about looking like penguins escaping the zoo.
Then you're not even trying to see any perspective but your own. "Terrorist" should mean violent, radical extremists. If you're saying that all of the protestors are terrorist then you're either loosening the definition of terrorism to mean anyone who commits a federal crime, or you're saying that all of those people at the rally were ready to start gunning people down.
The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.
It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?
The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.
It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?
> Then you're not even trying to see any perspective but your own. "Terrorist" should mean violent, radical extremists. If you're saying that all of the protestors are terrorist then you're either loosening the definition of terrorism to mean anyone who commits a federal crime, or you're saying that all of those people at the rally were ready to start gunning people down.
Didn't say that.
> The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.
You didn't understand me.
> It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?
Please re-read.
Didn't say that.
> The relationship with the innocent bystanders is the same that I said before -- intent. The people who went to protest outside are protestors. The people who went to break into the capital and steal, march, whatever, are insurrectionists. The people who went with weapons are terrorists.
You didn't understand me.
> It's already accurate to call them insurrectionists, why add controversy to it by calling them terrorists?
Please re-read.
Well, for one, almost 3000 people died in the September 11th attacks. Kind of an important point.
I don't really see how the number of people killed makes a difference in whether an attack is terrorism. An attack can result in zero casualties and still be terror (depending on some definitions. Others require at least one death)
The Capitol was breached as part of a coordinated and failed plot. Last time this happened was 1814.
Ah, TIL. Thanks!
The Capitol was successfully bombed in 1983 by a left wing terrorist group.
The full list of incidents is here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-capitol-hist...
But while all of those are incidents, attacks, etc., I think the distinction (which I failed to highlight) is that 1814 and 2021 involved a complete overrun of the building rather than a localized incident or intrusion. Doesn't make much of a practical difference in the end, though.
But while all of those are incidents, attacks, etc., I think the distinction (which I failed to highlight) is that 1814 and 2021 involved a complete overrun of the building rather than a localized incident or intrusion. Doesn't make much of a practical difference in the end, though.
> I doubt it'll even be a topic of conversation in a few years, just like we don't talk about 1983 United States Senate bombing today at all.
We still talk about the Clinton impeachment today, and the acts that precipitated it. Students of history still study the Andrew Johnson impeachment. You're being naive if you think an unprecedented, record, second impeachment of a president will be forgotten that quickly.
We still talk about the Clinton impeachment today, and the acts that precipitated it. Students of history still study the Andrew Johnson impeachment. You're being naive if you think an unprecedented, record, second impeachment of a president will be forgotten that quickly.
The violence and property damage wasn't the problem. Democracies can survive some broken windows, stolen laptops, and yes, even people getting hurt and killed at a protest. This sort of thing has happened for decades and centuries.
What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.
What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.
> What they can't survive is...
And yet, here we are, democracy intact.
And yet, here we are, democracy intact.
There was an excellent article by someone from a place where a failed coup led to a real one a couple of years hence. Democracy is not 'intact', it is now damaged, and whether or not manage to repair it remains to be seen.
The most dangerous thing you can do now is to think this is behind you and from here on in everything is normal. It isn't and it probably won't be for some time. If you manage the next two transfers of power at the end of election cycles without further mishap I'd say that you can say democracy is intact. Until then all bets are off.
Edit: I wished I could locate the article, so far no luck.
edit2: finally found it in my history, this article was from 11 November 2020, and very prescient:
https://indica.medium.com/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-...
The most dangerous thing you can do now is to think this is behind you and from here on in everything is normal. It isn't and it probably won't be for some time. If you manage the next two transfers of power at the end of election cycles without further mishap I'd say that you can say democracy is intact. Until then all bets are off.
Edit: I wished I could locate the article, so far no luck.
edit2: finally found it in my history, this article was from 11 November 2020, and very prescient:
https://indica.medium.com/i-lived-through-a-coup-america-is-...
I would like to see some data on failed coups that does not involve any military.
The latest major failed coup that I can remember would be the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, and the effect it had on the country is well known. The general consensus internationally seems to be that the efforts by their government to stamp out their "terrorists" has been a bit of an overreaction, even if literal tanks was involved. The censorship machine in particular has been quite overreactive.
One can really hope that the US democracy manage a more appropriate reaction that is more proportional to the threat.
The latest major failed coup that I can remember would be the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt, and the effect it had on the country is well known. The general consensus internationally seems to be that the efforts by their government to stamp out their "terrorists" has been a bit of an overreaction, even if literal tanks was involved. The censorship machine in particular has been quite overreactive.
One can really hope that the US democracy manage a more appropriate reaction that is more proportional to the threat.
The only worse than the the content of that link was the writing style.
Thank you for your contribution. Note the error in the one line comment you made.
Ha! Well I'll take unintentional typos over the drivel in that article any day of the week.
So far he's made the right call though. Note when it was written, and what has happened since.
Predicting that somebody stupid would do something stupid after the last election does not make one Nostradamus.
He also claims that Trump is refusing to leave and is leveraging the military to facilitate that. That's bunk.
He also claims that Trump is refusing to leave and is leveraging the military to facilitate that. That's bunk.
Democracy only works because we all believe that it works.
When that belief is shattered, and people no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power, you get violent transfer of power.
I think it's far too early to make such a claim. Wait till 2022, or 2024, or 2028. This genie is not going back in the bottle without putting up a fight - not while its being egged on by opportunistic mainstream politicians.
When that belief is shattered, and people no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power, you get violent transfer of power.
I think it's far too early to make such a claim. Wait till 2022, or 2024, or 2028. This genie is not going back in the bottle without putting up a fight - not while its being egged on by opportunistic mainstream politicians.
> > What they can't survive is...
> And yet, here we are, democracy intact.
You keep cutting off quotes without including the relevant details. You need to stop doing that. The original quote:
> What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.
The last part of that sentence you cropped (emphasized by me) didn't come to pass because it was interrupted by Capitol contingency plans and Shelter In Place protocols, among other things. It very well could've been successful; we're lucky to not know that outcome.
> And yet, here we are, democracy intact.
You keep cutting off quotes without including the relevant details. You need to stop doing that. The original quote:
> What they can't survive is groups of thugs that don't like the result of an election, and go off to physically prevent its results from being honored. That is unprecedented.
The last part of that sentence you cropped (emphasized by me) didn't come to pass because it was interrupted by Capitol contingency plans and Shelter In Place protocols, among other things. It very well could've been successful; we're lucky to not know that outcome.
Are we? Because to me there are huge cracks opening up. Death toll isn't the important part about terrorist attacks, it's the responses that count, and the response to this seems about the same or more extreme as 9/11 to me, and I lived through that on a military base. I don't remember 25k troops being deployed into DC for 9/11.
And that was a foreign attack. 25000 national guard are in D.C. due to a domestic enemy, white nationalist American terrorists, making credible threats.
It's self-evidently anti-Democratic. The last time this nation got into a dispute over an election where the minority decided to just set it aside and not submit to the result, resulted in the bloodiest revolution to date.
It's self-evidently anti-Democratic. The last time this nation got into a dispute over an election where the minority decided to just set it aside and not submit to the result, resulted in the bloodiest revolution to date.
[deleted]
Right, just like Germany survived the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 just fine, democracy intact.
People are fools to think this is all just suddenly over now that Trump is gone and big-tech de-platformed one tiny social media platform.
People are fools to think this is all just suddenly over now that Trump is gone and big-tech de-platformed one tiny social media platform.
Steve Banon has been pardoned. Stay tuned…
And now Trump is considering starting a "Patriot Party" due to his lack of support in the GOP for overturning the election. Spitting image of the failed Putsch when Hitler realized, in Jail, that a coup d'état wasn't going to work and they needed to attack at a different angle, a democratic angle, and be seen as a legitimate political party.
It's happening just like it was always going to, like clockwork. Americans aren't out of this yet.
It's happening just like it was always going to, like clockwork. Americans aren't out of this yet.
These actors haven't finished.
The pattern so far is that the current admin has tried every single dirty trick they could muster to avoid leaving power.
Even if something happens to Trump today, these folks will recrystallize around a new cult leader.
Far-right terrorism has been taken seriously as recently as 2009, but conservatives complained they were being treated unfairly and the efforts were abandoned.
2009 reporting: https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/extremism.report/
2012 update: https://www.wired.com/2012/08/dhs/
2017 update: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/0...
2020 update: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/07/21/right-wing-terrorism...
2009 reporting: https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/extremism.report/
2012 update: https://www.wired.com/2012/08/dhs/
2017 update: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/0...
2020 update: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/07/21/right-wing-terrorism...
Rolled, and let go on bail? [1] Or just released with a stay-away-from-DC order? [2] The discrepancy between how BLM and white nationalists are treated is staggering.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/arrests-florida-nancy-pelosi-capi...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/01/14/judg...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/arrests-florida-nancy-pelosi-capi...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/01/14/judg...
There was a varied response to BLM riots.
In my city, BLM demonstrators - or at least people purporting to be part of BLM - declared several city blocks an autonomous zone. The zone's security forces subsequent killed several people (among them, ironically, an unarmed black 16 year old). It took the city 3 weeks to clear out this zone, and it was done without lethal force.
By comparison, the people occupying the Capitol were removed in a matter of hours including employing lethal force.
The Capitol protests were met with more leniency than some BLM demonstrations, but less than others.
In my city, BLM demonstrators - or at least people purporting to be part of BLM - declared several city blocks an autonomous zone. The zone's security forces subsequent killed several people (among them, ironically, an unarmed black 16 year old). It took the city 3 weeks to clear out this zone, and it was done without lethal force.
By comparison, the people occupying the Capitol were removed in a matter of hours including employing lethal force.
The Capitol protests were met with more leniency than some BLM demonstrations, but less than others.
Worth mentioning that the only lethal force in the capitol was when they were breaching the barricades where (I think) VIPs were being guarded.
That's lethal force in self-defense, not lethal force to clear out the protest.
That's lethal force in self-defense, not lethal force to clear out the protest.
>The zone's security forces subsequent killed several people (among them, ironically, an unarmed black 16 year old).
There seem to be a lot of people who are absolutely certain that the security forces were responsible for this.
The police aren't among their number, however, since they haven't detained, arrested or charged anyone.
There was also another killing in the zone that was, iirc, erroneously blamed on the security forces.
There seem to be a lot of people who are absolutely certain that the security forces were responsible for this.
The police aren't among their number, however, since they haven't detained, arrested or charged anyone.
There was also another killing in the zone that was, iirc, erroneously blamed on the security forces.
Is it?
> According to an accounting by the American Bail Coalition, verified by The Fact Checker with a review of Hennepin County jail records, all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests between May 26 and June 2 were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released; in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested had to pay no bail — and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges. (The American Bail Coalition is a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds.)
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics...
> According to an accounting by the American Bail Coalition, verified by The Fact Checker with a review of Hennepin County jail records, all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests between May 26 and June 2 were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released; in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested had to pay no bail — and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges. (The American Bail Coalition is a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds.)
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics...
another thing that immediately came to mind after the capitol rioting was the standoff with Cliven Bundy and an article I saw a few years ago[1]. I even remembered that at the time there were people on Fox who were downplaying this as some sort of patriotic resistance against the government. Imagine if someone started a caliphate on US territory, I'm sure we'd be hearing the same kind of arguments /s
"Cliven Bundy and sons cleared in case of 2014 armed standoff, a major defeat for the federal government that critics fear will empower far-right militia groups"
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/08/bundy-family...
"Cliven Bundy and sons cleared in case of 2014 armed standoff, a major defeat for the federal government that critics fear will empower far-right militia groups"
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/08/bundy-family...
You forgot to mention why the charges were dropped:
> The judge declared a mistrial in December and ruled on Monday that prosecutors could not retry the case, arguing that the US attorney’s office had willfully withheld evidence and engaged in misconduct.
> The judge declared a mistrial in December and ruled on Monday that prosecutors could not retry the case, arguing that the US attorney’s office had willfully withheld evidence and engaged in misconduct.
Somehow I don't think such consideration would have been extended to the Boston bombers, even with LE overreach on display for the whole country to see re: the search and entry tactics in Watertown et al.
The Bundy thing was 100% government needlessly escalating a matter, that should have been some lawyers negotiating a reasonable fees and promises to not intentionally graze on federal land. If that failed they simply could have arrested him driving in to town or some equally mundane action.
The government tried to negotiate with him for something like forty years.
He had no intention of complying or paying any of his bills.
He had no intention of complying or paying any of his bills.
[deleted]
>Far-right terrorism in the US has never really been taken seriously. No one took them seriously.
The FBI, hardly a bastion of left-wingers, has been warning for decades that white supremacists have been attempting to infiltrate police and the military.
When polled 25% of active-duty military personnel say they know at least one.
The FBI, hardly a bastion of left-wingers, has been warning for decades that white supremacists have been attempting to infiltrate police and the military.
When polled 25% of active-duty military personnel say they know at least one.
>Far-right terrorism in the US has never really been taken seriously.
Tell that to Ulysses S. Grant.
Tell that to Ulysses S. Grant.
>so hopefully they learned their lesson this time
I might be cynical, but I think that will work just about as well as the first impeachment.
I might be cynical, but I think that will work just about as well as the first impeachment.
[deleted]
> The Feds are starting to roll up high ranking militia members, so hopefully they learned their lesson this time.
Here’s a post that basically says that. I think someone posted it here.
https://arcdigital.media/qanon-woke-up-the-real-deep-state-7...
Here’s a post that basically says that. I think someone posted it here.
https://arcdigital.media/qanon-woke-up-the-real-deep-state-7...
Did you ever read any actual FBI documents regarding extremism? Clearly not, I guess.
When it happened, there was a reporter on CBC talking about how it was common knowledge in DC for a long time that there was a protest planned there.
So indeed. The real question is why was there seemingly no preparation to handle it.
So indeed. The real question is why was there seemingly no preparation to handle it.
Compared to other DC protests, the absence of preparation was the preparation.
Clearly some of the Establishment wanted it to succeed.
Clearly some of the Establishment wanted it to succeed.
> Clearly some of the Establishment wanted it to succeed.
Or massively & publicly fail... if we’re trading conspiracy theories.
Or massively & publicly fail... if we’re trading conspiracy theories.
You have a point. I'm trying to find the differences between this attempted insurrection and a police sting and there are less than I first guessed.
That difference might not be observable from the outside at all. How do you separate "good old incompetence" from "malicious withdrawal to allow the coup and seize power" from "malicious withdrawal to allow the coup to fail and use the blowback to seize power"? Investigation into the behavior of the Capitol police will be of greatest importance to the integrity of the republic.
Fail in what way? I mean they didn’t actually overthrow the government or string up Pence, but their penetration and looting of the Capitol buildings was incredibly successful.
They were within minutes (reported in national newspapers as “within one minute”) of being in the room with Mike Pence, so perhaps the Vice President was lucky.
Qanon and friends have been talking about "the storm" for years now.
January 6 was either luck and foolery or clever planning.
A year ago I would have said luck but the weekend before super Tuesday last year with the centrists clearing the lane for Biden all within 36 hours convinced me there's capable skilled political actors who can orchestrate things.
January 6 was perhaps the least harmful version of the storm possible. The people there, they are the kinds of people that follow crazy conspiracies and do mass shootings, tens thousands of them. They've been antagonized and fueled this antigovernment narrative, some of them for almost 30 years by the shock jock grifters.
They got their storm, the pitchfork moment and relatively little violence happened, it lasted just an afternoon, then they left, not returning the next day and now people are being arrested in a way that doesn't martyr them as revolutionaries or put them into any kind of overarching constructive narrative.
They weren't lined up against the wall and taken care of like revolutionaries but instead individually arrested like common criminals. There was no clear "deep state" repression or large arrests to stoke the conspiracies of prison camps etc.
The storm happened. It was a dud. Afterwards the conspiracy social media accounts were denouncing the Republican party. Almost like the Republicans were able to shake off this toxic part of their coalition in the exchange.
This is an extremely favorable outcome for the establishment. They even got to shut down a bunch of the biggest troublemakers in the process. So really I don't know what to think. Brilliant execution or dumb luck, maybe a bit of both...
January 6 was either luck and foolery or clever planning.
A year ago I would have said luck but the weekend before super Tuesday last year with the centrists clearing the lane for Biden all within 36 hours convinced me there's capable skilled political actors who can orchestrate things.
January 6 was perhaps the least harmful version of the storm possible. The people there, they are the kinds of people that follow crazy conspiracies and do mass shootings, tens thousands of them. They've been antagonized and fueled this antigovernment narrative, some of them for almost 30 years by the shock jock grifters.
They got their storm, the pitchfork moment and relatively little violence happened, it lasted just an afternoon, then they left, not returning the next day and now people are being arrested in a way that doesn't martyr them as revolutionaries or put them into any kind of overarching constructive narrative.
They weren't lined up against the wall and taken care of like revolutionaries but instead individually arrested like common criminals. There was no clear "deep state" repression or large arrests to stoke the conspiracies of prison camps etc.
The storm happened. It was a dud. Afterwards the conspiracy social media accounts were denouncing the Republican party. Almost like the Republicans were able to shake off this toxic part of their coalition in the exchange.
This is an extremely favorable outcome for the establishment. They even got to shut down a bunch of the biggest troublemakers in the process. So really I don't know what to think. Brilliant execution or dumb luck, maybe a bit of both...
FWIW, the “storm” of QAnon is a different prophesied event, when the secret Democrat child sex trafficking ring would be exposed once and for all and the perpetrators all arrested at once, dramatically. That’s what QAnon actually believe, and if you are that deluded, storming the Capitol building in a desperate bid to ensure that Trump remains in office long enough to break up the secret Democrat child sex trafficking ring has a certain internal logic to it.
This is no joke—one of the rioters who made it to either the House or Senate floor was carrying a sign with a vague message about saving the children, while another one—the one who faced off with heroic Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman—was wearing a “Q” hoodie.
It’s very strange to consider that some 4chan troll had this impact on history.
To your point, I think it’s worth considering all the potential outcomes:
1. Harm coming to any of the elected officials in the Capitol that day 2. A bloodbath on the Capitol steps on live television 3. Chaotic scenes of men in pelts occupying the Senate floor followed by the resumption of normal business that evening 4. A large armed presence with physical barriers and riot squads surrounding the Capitol
Obviously in retrospect we would take #4, and that’s what we’ll get for the inauguration. But #3 was obviously the second best choice on the table, and potentially the best if you want #4 to look legitimate, especially after about half a year of anti-police narrative.
This is no joke—one of the rioters who made it to either the House or Senate floor was carrying a sign with a vague message about saving the children, while another one—the one who faced off with heroic Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman—was wearing a “Q” hoodie.
It’s very strange to consider that some 4chan troll had this impact on history.
To your point, I think it’s worth considering all the potential outcomes:
1. Harm coming to any of the elected officials in the Capitol that day 2. A bloodbath on the Capitol steps on live television 3. Chaotic scenes of men in pelts occupying the Senate floor followed by the resumption of normal business that evening 4. A large armed presence with physical barriers and riot squads surrounding the Capitol
Obviously in retrospect we would take #4, and that’s what we’ll get for the inauguration. But #3 was obviously the second best choice on the table, and potentially the best if you want #4 to look legitimate, especially after about half a year of anti-police narrative.
Right. I've been following the qanon phenomena for a while. My real curiosity is whether January 6 fizzled out the energy enough that it no longer becomes such a large phenomena.
I'm sure we all know a few people who have slipped into sheer lunacy down internet rabbit holes and seem to more or less be literally insane from the various wild stories.
The best I can imagine is for it to occupy the same fringe space as other wild conspiracies from the grifters like David Icke and Alex Jones.
These people will always exist in society but they should be a small enough group that we aren't forced to deal with them as a political force.
We shouldn't have to spend time, for instance, showing how Vincent Fusca isn't the secret alias of a JFK Jr faked death... it's such a waste of public engagement.
I'm sure we all know a few people who have slipped into sheer lunacy down internet rabbit holes and seem to more or less be literally insane from the various wild stories.
The best I can imagine is for it to occupy the same fringe space as other wild conspiracies from the grifters like David Icke and Alex Jones.
These people will always exist in society but they should be a small enough group that we aren't forced to deal with them as a political force.
We shouldn't have to spend time, for instance, showing how Vincent Fusca isn't the secret alias of a JFK Jr faked death... it's such a waste of public engagement.
Neither is a good look. But the result will be the same. More heavy handed undermining of privacy, rights, etc.
They employed tear gas to get Trump to hold a bible upside down. [1]
It's hard to overstate how poorly they managed this. This is something a special investigation should be commissioned out by congress/the DOJ.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-...
It's hard to overstate how poorly they managed this. This is something a special investigation should be commissioned out by congress/the DOJ.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-...
Doesn't change your point, but the Bible was right side up.
[deleted]
Yup, that's what really stinks about these protests. You could go to several social media sites and see the 6th plans.
It was incredible to see so few Capitol police guarding the capitol. Further, the fact that they didn't employ things like tear gas sooner was incredible. They just sort of let the rioters through the weak barriers they setup.
Security HAD to have known this was coming. This wasn't some secret plot. I knew this was coming just because I like to keep tabs on what the trump supporters are saying. It was all over the reddit knockoff (win).
It was incredible to see so few Capitol police guarding the capitol. Further, the fact that they didn't employ things like tear gas sooner was incredible. They just sort of let the rioters through the weak barriers they setup.
Security HAD to have known this was coming. This wasn't some secret plot. I knew this was coming just because I like to keep tabs on what the trump supporters are saying. It was all over the reddit knockoff (win).
The winds that day were fairly strong (looked like 15+ knots, with many of the flags being fully horizontal). It seems like tear gas would be relatively ineffective as a crowd-dispersal agent in strong winds.
There have been a bunch of Trump protests in DC since the election. The city was boarded up in preparation for them. But they’ve all been completely peaceful. People got complacent.
That's why trump replaced his secretary of defense after he lost the election. That's why they didn't bring in requested national guard troops. (if I understand the situation, Trump never authorized the NG, as he was cheering on the coup from the WH, and the guard deployed bc Pence was pleading for it, which has its own weird constitutional issues.)
He offered to dispatch NG, but that request legally had to come from the Capitol Police (which does not report to the Administration branch in any way), just like NG can't be deployed in states without the governor specifically requesting same and declaring a formal State of Emergency.
"Not just a good idea... It's the law."
"Not just a good idea... It's the law."
Technically, couldn’t he have invoked the Insurrection Act?
From Wikipedia:
"Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse."
It hasn't been invoked without state/local request since Kennedy.
It hasn't been invoked without state/local request since Kennedy.
My guess is that it was a calculated decision to allow to allow a poorly organized insurrection attempt to fail as opposed to shutting things down and strengthening their cause.
Life was certainly lost.
So if that's what happened they should have shut it down as it was happening instead of ignoring capitol police calls for support.
Some of the Capitol Police workers did apparently bring concerns to their supervisors, but nothing much was done about it.
Part of the answer that I am surprised you haven't been given yet is that there is an ongoing infiltration of the police forces in this country by far right wing activists. I mean, Exhibit A is the two off-duty cops from (I think) one of the Carolinas that were present in the actual riot. Here is a think piece [0] that has links to sources. I would not be surprised at all to learn that there were people in the Capitol Police itself who were sympathizers.
[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/hidd...
Part of the answer that I am surprised you haven't been given yet is that there is an ongoing infiltration of the police forces in this country by far right wing activists. I mean, Exhibit A is the two off-duty cops from (I think) one of the Carolinas that were present in the actual riot. Here is a think piece [0] that has links to sources. I would not be surprised at all to learn that there were people in the Capitol Police itself who were sympathizers.
[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/hidd...
The protest was planned, that’s for sure. But here the context is the attack, not the protest.
Can somebody explain, since this was a long planned coup attempt against a Capitol that has its own police force, in a capital that has one of the largest and most heavily armed police forces in the world, why did the guncrazy far right militants leave their guns at home? And instead behaved mostly like an out of control protest with a few dozen violent rioters? It is a very peculiar way to attempt to overthrow a government.
You don’t need the guns if you have people on the inside. And a good number of the rioters seemed really quite surprised when law enforcement fought back against them. After all, they were carrying Blue Lives Matter flags, surely the cops are on their side!
(and besides, there were a good number of people with guns at the protest. And some others brought pipe bombs. Thankfully neither ended up being a factor but no one would have known that at the time)
(and besides, there were a good number of people with guns at the protest. And some others brought pipe bombs. Thankfully neither ended up being a factor but no one would have known that at the time)
Doesn’t add up. How are you going to hold the Capitol or any hostages without weapons?
As I said, they did have weapons. Not an overwhelming amount of them certainly, but more than enough to pose a threat if they managed to capture Nancy Pelosi.
And again: if you have the support of the police (and potentially also the armed forces) it’s all pretty moot anyway.
And again: if you have the support of the police (and potentially also the armed forces) it’s all pretty moot anyway.
The QAnon "storm" narrative revolved around unnamed "true patriots" within some unnamed national security service rising up to overthrow the corrupt.. something.
Or at least that's the common interpretation of QAnon ramblings.
But the point is that there wasn't any centralised leadership plotting this. There was some groups (who did have weapons) who were absolutely planning this, but the protestors in general was much more decentralized in purpose and method.
Or at least that's the common interpretation of QAnon ramblings.
But the point is that there wasn't any centralised leadership plotting this. There was some groups (who did have weapons) who were absolutely planning this, but the protestors in general was much more decentralized in purpose and method.
The FBI divulged this morning that the Oath Keepers, a right-wing militia, were trying to trap congress members in the underground tunnels of the capitol to gas them.
No, they didn't. FBI charging documents make zero references to any of the OK defendants possessing any form of lethal, or even irritant, gas weapons.
masonic is ignoring the possibility that "gas" talk was figurative. It was reported that Oathkeeper Thomas Edward Caldwell received facebook messages during the insurrection: “Tom all legislators are down in the Tunnels 3floors down,” and “Go through back house chamber doors facing N left down hallway down steps,” and “All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,” according to the FBI.
Perhaps "seal them in, turn on gas" was a figurative way of saying "trap them and kill them". Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/conspiracy...
Perhaps "seal them in, turn on gas" was a figurative way of saying "trap them and kill them". Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/conspiracy...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
FBI charging documents do make references to the telecommunications of the OK defendants, where they are trying to trap and gas congress people under the capitol.
FBI charging documents do make references to the telecommunications of the OK defendants, where they are trying to trap and gas congress people under the capitol.
Hrm. You made a very specific (and false) claim, got called on it, and now you say "references to... trying to..." in apparent attempt to weasel around it.
Neither the FBI nor Capitol Police has made claim that any lethal gas was present, period. Not in possession of "Oath Keepers" or otherwise. Not in "underground tunnels" or anywhere else.
No reputable news agency seems to be claiming thus, either.
So, the burden is on the claimant to show that this isn't pure narrative fantasy.
Neither the FBI nor Capitol Police has made claim that any lethal gas was present, period. Not in possession of "Oath Keepers" or otherwise. Not in "underground tunnels" or anywhere else.
No reputable news agency seems to be claiming thus, either.
So, the burden is on the claimant to show that this isn't pure narrative fantasy.
I suspect they thought there'd be more complicity or active support from the police/guards. bringing your guns out in the open directly would have been too visible a giveaway up front, giving people time to react/block.
A lot of the protesters have said they expected the police to be largely on their side. I suspect that when things got violent both the armed rioters and police realised that guns would just end up in a blood bath on both sides, and the first person to shoot on either side would probably end up dead pretty quickly.
I suspect the police weren't shooting because they realized how overwhelmed they were. I've seen a couple of videos where they had drawn their guns and prepared to fire but they were simply surrounded.
The interaction I saw between the rioters and those defending the Capitol just after the woman was shot seem more enlightening than this theory.
Crowds would have dispersed pretty quickly if the cops started shooting
If I suspend my disbelief for a second, do you have a link to any interviews or similar with those protesters?
Surely you are not conflating quotes from peaceful demonstrators against (alleged) election fraud, with militants trying to violently overthrow the government?
Surely you are not conflating quotes from peaceful demonstrators against (alleged) election fraud, with militants trying to violently overthrow the government?
Here's a WP article on it. I remember seeing video of a woman retreating from the Capitol saying something about them being on the same side as the police and complaining why they weren't joining them, but I can't find it, sorry. One of the protesters was carrying blue lives matter flag.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IKWa_6...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IKWa_6...
Is this the same woman who was crying, “they pushed me down and maced me” while dabbing her face with an onion?
That's the one. There's a theory that onions help neutralise the effects of mace, they've been used by protesters in the Middle East for this and it's possible some of the Capitol rioters came with them and gave her one.
That sounds dubious to me. Have you chopped onions? What I’ve heard is that she probably wasn’t maced and was just using the onion to irritate her eyes and force tears to fake being maced. (People who actually get maced tend to be slobbery, snotty messes.)
> why did the guncrazy far right militants leave their guns at home?
Because despite their public rhetoric and willingness to carry guns when they don’t expect law enforcement opposition, they realized that their only chance of success at the Capitol was to not be treated by law enforcement the way that law enforcement (including the Secret Service) would treat a visibly-armed mob surrounding the Capitol during proceedings (which include Secret Service protectees).
Because despite their public rhetoric and willingness to carry guns when they don’t expect law enforcement opposition, they realized that their only chance of success at the Capitol was to not be treated by law enforcement the way that law enforcement (including the Secret Service) would treat a visibly-armed mob surrounding the Capitol during proceedings (which include Secret Service protectees).
How did they coordinate not bringing guns? Or did they each individually realize this strategy without coordination? I think you’re giving them too much credit here.
I agree that “realized their chance of success” makes it more group-strategic than is probably warranted.
“Realized that the likely law enforcement stance likely at the Capitol would make visibly carrying a firearm increase their personal risk rather than their effectiveness” is probably more accurate.
“Realized that the likely law enforcement stance likely at the Capitol would make visibly carrying a firearm increase their personal risk rather than their effectiveness” is probably more accurate.
Anecdotally, I tuned into some of the protester's livestreams early on because I assumed that they would be trying to get into the building to stop the confirmation of Biden's win. It almost felt so incredibly obvious to me that it was going to happen.
A few possibilities:
- Overcorrection: law enforcement had come under fire for using excessive force against protests and they erred on the other side.
- Conspiracy: the security state is firmly under the control of the pro-Trump faction, who (incorrectly) thought they could make Trump president for life once the Q Shaman took the Senate.
- Conspiracy: the security state is firmly under the control of the anti-Trump faction, who (correctly) thought that letting the protest go too far would be politically devastating for their enemies, and would provide the hook for passing new security laws.
- Incompetence: America can't protect its capitol for the same reason it can't distribute a vaccine, build railways or put a man on the moon.
- Overcorrection: law enforcement had come under fire for using excessive force against protests and they erred on the other side.
- Conspiracy: the security state is firmly under the control of the pro-Trump faction, who (incorrectly) thought they could make Trump president for life once the Q Shaman took the Senate.
- Conspiracy: the security state is firmly under the control of the anti-Trump faction, who (correctly) thought that letting the protest go too far would be politically devastating for their enemies, and would provide the hook for passing new security laws.
- Incompetence: America can't protect its capitol for the same reason it can't distribute a vaccine, build railways or put a man on the moon.
This is similar to the conclusion I came to. Because there are so many logical possibilities, without a reputable source definitively stating that one of these is right, the door is open for anyone to pick a narrative and run with it.
Cynical view: Because way too much of law enforcement is totally in on it, from upper management right the way down to beat cops. Compare their (collective) preparations and actions on the 6th to their preparation and actions at many many black lives matter protests.
Like the song says: "Some of those who join forces, are the same who burn crosses."
Like the song says: "Some of those who join forces, are the same who burn crosses."
*work forces
Or they paid exactly the right amount of attention to it and it's only the media that's blown it out of proportion. Had this been a BLM protest it would have been one of the 'mostly peaceful' ones with questions about why a rent a cop killed her when the professionals in front of him didn't think it was a situation to use deadly force in.
The hypocrisy from both sides is astonishing and the reason why cops can kill whoever they feel like: half the country will cheer them on because that {anarchist,nazi} deserved it. I find it sickening that I share a citizenship with blood thirsty savages with no concept of empathy.
The hypocrisy from both sides is astonishing and the reason why cops can kill whoever they feel like: half the country will cheer them on because that {anarchist,nazi} deserved it. I find it sickening that I share a citizenship with blood thirsty savages with no concept of empathy.
I'm pretty surprised to not see more opinions like this. I'm in Minneapolis. Last summer, during the protests a police station was burned. To me, it seemed like a protest that got out of hand. Didn't seem like am organized attack on the police station.
At the capital, that also seems to me like a protest that got out of hand.
In each case, the opposing side seems convinced of much more malicious intent. I think that is the worst part - everyone is deeply offended when their opposition does X, but they support their own flavor of X when done by their side.
At the capital, that also seems to me like a protest that got out of hand.
In each case, the opposing side seems convinced of much more malicious intent. I think that is the worst part - everyone is deeply offended when their opposition does X, but they support their own flavor of X when done by their side.
Trump appointees in the intelligence services were attacking members who investigated far- right threats.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/why-dhs-failed-to-wa...
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/why-dhs-failed-to-wa...
There are different conversations in different places. The conversation here is obsessed with "censorship" for fairly clear reasons; more of our livelihoods depend on how these rules work. But there is a very active conversation about the law enforcement breakdown on multiple levels. I expect there will be a 9/11 style commission. I expect its findings to be very depressing (along the lines of the people in charge going easier on people they viewed more as "us" rather than "them").
It’s not at all weird that the discussion has centered around censorship in reaction to this. As Winston Churchill once said...”Never let a good crisis go to waste” [1].
Democrats are seizing upon the opportunity created by this incident to permanently silence their opposition and attempt to cement long-term political power. A former Facebook official has even publicly suggested that cable companies banish conservative news networks, and that Facebook and YouTube expel conservative influencers from their platforms, in reaction to the incident [2].
Attempting to silence and ostracize vast swaths of the population seems like it might backfire in pretty dramatic fashion. Even Jack Dorsey acknowledged that we had entered into dangerous territory when Twitter blocked Trump and the rest of big tech killed Parler, and he seemed to suggest that the only long-term solution was decentralized social media [3] (something I have been saying since they did this).
In any event, we are certainly in for a wild ride over the next few years. American society is cracking at the seams, and our “leaders” and financially-incentivized media companies seem to be actively encouraging it.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/never-waste-a-good-water-cr...
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/former-facebook-offic...
[3] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21
Democrats are seizing upon the opportunity created by this incident to permanently silence their opposition and attempt to cement long-term political power. A former Facebook official has even publicly suggested that cable companies banish conservative news networks, and that Facebook and YouTube expel conservative influencers from their platforms, in reaction to the incident [2].
Attempting to silence and ostracize vast swaths of the population seems like it might backfire in pretty dramatic fashion. Even Jack Dorsey acknowledged that we had entered into dangerous territory when Twitter blocked Trump and the rest of big tech killed Parler, and he seemed to suggest that the only long-term solution was decentralized social media [3] (something I have been saying since they did this).
In any event, we are certainly in for a wild ride over the next few years. American society is cracking at the seams, and our “leaders” and financially-incentivized media companies seem to be actively encouraging it.
[1] https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/never-waste-a-good-water-cr...
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/former-facebook-offic...
[3] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690?s=21
"law enforcement" was in on it. I'm using the term loosely here, I'm mainly thinking "police"; the FBI seems to have things in order much better at least. The warning signs were there for YEARS, but nobody's dared to stand up to the domestic terrorist organizations - probably because the president was one of them. "Stand back and stand by".
If you picture a Venn diagram, there's a significant overlap in Republicans, the insurrectionists, QAnon / Pizzagate types, Blue Lives Matters, the police, and nazis / white supremacists.
If you picture a Venn diagram, there's a significant overlap in Republicans, the insurrectionists, QAnon / Pizzagate types, Blue Lives Matters, the police, and nazis / white supremacists.
They haven’t drawn much attention from LE because they haven’t been a serious threat. I still don’t think they are. The Capitol security were overwhelmed by a massive protest providing cover for a large number of rioters to force their way in through unexpected routes. Those rioters were certainly a mix of malevolent and deluded but they were minimally violent considering the amount of opportunity and motive present. They should still be prosecuted, just not for terrorism. If this becomes our new bar for terrorism charges then don’t be surprised when you wind up on a no fly list and get a knock on your door after attending a protest.
> They should still be prosecuted, just not for terrorism
“Terrorism” isn't an actual crime you can be charged for regarding acts within the US (terrorism outside the US is a specific federal crime, as is material support for terrorism—the latter of which references knowing support for a wide range of crimes under the ambit of terrorism, a number of which seem not implausible to be justifiably charged against participants in the capitol insurrection, such as conspiring to kill or kidnap the President, Vice President, any member of Congress, etc.)
> If this becomes our new bar for terrorism charges then don’t be surprised when you wind up on a no fly list and get a knock on your door after attending a protest.
The “no-fly” list doesn't require being charged with anything, anyhow, much less “terrorism” specifically,
“Terrorism” isn't an actual crime you can be charged for regarding acts within the US (terrorism outside the US is a specific federal crime, as is material support for terrorism—the latter of which references knowing support for a wide range of crimes under the ambit of terrorism, a number of which seem not implausible to be justifiably charged against participants in the capitol insurrection, such as conspiring to kill or kidnap the President, Vice President, any member of Congress, etc.)
> If this becomes our new bar for terrorism charges then don’t be surprised when you wind up on a no fly list and get a knock on your door after attending a protest.
The “no-fly” list doesn't require being charged with anything, anyhow, much less “terrorism” specifically,
> “Terrorism” isn't an actual crime you can be charged for regarding acts within the US
Sounds like a case is being made for it, that’s what I’m concerned about. Those laws will be permanent and will continue to creep their way into daily life.
Sounds like a case is being made for it, that’s what I’m concerned about. Those laws will be permanent and will continue to creep their way into daily life.
> Sounds like a case is being made for it, that’s what I’m concerned about
People have been called terrorists for domestic acts for decades without any effort at legislation to make that a specific chargeable crime, and nothing in the way people are referring to the insurrectionists at the Capitol as domestic terrorists is any different.
People have been called terrorists for domestic acts for decades without any effort at legislation to make that a specific chargeable crime, and nothing in the way people are referring to the insurrectionists at the Capitol as domestic terrorists is any different.
It seems so oddly funny to have people honestly question why the government didn’t make more efforts to stop something supported by their governments top leader.
It’s kind of like asking why didn’t the Russian police make efforts to stop a KGB assassination.
I mean do we really have to ask why? Isn’t it more relevant just to ask who knew about the attacks and kick them to the curb either for being astronomically incompetent, or either passively or actively assisting the attack?
It’s kind of like asking why didn’t the Russian police make efforts to stop a KGB assassination.
I mean do we really have to ask why? Isn’t it more relevant just to ask who knew about the attacks and kick them to the curb either for being astronomically incompetent, or either passively or actively assisting the attack?
TPTB like when certain tragedies happen because it catalyzes public support for laws they want to pass.
When the commander in chief is the orchestrator, blaming law enforcement is not clear cut either.
It's not clear whether the President was the orchestrator, or whether he was the conductor for music written by someone else.
"Following orders" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card. If LE didn't speak out, they are co-conspirators.
Well, "following orders" can absolutely be a get-out-of-jail-free card when the orders come from the person in charge of handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Considering the person in charge giving out said cards is going to be out of office tomorrow, that excuse is going to have less and less use going forward.
The constitutionality of "future-effective" pardons is in question. There's also the question of if those pardons will even be issued (does he care enough).
The constitutionality of "future-effective" pardons is in question. There's also the question of if those pardons will even be issued (does he care enough).
At a minimum, it is a reason people expect to get get out jail free cards when the person perceived to be giving orders has the power to hand out get out of jail free cards.
I have heard two theories that seemed plausible to me:
1. The Capitol police are used to dealing with large protests. They happen frequently in DC, especially in and around the capitol. So they may have unfortunately assumed that there is no reason to think this protest would be different, and thus not prepared properly
2. They assumed that a pro-Trump, QANON crowd would be pro-police. This is probably not a bad assumption, some of the people were waving blue lives matter flags etc. If they assumed that, they might have assumed that they would not break the law and were under-prepared.
Another plausible explanation could be large portion of the officers were sympathetic to the cause, but I'm not sure I have seen any evidence of that yet.
1. The Capitol police are used to dealing with large protests. They happen frequently in DC, especially in and around the capitol. So they may have unfortunately assumed that there is no reason to think this protest would be different, and thus not prepared properly
2. They assumed that a pro-Trump, QANON crowd would be pro-police. This is probably not a bad assumption, some of the people were waving blue lives matter flags etc. If they assumed that, they might have assumed that they would not break the law and were under-prepared.
Another plausible explanation could be large portion of the officers were sympathetic to the cause, but I'm not sure I have seen any evidence of that yet.
> it's weird that the discussion has centered around censorship
The discussion here has focused on the shutdown of Parler, both because the demographic leans right and because tech people feel more comfortable talking about data access and civil liberties than about political violence.
In the rest of society, I assure you, the laser focus of discussion is absolutely about the act itself, and the response to it, and questions about the likelihood of it happening again. The stuff about Parler is a side show for the most part.
The discussion here has focused on the shutdown of Parler, both because the demographic leans right and because tech people feel more comfortable talking about data access and civil liberties than about political violence.
In the rest of society, I assure you, the laser focus of discussion is absolutely about the act itself, and the response to it, and questions about the likelihood of it happening again. The stuff about Parler is a side show for the most part.
If it’s due to a right leaning user base then you can be pretty sure that half the country has the same concerns. Everyone seems to keep forgetting that.
I haven't seen these calls for surveillance. I have seen calls for sedition charges against the politicians that encouraged it and law enforcement that ignored the evidence of coming insurrection.
Crypto wars II. Barr was making noises about banning strong domestic cryptography again, a few months ago. It's a Democratic party trigger, too, so don't expect this to change much.
[Can you fine folks in California vote out Feinstein? She's long past her best-used-by date]
[Can you fine folks in California vote out Feinstein? She's long past her best-used-by date]
I’ve tried but no smart up and coming democrat wants to start their career by poking the party establishment in the eye, so we largely don’t get great challenging candidates. And california republicans have the albatross of what the national Republican Party has become around their neck in the state.
Who actually believes the point of surveillance is for protection OF the people?
zyxzevn(2)
To be honest FBI did see this and they did work to counter it but the Administration did not take their warning seriously. Donald Trump refused to deploy National Guard and Pence had to do it even though Pence did not have the authority. You can't blame the tail of snake of the venom in its head.
There is plenty of evidence that the GREAT LEADER tried to overturn elections. If the Congress fails to impeach him it would imply the Congress is not a strong and relevant institution anymore and what the GREAT LEADER failed at someone else would succeed in future. Also, no point blaming FBI here as they were merely pen pushers, their bosses and Congress from which derive legitimacy are far more incompetent and responsible for this mess.
Cato Institute (Libertarian/Conservative think tank) analyst David Bier has a timeline here. The Great Leader Supreme had called for this rally in early December and had since used violent language asking folks to move to DC on December 6th.
https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1351552702032056328?...
Here are some quotable quotes.
> 12/19: Trump announces the Jan. 6th event by tweeting, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Immediately, insurrectionists begin to discuss the “Wild Protest.” Just 2 days later, this UK political analyst predicts the violence
> On Dec. 29, the FBI sends out a nationwide bulletin warning legislatures about attacks
> 1/1: Trump tweets the time of his protest. Then he retweets “The calvary is coming” on Jan. 6!” Sounds like a war? About this time, the FBI begins visiting right wing extremists to tell them not to go--does the FBI tell the president?
>1/5: Trump tweets at various law enforcement, intelligence, and military agencies that he supposedly oversees about the threat from “Antifa.” At the same time, a VA FBI Office warns of a “war” at the Capitol from the far right starting the next day.
> 1/6, 12:00-12:17pm: Trump begins his speech. At 12:17, he says that he will march with the rioters to the Capitol to demand the election be overturned.
> "After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol" - Donald J. Trump - Jan 6 2021
> "We are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give weak Republicans the pride and boldness that they need to take back our country... So let's walk down Pennsylvania Ave" https://youtu.be/ipTSkxiToDE
There is plenty of evidence that the GREAT LEADER tried to overturn elections. If the Congress fails to impeach him it would imply the Congress is not a strong and relevant institution anymore and what the GREAT LEADER failed at someone else would succeed in future. Also, no point blaming FBI here as they were merely pen pushers, their bosses and Congress from which derive legitimacy are far more incompetent and responsible for this mess.
Cato Institute (Libertarian/Conservative think tank) analyst David Bier has a timeline here. The Great Leader Supreme had called for this rally in early December and had since used violent language asking folks to move to DC on December 6th.
https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1351552702032056328?...
Here are some quotable quotes.
> 12/19: Trump announces the Jan. 6th event by tweeting, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Immediately, insurrectionists begin to discuss the “Wild Protest.” Just 2 days later, this UK political analyst predicts the violence
> On Dec. 29, the FBI sends out a nationwide bulletin warning legislatures about attacks
> 1/1: Trump tweets the time of his protest. Then he retweets “The calvary is coming” on Jan. 6!” Sounds like a war? About this time, the FBI begins visiting right wing extremists to tell them not to go--does the FBI tell the president?
>1/5: Trump tweets at various law enforcement, intelligence, and military agencies that he supposedly oversees about the threat from “Antifa.” At the same time, a VA FBI Office warns of a “war” at the Capitol from the far right starting the next day.
> 1/6, 12:00-12:17pm: Trump begins his speech. At 12:17, he says that he will march with the rioters to the Capitol to demand the election be overturned.
> "After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol" - Donald J. Trump - Jan 6 2021
> "We are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give weak Republicans the pride and boldness that they need to take back our country... So let's walk down Pennsylvania Ave" https://youtu.be/ipTSkxiToDE
Yeah "we need to break all encryption to catch people planning terrorism in Facebook groups, e-mail, and unencrypted SMS..."
Most terrorists are idiots because most people who are not idiots are not terrorists.
Most terrorists are idiots because most people who are not idiots are not terrorists.
There have been plenty of extremely well organised, sophisticated and technically competent terrorists. The IRA, the Red Amy Faction, the PLO and Black September, Al Qaeda.
Aside from 9/11 none of them have operated successfully in the US and your domestic terrorism has mainly been perpetrated by individuals or very small one off groups of just 2 or 3.
Aside from 9/11 none of them have operated successfully in the US and your domestic terrorism has mainly been perpetrated by individuals or very small one off groups of just 2 or 3.
It's worth noting the Weather Underground were well organized and sophisticated terrorists, although they were admittedly a lot less violent and long-lasting than the listed groups.
Interesting, I'd never heard of them. They certainly do seem to be pretty sophisticated and disciplined though.
There was actually a fair amount of domestic terrorism in the 60’s and 70’s that doesn’t get widely discussed for some reason. FALN was another fairly successful domestic terror group that has gone largely forgotten.
They are still active, just not violent.
> Aside from 9/11 none of them have operated successfully in the US
The Provisional IRA ran fundraising operations in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
The Provisional IRA ran fundraising operations in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
As did the Fenians long before. Also ran actual military operations out of the US.
Most people who are idiots are not terrorists either.
On average a terrorist would be smarter than the average person. Terrorists are highly motiviated individuals, they can deeply understand an ideology and they activity learn/train in specialized skills. Compared to the average person their IQ would be 20 points higher.
Being a terrorist isn't easy. It's not a job for everyone.
On average a terrorist would be smarter than the average person. Terrorists are highly motiviated individuals, they can deeply understand an ideology and they activity learn/train in specialized skills. Compared to the average person their IQ would be 20 points higher.
Being a terrorist isn't easy. It's not a job for everyone.
> On average a terrorist would be smarter than the average person
Because the stupid ones get killed/thrown into jail
Because the stupid ones get killed/thrown into jail
> they can deeply understand an ideology
Looking at what motivated most of the Capitol insurrectionists does not support this claim. They are seemingly unable to distinguish reality from obvious propaganda or wild conspiracy theories.
Looking at what motivated most of the Capitol insurrectionists does not support this claim. They are seemingly unable to distinguish reality from obvious propaganda or wild conspiracy theories.
>people protesting
>terrorists
Pick one
Pick one
wolco5(1)
Still in the app stores I see.
I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.
A coworker has a lot of conservative friends. All of them were banned from FB until the 23rd. Even her daughter, who has never written any posts supporting DJT, but liked a few posts, was banned for the same time frame.
I've read absolutely nothing about this in the news. She even shared a screenshot one of her friends shared with her. It said:
"Your account is restricted right now.
You're temporarily restricted from doing things like posting or commenting on groups, Pages or events until January 23 at 3:19 AM.
Dismiss"
I take this to mean they are afraid of a 2nd around of problems.
I've read absolutely nothing about this in the news. She even shared a screenshot one of her friends shared with her. It said:
"Your account is restricted right now.
You're temporarily restricted from doing things like posting or commenting on groups, Pages or events until January 23 at 3:19 AM.
Dismiss"
I take this to mean they are afraid of a 2nd around of problems.
If you know someone like that, ask them what they shared beforehand, and yourself whether they're leaving out some of their posting history to build sympathy. I also have conservative friends, none of whom had any bans or restrictions — but they also weren't suggesting violence as a response to losing an election or sharing QAnon dreck.
A news report on this would be interesting to see to get all the facts. I am not familiar with this.
I don't have a news report, but my wife has an instagram she uses to share pictures of cakes and cookies that she has baked, and also likes and follows right wing politicos, had a similar message silencing her account around the election.
It looks like 1 out of my 3 openly conservative and active FB friends have gone silent since 1/6.
Parler explicitly advertises itself as a place of little or no moderation. Facebook has something like 15,000 professional content moderators whose job is so terrible that they literally get PTSD, but Facebook still fails to catch a lot of it. Being not great at moderation and actively advertising yourself as an unmoderated forum are fairly different lines.
If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse. Just because Facebook has proportionally fewer posts that violate its policies doesn't mean it should get a free pass. The fact that up to 15,000 people have PTSD is the societal cost we pay, even if the vast majority of FB users are using the platform as expected.
Facebook gets a free pass because Facebook is an influential organization. Parler had no network of elites protecting it, because as you say, it had no other purpose beyond being 'volunteer' moderated.
If at a minimum, the attack gets us to think about the type of questions posed by The Social Dilemma, we're trending towards a better place.
Facebook gets a free pass because Facebook is an influential organization. Parler had no network of elites protecting it, because as you say, it had no other purpose beyond being 'volunteer' moderated.
If at a minimum, the attack gets us to think about the type of questions posed by The Social Dilemma, we're trending towards a better place.
"Facebook gets a free pass..."
No, Facebook devotes significant resources to moderation and makes good faith attempts to uphold their policies. Parler did not. That is the difference.
"If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse."
No one is trying to rid the world of all negative externalities, only to make reasonable efforts to mitigate them. There may never be a perfectly moderated social media platform, just as there may never be a perfectly safe highway, and that is fine.
No, Facebook devotes significant resources to moderation and makes good faith attempts to uphold their policies. Parler did not. That is the difference.
"If the negative externalities are the same in both cases, then this isn't an excuse."
No one is trying to rid the world of all negative externalities, only to make reasonable efforts to mitigate them. There may never be a perfectly moderated social media platform, just as there may never be a perfectly safe highway, and that is fine.
> No, Facebook devotes significant resources to moderation and makes good faith attempts to uphold their policies.
What's always missing here is that the outcome is still terrible and everyone is arguing from the premise that Facebook deserves to exist regardless.
If I maintain my rollercoaster in good faith but I just can't hire enough maintenance crew to do it well and people keep dying on it... maybe the rollercoaster doesn't deserve to be open and should be shut down.
What's always missing here is that the outcome is still terrible and everyone is arguing from the premise that Facebook deserves to exist regardless.
If I maintain my rollercoaster in good faith but I just can't hire enough maintenance crew to do it well and people keep dying on it... maybe the rollercoaster doesn't deserve to be open and should be shut down.
You're right, Facebook won't get a free pass. Congress will drag Zuckerberg back into Congress, give him a scolding, and then largely things will remain the same. Whether or not they moderate enough is certainly a gray question.
All sorts of industries have negative externalities (e.g., fossil fuels). But are Facebook's worth it if they destabilize the democracy in which allowed Facebook to grow and exist?
All sorts of industries have negative externalities (e.g., fossil fuels). But are Facebook's worth it if they destabilize the democracy in which allowed Facebook to grow and exist?
"good faith attempts"
If it's about intent, rather than results, then it's sure a big coincidence that Parler was deplatformed by Apple, Google, and AWS all within a few days.
If it's about intent, rather than results, then it's sure a big coincidence that Parler was deplatformed by Apple, Google, and AWS all within a few days.
AWS has actually been telling Parler to clean the site up for months.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa...
original sources can be found within the article.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa...
original sources can be found within the article.
We can look to China at what effective moderation looks like and then learn that FB would need 2-3 orders more moderators to make it ‘safe’
No one gets a free pass, that is disingenuous. These two things are not the same.
Facebook makes a good faith effort to scale content moderation. Parler did not.
But facebook doesn't just moderate. They control algorithms that decide what posts are presented to users. I think they should loose their common carrier status because of that editorial control. It's like if the phone company prioritized evil phone calls and delayed non-evil phone calls, it is a horrible influence on the conversations they are supposedly not involved in.
Can you substantiate that a little? Parler promoted itself as a champion of free speech which is not the same as saying "little to no moderation". They did have a moderation system in place.
I do not know how many users they have per reviewer, do you?
I do not know how many users they have per reviewer, do you?
Parler's slogan was "the world's premier free speech platform." They had no automated content scanning. They reportedly employed no moderators. According to Amazon's response to Parler's lawsuit, Amazon had spent almost two months repeatedly on calls for them asking them to take down several hundred specifically listed messages with death threats and such, which Parler simply declined to do.
Parler reportedly had a community "jury pool" system in which Parler users could volunteer to review reports for bad content and could decide whether to leave the messages up or not.
Parler reportedly had a community "jury pool" system in which Parler users could volunteer to review reports for bad content and could decide whether to leave the messages up or not.
All this talk of Facebook being a paragon of skillful moderation while Parler was a Wild West of loose policy sounds a lot like comparing an acorn to an oak tree. Of course Parler didn’t have the same moderation tools, they weren’t a multi billion dollar company with a supranational sized user base and decades of growth. They were a small platform attempting to scale. What did Facebook moderation look like a few years after their launch? Or Reddit? They were just as cavalier as Parler.
Why does Apple and Google as a duopoly get to determine what businesses must do and not do to exist? (from a practical perspective not a legal one) For me that's the real question.
Because Apple and Google produced viable platforms that people want. Microsoft, Blackberry, and Palm all attempted to do something similar, and the market didn't coalesce around their offerings. Even Amazon tried with kindle/fire. Part of the reason this happens is that developers only have so much ability to diversify, so this is a natural marketplace where only a few big players can survive.
The Internet of the 1990's is still alive by the way. Anyone can put up their message on a website provided by a host of their choice.
The Internet of the 1990's is still alive by the way. Anyone can put up their message on a website provided by a host of their choice.
Do you think it had anything to do with buying up competitors and technology that propelled them to domination as well as using their web of other services as an advantage? Even if everything is fair do you think free market theory cares about how they arrived at a duopoly?
I certainly didn't claim it was "fair". I stated that developers are going to coalesce around a small number of providers in a similar space.
They clearly have a dominant position now. Their disruption won't come from phones, just like their rise didn't come from phones either.
They clearly have a dominant position now. Their disruption won't come from phones, just like their rise didn't come from phones either.
"If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's."
Is Facebook failing to moderate, or failing at moderation? If the standard is perfect moderation, there is no social media. If the standard is a good faith efforts at moderation, Facebook should be tolerated (if not compelled to do better) and Parler should be punished (unless they make good faith efforts to do better).
Is Facebook failing to moderate, or failing at moderation? If the standard is perfect moderation, there is no social media. If the standard is a good faith efforts at moderation, Facebook should be tolerated (if not compelled to do better) and Parler should be punished (unless they make good faith efforts to do better).
Is Facebook actually moderating in good faith though?
Consider that divisive, offensive and false content is guaranteed to generate engagement and thus contribute to their bottom-line, while content that doesn't have these traits is less likely to do so. So they're already starting off the wrong way here, when their profits directly correlate with their negative impact on society.
Consider that there is plenty of bad content that violates their community standards on Facebook and such content doesn't even try to hide itself and is thus trivially detectable with automation: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/04/a-year-later-cybercrime-...
Consider that Instagram doesn't remove accounts with openly racist & anti-Semitic usernames even when reported: https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/kz10nw/i_mean_if_...
Is Facebook truly moderating in good faith, or are they only moderating when the potential PR backlash from the bad content getting media attention greater than the revenue from the engagement around said content? I strongly suspect the latter.
Keep in mind that moderating a public forum is mostly a solved problem, people have done so (often benevolently) for decades. The social media companies' pleas about moderation being impossible at scale is bullshit - it's only impossible because they're trying to eat the cake and have it too. When the incentives are aligned, moderation is a solved problem.
Consider that divisive, offensive and false content is guaranteed to generate engagement and thus contribute to their bottom-line, while content that doesn't have these traits is less likely to do so. So they're already starting off the wrong way here, when their profits directly correlate with their negative impact on society.
Consider that there is plenty of bad content that violates their community standards on Facebook and such content doesn't even try to hide itself and is thus trivially detectable with automation: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/04/a-year-later-cybercrime-...
Consider that Instagram doesn't remove accounts with openly racist & anti-Semitic usernames even when reported: https://old.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/kz10nw/i_mean_if_...
Is Facebook truly moderating in good faith, or are they only moderating when the potential PR backlash from the bad content getting media attention greater than the revenue from the engagement around said content? I strongly suspect the latter.
Keep in mind that moderating a public forum is mostly a solved problem, people have done so (often benevolently) for decades. The social media companies' pleas about moderation being impossible at scale is bullshit - it's only impossible because they're trying to eat the cake and have it too. When the incentives are aligned, moderation is a solved problem.
How many massacres and beheadings have been live streamed on FB at this point? And yet very few seem to think FB is the problem.
What are you proposing? Banning live streaming?
Moderation is inherently an after-the-fact phenomenon. People are going to do unpredictable things, sometimes bad.
Moderation is inherently an after-the-fact phenomenon. People are going to do unpredictable things, sometimes bad.
Brown people don't count, even when they lose their heads. Remember when a plane full of them crashed and there wasn't even a grounding?
It's got to happen to white folk in the US before anything will change.
It's got to happen to white folk in the US before anything will change.
I suspect the bar for acceptable moderation will always be just a hair below what facebook, twitter, and youtube can manage.
Every time they fail again, they'll be hauled in front of congress and explain how they'll rub a little AI on it. It'll become just a little more expensive to compete.
People keep saying Parler intentionally did not moderate. But every actual source I've seen says that they were trying to moderate but lacked the manpower to do so because the platform grew too big too fast.
I'd be interested if anyone can share anything indicating a refusal to moderate.
I'd be interested if anyone can share anything indicating a refusal to moderate.
My two cents: Facebook has an algorithm they use to decide what posts are presented to a user. They should therefore loose their section 230 common carrier status. They are the ones deciding to put toxic and divisive information in front of users to drive engagement, instead of simply sharing posts in chronological order and letting users control all the filtering.
You've misunderstood Section 230 : https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
That's not what section 230 says today, but there's a very interesting debate to be had about what its inevitable replacement should say tomorrow. Ranking posts according to some unexplainable algorithm which includes things like keyword extraction, often "selfishly" to favor engagement, has proven to be far from benign. I think it's quite reasonable to say that as a platform exerts more of this control it should also assume more responsibility. If you're not prepared to take on that responsibility, stick to strict chronological order and/or user defined priorities.
I don't particularly like it when Facebook (for example) buries content from my actual friends and family beneath posts that it thinks might be more engaging. They're usually wrong, BTW; the moment I recognize it as an algorithmic promotion I scroll right past as quick as I can. They certainly shouldn't be showing me stuff from pages and groups I never expressed an interest in. If I want to find new sources I'll ask. If they do those things, they are acting as editors and publishers, and should be treated as such. There are still problems to be solved around groups people have already joined and ads and privacy, but if they'd at least stop pulling every user toward more extreme content - effectively recruiting for the worst of the worst - that would be positive.
I don't particularly like it when Facebook (for example) buries content from my actual friends and family beneath posts that it thinks might be more engaging. They're usually wrong, BTW; the moment I recognize it as an algorithmic promotion I scroll right past as quick as I can. They certainly shouldn't be showing me stuff from pages and groups I never expressed an interest in. If I want to find new sources I'll ask. If they do those things, they are acting as editors and publishers, and should be treated as such. There are still problems to be solved around groups people have already joined and ads and privacy, but if they'd at least stop pulling every user toward more extreme content - effectively recruiting for the worst of the worst - that would be positive.
Thanks for that clarifying link! I still wonder about this, though. Relevant section (c)(1) says:
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
I'm hung up on the words "provided by". Facebook's algorithm controls what is presented to each user. They are providing a view of some posts, and not others. Facebook is creating the wall for each user, right?
Or would all this still considered moderation, allowing them to do what they want? Section (c)(2)(B) mentions not being liable for allowing users to control what content is accessed, but doesn't mention when the provider makes decisions like this.
At an extreme, could facebook use their secret algorithm to promote all posts saying "stolen election" to all republicans, demote contrary posts, and still claim claim section 230 protection because they didn't create the posts even though they could choose whatever they want to go viral amongst millions of various posts?
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
I'm hung up on the words "provided by". Facebook's algorithm controls what is presented to each user. They are providing a view of some posts, and not others. Facebook is creating the wall for each user, right?
Or would all this still considered moderation, allowing them to do what they want? Section (c)(2)(B) mentions not being liable for allowing users to control what content is accessed, but doesn't mention when the provider makes decisions like this.
At an extreme, could facebook use their secret algorithm to promote all posts saying "stolen election" to all republicans, demote contrary posts, and still claim claim section 230 protection because they didn't create the posts even though they could choose whatever they want to go viral amongst millions of various posts?
This is a political thing above all else. Its indirect bribery to the new party in power. In return, anti-trust cases (they have already been formed internally) will likely be overlooked/a call from the top or new appointments will change the calculus. This is how Washington works.
Facebook is much bigger so the amount of upset users will be greater as well if it is removed. Plus all the big tech CEOs have their own little club so I doubt apple would mess with Facebook like that.
They have a history of messing with each other, though—Apple and Amazon have feuded pretty openly, as did Apple and Google.
I think it is also fair to point out that FB does have a review process, policies, and despite not being able to keep up with the volume, has tried to keep the most incendiary behavior off its platform. Meanwhile, Parler has refused to do any of these things as a matter of principle. As much as I hate on FB, I think there is a clear distinction here.
A decent distinction to make is Facebook on the face of it tries to moderate they're just bad at it and make decisions a lot of people aren't happy with where Parler's moderation system was almost entirely pro forma relying largely on showing reports to a panel of random users.
As a bean farmer, your ability to herd cats at the absolute highest level determines whether or not you stay in business.
I'm not sure how hard FB actually tries to moderate extremist political content.
They're pretty damn good at quickly taking down child porn and copyrighted movies/music, because those are areas where big money & potential criminal liability are on the line.
In contrast, nobody's forcing them to censor political extremism, and the usual "engagement" metrics that they and their advertisers track would likely reward that content.
In the last few days, they've shut down thousands of groups and hundreds of thousands of accounts for sharing QAnon conspiracies, which strongly suggests to me that they've had the technical ability to do that for quite a while.
They're not "bad at" moderation, they just choose to moderate certain things and not others.
They're pretty damn good at quickly taking down child porn and copyrighted movies/music, because those are areas where big money & potential criminal liability are on the line.
In contrast, nobody's forcing them to censor political extremism, and the usual "engagement" metrics that they and their advertisers track would likely reward that content.
In the last few days, they've shut down thousands of groups and hundreds of thousands of accounts for sharing QAnon conspiracies, which strongly suggests to me that they've had the technical ability to do that for quite a while.
They're not "bad at" moderation, they just choose to moderate certain things and not others.
Most people here could hack together some basic keyword searches for questionable content in a day at the outside. I think we can assume that Facebook already has the tools to run those searches at scale and act on the results.
So I don't think there's any good reason to disagree with you.
At best, Facebook has prioritised "engagement" - i.e. ad revenue - over unacceptable extremism. At worst Facebook is knowingly complicit in the politics and in the polarisation that is being generated.
It would be impossible to know which of those is true without access to internal records. But there should at least be an investigation asking these questions.
And not just of Facebook, but of all the social tech and media giants.
So I don't think there's any good reason to disagree with you.
At best, Facebook has prioritised "engagement" - i.e. ad revenue - over unacceptable extremism. At worst Facebook is knowingly complicit in the politics and in the polarisation that is being generated.
It would be impossible to know which of those is true without access to internal records. But there should at least be an investigation asking these questions.
And not just of Facebook, but of all the social tech and media giants.
So democracy or trial by your peers fails?
In site moderation it's basically a guarantee that you'll wind up with an extreme echo chamber, people self select in or out the site based on the content of that site. Unless your user group is extremely broad based and siloing is good enough that people aren't driven off the site by extremists then the group of moderators you select from is inherently pretty ok with the content of the site. It has a chance to work in the real world where the same self selection effect is moderated by other factors.
How is it different than real life? Look at the county by county map of the past couple presidential elections. You'll see that there is very much a delineation between people with different ideals resulting in echo chambers. We see this in stereotypes of country folks or city folks by the other.
There's a whole trial to present the evidence and how the law is supposed to be interpreted in a court case you can't really replicate in Parler's attempted moderation system. Also the pomp and dressing of state and law do a lot to change how people act. One of the big questions any prosecutor will ask is will you judge solely on the law and they will very quickly strike you if you indicate no or that you know anything about jury nullification.
Everyone should know about jury nullification. I feel it's a violation of a right to a fair trial if the jury doesn't understand all the options, including that one.
The questions don't really mean much. People could honestly answer that they will apply the law, but how can they if their understanding of it is flawed, especially since that question takes place before the judge educates the jury on the law?
The questions don't really mean much. People could honestly answer that they will apply the law, but how can they if their understanding of it is flawed, especially since that question takes place before the judge educates the jury on the law?
> Everyone should know about jury nullification.
Prosecutors would really rather you not because it has the chance to completely screw their case and they already put a lot of effort in maintaining conviction records. Also it's one of those things where it's not officially an option there's just no punishment available to prevent it.
It does mean something you can say yes or no to 'will you rule based on the law and the evidence presented in the case' you don't have to know the law to agree to do that. It's not phrased exactly like that either it's a series. [0] #15 for example is basically a question directly about nullification. 13 and 14 are also around the subject as well.
[0] https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/attyresources/juro...
Prosecutors would really rather you not because it has the chance to completely screw their case and they already put a lot of effort in maintaining conviction records. Also it's one of those things where it's not officially an option there's just no punishment available to prevent it.
It does mean something you can say yes or no to 'will you rule based on the law and the evidence presented in the case' you don't have to know the law to agree to do that. It's not phrased exactly like that either it's a series. [0] #15 for example is basically a question directly about nullification. 13 and 14 are also around the subject as well.
[0] https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/attyresources/juro...
Frankly, I'm more interested in justice than what the prosecutor thinks.
Also, for number 15, I can but may choose not to. So basically a worthless question.
Also, for number 15, I can but may choose not to. So basically a worthless question.
Facebook is not failing to moderate. Moderation is hard and everyone knows that, but Facebook has been improving their moderation techniques and policies for years. Unlike Parler and Gab, Facebook is actually putting in the effort to moderate and was not created to be a safe haven for terrorists who were banned from other platforms.
It’s like when the feds go for the capos instead of the mob boss because it’s easier.
> Still in the app stores I see.
That's because this stuff was a tiny fraction of the activity on Facebook (it's HUGE, and still mostly for baby pictures), but a substantial fraction of the content on Parler and Gab (they're tiny, and mostly for the stuff that Facebook and Twitter ban).
A lot of people who object to Parler's treatment want this conceived as a simple binary, but it's more of a matter of degree an proportion.
That's because this stuff was a tiny fraction of the activity on Facebook (it's HUGE, and still mostly for baby pictures), but a substantial fraction of the content on Parler and Gab (they're tiny, and mostly for the stuff that Facebook and Twitter ban).
A lot of people who object to Parler's treatment want this conceived as a simple binary, but it's more of a matter of degree an proportion.
Apple’s reasoning was their incapacity to moderate violent messages, not their ratio of violent messages.
I'm sure removal was still weighed against how much would be lost (financially, functionality lost by people who isn't violating rules) etc.
In the Facebook case, there is some moderation (although it obviously failed), and the fraction of users who aren't doing anything wrong is absolutely staggering. The alternative to FB if banned, for people in that category is hard to find.
On Parler, the moderation was basically non-existent, the amount of well behaved users is small (although still a majority even on Parler obviously) and the available alternatives to those users are readily available, such as Twitter, making the damage to those users smaller.
In the Facebook case, there is some moderation (although it obviously failed), and the fraction of users who aren't doing anything wrong is absolutely staggering. The alternative to FB if banned, for people in that category is hard to find.
On Parler, the moderation was basically non-existent, the amount of well behaved users is small (although still a majority even on Parler obviously) and the available alternatives to those users are readily available, such as Twitter, making the damage to those users smaller.
And Facebook removes such posts when they are made aware of them, while Parler expressly does not, so what is your point?
This isn't true... Parler does remove calls for violence when they are reported.
I used to use Parler before the ban and I don't remembering seeing any calls for violence. I'm not saying it doesn't exist because to be fair I wouldn't of been in those circles anyway, but it seemed quite tame in contrast to what I see from the average person I follow on Twitter where I regularly see people posting violent Tweets about Trump, his supporters, and even tweets supportive of the violent protests we saw earlier in the year. It's only been in recent weeks that those calling for violence throughout 2020 are finally denouncing violence.
Everyone who is acting like Parler was this really radical place just didn't use it IMO. I think people are clearly right when they say this about platforms Bitchute and some of the Reddit alternatives, but as far as I could tell the content on Parler was just like every other social network, just a little more conservative leaning.
If Apple is that concerned they should ban the Saidit app where there is Jewish conspiracies and far-right content everywhere. I strongly suspect they're lying to you when they say it was because of a lack of moderation. Just like how Twitter allows Richard Spencer to remain on their platform while claiming Trump has gone too far. Evidence would suggest they don't target extremism, they target popular conservative commenters and platforms.
I used to use Parler before the ban and I don't remembering seeing any calls for violence. I'm not saying it doesn't exist because to be fair I wouldn't of been in those circles anyway, but it seemed quite tame in contrast to what I see from the average person I follow on Twitter where I regularly see people posting violent Tweets about Trump, his supporters, and even tweets supportive of the violent protests we saw earlier in the year. It's only been in recent weeks that those calling for violence throughout 2020 are finally denouncing violence.
Everyone who is acting like Parler was this really radical place just didn't use it IMO. I think people are clearly right when they say this about platforms Bitchute and some of the Reddit alternatives, but as far as I could tell the content on Parler was just like every other social network, just a little more conservative leaning.
If Apple is that concerned they should ban the Saidit app where there is Jewish conspiracies and far-right content everywhere. I strongly suspect they're lying to you when they say it was because of a lack of moderation. Just like how Twitter allows Richard Spencer to remain on their platform while claiming Trump has gone too far. Evidence would suggest they don't target extremism, they target popular conservative commenters and platforms.
That it isn’t a matter of proportion that caused Apple to pull Parler from their App Store.
No, Apple pulled it from the Apple store because Parler expressly refused to moderate the violent content even once it was made aware of it while still taking the time to moderate and ban left-leaning posts, indicating that it had the resources to moderate, it simply chose not to.
[deleted]
I know, but do we really expect Apple to start World War III by banning Facebook from the App Store? We have to think in terms of reasonable solutions.
[deleted]
>That's because this stuff was a tiny fraction of the activity on Facebook (it's HUGE, and still mostly for baby pictures), but a substantial fraction of the content on Parler and Gab (they're tiny, and mostly for the stuff that Facebook and Twitter ban).
I would love to see a source for this claim.
I would love to see a source for this claim.
> I would love to see a source for this claim.
There's no source, but it stands to reason: Facebook has something like 2 billion daily active users and it its roots are in nonpolitical social networking (meaning baby pictures, etc.). Parler had something like 2-3 million daily active users at its peak [1], and most of them joined after the Twitter started putting warning labels on false claims of election fraud. Parler also billed itself as a "free speech" social network, which in practice means allowing things other social networks prohibit, which means its mainly gets users who want to post and read such stuff [2].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/tech/parler-downloads/index.h...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/right-wing-users-flock-t...
There's no source, but it stands to reason: Facebook has something like 2 billion daily active users and it its roots are in nonpolitical social networking (meaning baby pictures, etc.). Parler had something like 2-3 million daily active users at its peak [1], and most of them joined after the Twitter started putting warning labels on false claims of election fraud. Parler also billed itself as a "free speech" social network, which in practice means allowing things other social networks prohibit, which means its mainly gets users who want to post and read such stuff [2].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/tech/parler-downloads/index.h...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/right-wing-users-flock-t...
[deleted]
Sounds like some serious mental gymnastics to me. And also not provable with any specific metrics.
Legal classification is very often qualitative (see: obscenity laws). Not everything in life can be boiled down to metrics.
It still has to be supported with logic and precedent. You could compare the action to the action of others like Facebook using metrics. If something is entirely subjective, then you would violate equal protection when one person is guilty and another is not, just based on the judge who heard it.
Where does legal classification even enter this conversation?
> Sounds like some serious mental gymnastics to me. And also not provable with any specific metrics.
It's not really, it just takes the concept of collateral damage into account. Should a billion Grandmas be denied their baby picture fix on account of a moderation team missing a few thousand users' insurrectionist and para-insurrectionist posts? Obviously not, since that action is high on collateral damage.
That said, Facebook obviously needs to do a better job here, and this is one more example of their foot-dragging causing problems.
It's not really, it just takes the concept of collateral damage into account. Should a billion Grandmas be denied their baby picture fix on account of a moderation team missing a few thousand users' insurrectionist and para-insurrectionist posts? Obviously not, since that action is high on collateral damage.
That said, Facebook obviously needs to do a better job here, and this is one more example of their foot-dragging causing problems.
Moral of story: FB and Twitter can do whatever they want, because they have more baby pictures. Any new social network has fewer baby pictures, and therefore can be held to a higher standard, to the point that it will be obliterated before it has a real chance to compete.
> Moral of story: FB and Twitter can do whatever they want, because they have more baby pictures. Any new social network has fewer baby pictures, and therefore can be held to a higher standard, to the point that it will be obliterated before it has a real chance to compete.
Eh, not really. You're forgetting the other half of the equation: Parler's niche was the stuff Facebook and Twitter had either banned or discouraged (like false claims of election fraud).
The real moral of the story is: don't try build your social network from Facebook and Twitter's concentrated dross.
Eh, not really. You're forgetting the other half of the equation: Parler's niche was the stuff Facebook and Twitter had either banned or discouraged (like false claims of election fraud).
The real moral of the story is: don't try build your social network from Facebook and Twitter's concentrated dross.
That doesn't seem to help your argument: it means that people deplatformed from FB/Twitter should also be deplatformed everywhere else, which doesn't sound like a great policy for freedom of speech or fostering a competitive marketplace.
There was a very real chance that Parler could have attracted a lot of mainstream people. Maybe the 70M people who voted for Trump would have gone there, and started posting baby pictures, which would improve their ratio a lot.
There was a very real chance that Parler could have attracted a lot of mainstream people. Maybe the 70M people who voted for Trump would have gone there, and started posting baby pictures, which would improve their ratio a lot.
>which doesn't sound like a great policy for freedom of speech or fostering a competitive marketplace.
It's entirely possible and reasonable to argue that the current limits on freedom of speech are insufficiently broad, and that the "competitive marketplace" of ideas has very little going for it empirically.
It's entirely possible and reasonable to argue that the current limits on freedom of speech are insufficiently broad, and that the "competitive marketplace" of ideas has very little going for it empirically.
People deplatformed from facebook and twitter were deplatformed for a good reason. So yes, they should be deplatformed everywhere else.
And this policy works just fine with freedom of speech, seeing as hate speech, threats of violence and insurrection are not covered by the 1st amendment, which doesn't even govern these companies anyway.
And this policy works just fine with freedom of speech, seeing as hate speech, threats of violence and insurrection are not covered by the 1st amendment, which doesn't even govern these companies anyway.
> it means that people deplatformed from FB/Twitter should also be deplatformed everywhere else, which doesn't sound like a great policy for freedom of speech or fostering a competitive marketplace.
That's actually a great policy, because FB/Twitter aren't super-eager to ban people for their speech, so the ones they systematically de-platform are usually doing something pretty bad. Note: I'm not saying they always make the right call 100% of the time.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Society is not obligated to give bad ideas an audience. In fact, it's doing its job if it filters those ideas out.
That's actually a great policy, because FB/Twitter aren't super-eager to ban people for their speech, so the ones they systematically de-platform are usually doing something pretty bad. Note: I'm not saying they always make the right call 100% of the time.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Society is not obligated to give bad ideas an audience. In fact, it's doing its job if it filters those ideas out.
It really doesn't, but ok.
Facebook has a huge moderation team. Just because some things get through that cause damage doesn't put it in the same category as a platform specifically built to enable terrorism.
Facebook has a huge moderation team. Just because some things get through that cause damage doesn't put it in the same category as a platform specifically built to enable terrorism.
I’m sorry but this isn’t Reddit, you can’t just claim a platform was specifically built for terrorism because you’re upset.
It has definitely attracted an alt-right crowd, but “specifically built to enable terrorism” is some ridiculous cable-news-level propaganda.
I’d much rather this conversation be about free speech and where lines can be drawn — and it bothers me that platforms can be taken down everywhere because of an unrelated group that happened to use them for something horrible. What about Signal? It’s been getting lots of popularity recently — what if it comes out that the terrorists are on Signal now, and there’s nothing they can do to be moderated because of the encryption. Will Signal be taken down for refusing to add a backdoor?
It has definitely attracted an alt-right crowd, but “specifically built to enable terrorism” is some ridiculous cable-news-level propaganda.
I’d much rather this conversation be about free speech and where lines can be drawn — and it bothers me that platforms can be taken down everywhere because of an unrelated group that happened to use them for something horrible. What about Signal? It’s been getting lots of popularity recently — what if it comes out that the terrorists are on Signal now, and there’s nothing they can do to be moderated because of the encryption. Will Signal be taken down for refusing to add a backdoor?
If you build a platform specifically to house/attract people who were banned from typical platforms because they had a tendency towards promoting violence, then I would argue that you are very much enabling (possibly even encouraging) their behavior. I believe that is a pretty logical sequence, and a clear line to draw.
There are very few people who earnestly want an unmoderated place of discourse, because those serve very little functional purpoae. Eventually most people will find something either irrelevant to their interests or personally repugnant presented to them and will go back to a place where there is some degree of moderation in place so that they can consistently find thing that interest and engage them. Why are you on HN and not one of these wholly unmoderated forums? Even curation of topics is a form of moderation, not to mention HN's strict approach to actually thoughtful commentary. The people who earnestly want a wholly unmoderated space are increasingly likely, depending on their desire for it, to be one of those people engaging in something so boorish that it got them removed from moderated spaces.
Furthermore, there is no small amount of irony in you saying you'd rather talk about free speech right after telling someone what they can or cannot claim.
There are very few people who earnestly want an unmoderated place of discourse, because those serve very little functional purpoae. Eventually most people will find something either irrelevant to their interests or personally repugnant presented to them and will go back to a place where there is some degree of moderation in place so that they can consistently find thing that interest and engage them. Why are you on HN and not one of these wholly unmoderated forums? Even curation of topics is a form of moderation, not to mention HN's strict approach to actually thoughtful commentary. The people who earnestly want a wholly unmoderated space are increasingly likely, depending on their desire for it, to be one of those people engaging in something so boorish that it got them removed from moderated spaces.
Furthermore, there is no small amount of irony in you saying you'd rather talk about free speech right after telling someone what they can or cannot claim.
> there is no small amount of irony in you saying you'd rather talk about free speech right after telling someone what they can or cannot claim.
You can't make those claims and expect people to take you seriously without backing them up.
> There are very few people who earnestly want an unmoderated place of discourse, because those serve very little functional purpoae.
Do you mean unmoderated or simply moderated to your specific standards? Parler was never unmoderated. You are defending deplatforming, while simultaneously telling people to go to different platforms if they want different standards of moderation. Do you see how this doesn't work?
You can't make those claims and expect people to take you seriously without backing them up.
> There are very few people who earnestly want an unmoderated place of discourse, because those serve very little functional purpoae.
Do you mean unmoderated or simply moderated to your specific standards? Parler was never unmoderated. You are defending deplatforming, while simultaneously telling people to go to different platforms if they want different standards of moderation. Do you see how this doesn't work?
> this isn’t Reddit ... because you’re upset.
You're right, it's not Reddit, and "because you're upset" would take it in that direction. Let's not.
> it bothers me that platforms can be taken down everywhere because of an unrelated group that happened to use them for something horrible
Does it bother you that many people are calling for exactly that wrt Facebook right now? I just checked comment history and saw no evidence of that, but I figured I'd ask instead of pretending to be psychic.
> Will Signal be taken down for refusing to add a backdoor?
I don't think anyone, including Apple or Google, considers Signal to be in the same category that requires moderation. Why not? Because there's this commonly applied but never defined distinction between public and private communication. Facebook is considered public, even though some communications there can be private. Signal is considered private, even though you can form pretty large groups of people who are nearly (but not completely) strangers. I wish someone would codify the difference, and its implications wrt moderation/takedown requirements. The lack of clarity around such issues is why both posters and platforms can claim immunity while toxic content spreads.
You're right, it's not Reddit, and "because you're upset" would take it in that direction. Let's not.
> it bothers me that platforms can be taken down everywhere because of an unrelated group that happened to use them for something horrible
Does it bother you that many people are calling for exactly that wrt Facebook right now? I just checked comment history and saw no evidence of that, but I figured I'd ask instead of pretending to be psychic.
> Will Signal be taken down for refusing to add a backdoor?
I don't think anyone, including Apple or Google, considers Signal to be in the same category that requires moderation. Why not? Because there's this commonly applied but never defined distinction between public and private communication. Facebook is considered public, even though some communications there can be private. Signal is considered private, even though you can form pretty large groups of people who are nearly (but not completely) strangers. I wish someone would codify the difference, and its implications wrt moderation/takedown requirements. The lack of clarity around such issues is why both posters and platforms can claim immunity while toxic content spreads.
Let me paint a hypothetical.
I create a new social network startup. Early on, most of the people it attracts are those banned from Twitter and Facebook - since they don't have a lot of other options. In addition to normal social network things, they post some questionable and inciting content. Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through the cracks. Is my social network "built to enable terrorism"?
The political situation we find ourselves in, even though it was allowed to fester for years on established social media platforms, seems ideal for securing a monopoly for those same platforms. How could a competitor get a foot in the door without being accused of catering to extremists?
I create a new social network startup. Early on, most of the people it attracts are those banned from Twitter and Facebook - since they don't have a lot of other options. In addition to normal social network things, they post some questionable and inciting content. Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through the cracks. Is my social network "built to enable terrorism"?
The political situation we find ourselves in, even though it was allowed to fester for years on established social media platforms, seems ideal for securing a monopoly for those same platforms. How could a competitor get a foot in the door without being accused of catering to extremists?
Let me paint a hypothetical.
[...]
Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team
and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through
the cracks. Is my social network "built to enable
terrorism"?
I once ran an for-profit online community. It was a startup, with strictly volunteer moderators. It was an early "social networking" thing; honestly more like "a BBS with some primordial social features". But hey, sounds like your hypothetical to an extent.
This doesn't mean I know anything.
Just means I'm sympathetic to the plight of folks trying to make that sort of thing a reality. For the record, I'd sure like to give it another try at some point myself.
Anyway, intent matters here, to an extent. Parler advertised itself as a more or less moderation-free space.
That's quite different thing from Twitter and FB, with their codes of conduct and actual moderation teams. I mean, the line may be fuzzy, but it's there. I'll be the first person to say that Twitter and FB suck, and moderation efforts for advertising-driven user content mills are probably eternally doomed because their very business model dictates that their user-to-moderator ratio is always going to be laughably huge; far too large to enable effective moderation barring some kind of generational leap in AI moderation tools.
But there is at least the semblance of a good-faith effort there from those two, as much as I dislike them.
I'd say yes, in fact.
The notion that you'd need moderation should not come as a surprise to you. It's not 1997, so it's not like you don't know that this kind of thing happens. If you want to build a social network, handling the moderation load is part of your job, not an afterthought.
We absolutely allowed large social media platforms to get away with it for far too long. It's not the only thing making them a monopoly -- the network effect of having all of your friends in one place is also a significant barrier to entry for any new social media site.
Fixing that after the fact isn't easy. But it doesn't mean that you can act as though you're not very, very, very late to the party in trying to establish a new social media site. In 2021 it's part of any new site to make sure you're not being used for crime -- or at least making enough of an attempt that authorities don't see you as being implicated.
The notion that you'd need moderation should not come as a surprise to you. It's not 1997, so it's not like you don't know that this kind of thing happens. If you want to build a social network, handling the moderation load is part of your job, not an afterthought.
We absolutely allowed large social media platforms to get away with it for far too long. It's not the only thing making them a monopoly -- the network effect of having all of your friends in one place is also a significant barrier to entry for any new social media site.
Fixing that after the fact isn't easy. But it doesn't mean that you can act as though you're not very, very, very late to the party in trying to establish a new social media site. In 2021 it's part of any new site to make sure you're not being used for crime -- or at least making enough of an attempt that authorities don't see you as being implicated.
> seems ideal for securing a monopoly
Seems like a bit of a catch-22, doesn't it? If we set moderation standards too low, then big social-media companies are evil because they're not doing anything about harmful content. If we set those standards too high, then big social-media companies are evil because monopoly. And there never seems to be any space in between. We need something better than just an excuse to hate on Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc.
Seems like a bit of a catch-22, doesn't it? If we set moderation standards too low, then big social-media companies are evil because they're not doing anything about harmful content. If we set those standards too high, then big social-media companies are evil because monopoly. And there never seems to be any space in between. We need something better than just an excuse to hate on Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc.
"a platform specifically built to enable terrorism" this is hyperbole. We shouldnt have 2 companies arbitrarily determining what the thresholds are for a service/app to exist.
That Facebook gave it the ol' college try to avoid enabling terrorism is sufficient?
Parler is in the same category as facebook and twitter. It’s amazing that people have been gaslit to believe that Parler was intended for or mostly used by extremists. More amazing that people keep repeating this authoritatively when they clearly had no exposure to the service.
Yeah, it's the same category in the way a truck and sedan have 4 wheels. It's amazing that people have been gaslit to alternatively believe it was this was some secure, free speech alternative to Facebook when it's quite evident w/ the data pulls that they had no intention of doing so and were at best, incompetent.
They were trying to growth hack using an extremist leaning, marginalized audience and got burned for it. Roll the dice, accept the outcome.
They were trying to growth hack using an extremist leaning, marginalized audience and got burned for it. Roll the dice, accept the outcome.
It's certainly been interesting to see this narrative be manufactured and adopted within a very short amount of time and now accepted as truth widely.
The same argument was made for Backpage. Only a small percentage of overall transactions were related to prostitution. The founder ended up in jail regardless.
What torpedoed him was the money laundering.
The "money laundering" was based on accepting prostitution ads I believe.
At what content share threshold should an app be taken off of the App Stores for hosting objectionable content?
It’s based on capacity to moderate, not on an arbitrary ratio.
The idea that a fledgling social media company needs a moderation effort akin to Facebook in order to be allowed to even exist seems very anti-competitive to me.
Content still slips through the cracks on Facebook too. Parler had a moderation system in place, although it was jury-driven and not centralized.
Content still slips through the cracks on Facebook too. Parler had a moderation system in place, although it was jury-driven and not centralized.
> The idea that a fledgling social media company needs a moderation effort akin to Facebook in order to be allowed to even exist seems very anti-competitive to me
Moderation seems to be an activity that can scale linearly with users (content). So if you have 1/1000 the user base then you have roughly 1/1000 the moderation effort.
Of all the barriers to entry in the social media market, moderation seems like the smallest one because it doesn't scale as well as other activities such as operation costs, development staff , and so on.
Of course, if you start a social media company with the intent to be a haven for content that "takes a lot of moderation effort" then obviously you are setting yourself up for a situation where it's difficult to compete. If you need 10x the number of moderation actions as facebook or twitter, then you have 10x the cost too.
Moderation seems to be an activity that can scale linearly with users (content). So if you have 1/1000 the user base then you have roughly 1/1000 the moderation effort.
Of all the barriers to entry in the social media market, moderation seems like the smallest one because it doesn't scale as well as other activities such as operation costs, development staff , and so on.
Of course, if you start a social media company with the intent to be a haven for content that "takes a lot of moderation effort" then obviously you are setting yourself up for a situation where it's difficult to compete. If you need 10x the number of moderation actions as facebook or twitter, then you have 10x the cost too.
Well, if there were legislation that enforced that high of a barrier to entry to be a social media company, then it would be a moot point.
That "fledging" social media company was personally funded by a billionaire media family.
At what point do we stop pretending that a company with access to tens of millions of dollars of funding (or more) is a "fledgling" company that isn't responsible for its own failures?
At what point do we stop pretending that a company with access to tens of millions of dollars of funding (or more) is a "fledgling" company that isn't responsible for its own failures?
Looks like they dont have the capacity.
Appearances can be deceiving.
They may have the capacity to do so and just failed to do so. Or the public failed to inform Facebook of the violent messages.
They may have the capacity to do so and just failed to do so. Or the public failed to inform Facebook of the violent messages.
That’s a great question for these app stores. How much nazi content and calls to violently overthrow the government is too much to be allowed on the app store? Kind of like asking the FDA how much arsenic should be allowed in my Cheerios. I’d like to see what their idea of the right threshold is.
Is the implication that one instance of objectionable content is enough to warrant deplatforming of the site? That seems like a really easy way for one competitor to take out another.
Not trying to imply anything. The threshold could be non-zero. The FDA notably has a non-zero threshold for things like allowed rat droppings and hair, insect parts, etc. [1] in your food, since no scalable process is perfect. I’m curious to know exactly how many or what percentage Nazi posts are OK for an app in the App Store.
1: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in...
1: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in...
But what if far more wacked content is on facebook than on parler and gab, because it is so much bigger?
To me it seems like the real reason Parler was removed was because of the risk that Donal Trump would move there after being banned from Twitter, Facebook and Youtube.
This would undoubtedly bring a lot of attention and legitimacy to that platform that could create a rift in the tech sector and a new era of actual competition.
This would undoubtedly bring a lot of attention and legitimacy to that platform that could create a rift in the tech sector and a new era of actual competition.
Parler refuses to moderate content. Facebook does not.
> Parler refuses to moderate content.
Is this documented anywhere? From what I've seen that's simply not true.
"the lack of moderation on Parler is not the issue. they actually have very robust moderation tools and all new users start out shadowbanned until enough of their post get approved for rightthink by their user moderators"[0]
[0] https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506
It sounds to me like the actual issue was about how quickly and thoroughly Parler could moderate a platform that blew up overnight and whether Parler's moderation standards matched the expectations of AWS, Apple, and Google.
Is this documented anywhere? From what I've seen that's simply not true.
"the lack of moderation on Parler is not the issue. they actually have very robust moderation tools and all new users start out shadowbanned until enough of their post get approved for rightthink by their user moderators"[0]
[0] https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506
It sounds to me like the actual issue was about how quickly and thoroughly Parler could moderate a platform that blew up overnight and whether Parler's moderation standards matched the expectations of AWS, Apple, and Google.
Does anyone here really entertain the idea that Facebook could be removed from the app store?
The stronghold it has over world politics has more power than an atomic arsenal.
The stronghold it has over world politics has more power than an atomic arsenal.
1. Refusal to moderate.
2. By far smaller user base, with that base overwhelmingly participating in fear mongering fake news. There are people I know convinced of entirely fabricated stories that contributed to the violence at the capitol.
3. It's clear the admins of parler explicitly allowed content that encouraged the riots and violence therein.
Facebook does admin all of these things. They're also significantly larger. Don't be dishonest.
2. By far smaller user base, with that base overwhelmingly participating in fear mongering fake news. There are people I know convinced of entirely fabricated stories that contributed to the violence at the capitol.
3. It's clear the admins of parler explicitly allowed content that encouraged the riots and violence therein.
Facebook does admin all of these things. They're also significantly larger. Don't be dishonest.
[deleted]
If people had called one another to prepare this, would we say that the phone was responsible for the attack? And would we try to ban phones?
> If people had called one another to prepare this, would we say that the phone was responsible for the attack? And would we try to ban phones?
That's a moot point, because an attack like this can't realistically be organized via one-to-one communication. It needs a broadcast medium, which the phone network isn't.
That's a moot point, because an attack like this can't realistically be organized via one-to-one communication. It needs a broadcast medium, which the phone network isn't.
Really? How did past revolutions and terrorist attacks get organized? You realize most of world history existed before the Internet, right?
> Really? How did past revolutions and terrorist attacks get organized? You realize most of world history existed before the Internet, right?
Yeah, of course. Broadcasting means one-to-many communication. Before modern technology, those things were organized using other kinds of one-to-many communication, such as in-person meetings, rallies, and through newspapers and other kinds of publications.
Movements aren't organized one-to-one like on a telephone, because that's a far slower way of spreading a message. It's also an unreliable medium, as the children's game "telephone" shows.
Yeah, of course. Broadcasting means one-to-many communication. Before modern technology, those things were organized using other kinds of one-to-many communication, such as in-person meetings, rallies, and through newspapers and other kinds of publications.
Movements aren't organized one-to-one like on a telephone, because that's a far slower way of spreading a message. It's also an unreliable medium, as the children's game "telephone" shows.
Phone trees are a well known and used method to broadcast information via the phone system.
> Phone trees are a well known and used method to broadcast information via the phone system.
And pretty bad at doing it. It's actually pretty funny to imagine someone trying to organize a movement via a phone tree.
And pretty bad at doing it. It's actually pretty funny to imagine someone trying to organize a movement via a phone tree.
In my home town, we had a local group of mostly old folks, largely right-wing, who would have monthly luncheons with local politicians, and the group was literally called the Phone Tree because that’s how they organized. Although in this case the “Phone Tree” was a primitive robodialer owned by the head of the organization and used to disseminate recorded announcements of when the next luncheon was and who would be the guest/s.
So not a phone tree…?
The machine was literally called a "Phone Tree". Presumably because it was intended as an automated replacement for an old-fashioned phone tree. And, back to the root point, telephony can be used to organize political activity, at least in the form of getting all the old gun nuts in town to show up for a luncheon with their state legislator.
A small-scale printing press and a little bit of Common Sense [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
Unnecessarily combative comment. There's a reason why radio and television stations are among the first things seized in a coup. Broadcast media is crucial.
It’s certainly easier with social media, but before that people used phones and in person meetings.
beaner(2)
Phones don't broadcast. A small group of agitators could have used a pirate radio station to call for an attack on the capitol 50 years ago and reach millions of people, which is exactly why pirate radio stations are illegal.
Should we ban every tool that allows you to broadcast? TV, Radio, Tiktok, twitter, youtube, etc? To be fair I think it used to be much much worse when there were only a few broadcast venue, people used to go CRAZY about celebrities, and some shows. It is much better now that conversation and broadcasting takes place on different networks.
The upside of broadcasting is that issues that only minorities experience have been brought to daylight: #metoo, gay marriage, actual insurrections that we should support, demonstrations, health care fight in the US, etc.
The upside of broadcasting is that issues that only minorities experience have been brought to daylight: #metoo, gay marriage, actual insurrections that we should support, demonstrations, health care fight in the US, etc.
Pirate radio stations are illegal because the radio spectrum is finite and without regulation, much of that spectrum would end up jammed and unusable. Pirate radio is illegal for approximately the same reason it’s illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road.
Pirate Radio stations & new LPFM are primarily illegal because Clear Channel/iHeartRadio cannot profit & control the flow of information as well as they do when they have competition. The things Clear Channel hosts, especially on AM, are not even very much different from calling for an attack on the Capitol, having listened to 20+ years (unfortunately) of Rush Limbaugh my grandfather was listening to. You can contact a lot of people on Amateur Radio or CB radio, but it's not illegal because it doesn't compete with big business.
Pirate Radio stations are illegal because when it was more of a free-for-all, people would transmit at megawatt power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Brinkley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Brinkley
Why would clear channel have anything to do with making pirate radio illegal, which it was for decades before the former ever existed?
The same reason, just replace with that generations Clear Channel lobbyists. FM/AM Radio is extremely anti-competitive.
Phones don't broadcast, but the two human callers can.
Phones don't pretend to be a moderated public platform. Also, the government has the legal right to monitor phones just as much as they do Facebook via the correct warrants.
Yea the difference in my mind is that the phone company does not moderate content or exercise editorial control over what gets sent over its lines, but Facebook does. So if Facebook decided that this kind of user generated content was acceptable to publish, they should be liable for the resulting problems.
I'm not sure Facebook is acting like an editor here. Those approve every post. Facebook can't practically do they. I'm critical of this case because it's a large group and thus Facebook should have been aware, but it seems like it's a tall order to ask Facebook to migrate everything. Isn't this what section 230 is about? Before you either migrate all our not at all. 230 let's you at least try to moderate (because let's be real, you can't moderate a billion people)
Facebook does act like an editor by way of their algorithms. Facebook's (and other social media's) timelines are no longer limited to the people you explicitly follow.
Whether they have the ability to moderate or not is irrelevant. If you can't afford the obligations of a publisher, don't be a publisher.
Whether they have the ability to moderate or not is irrelevant. If you can't afford the obligations of a publisher, don't be a publisher.
But how do you codify that in law? I clearly want some moderation (taking down illegal stuff, border line illegal, and etc) but if your choice is "moderate all or not at all" (as my understanding of pre section 230 is) then no one is going to moderate anything at all. I'm not trying to defend Facebook here, but I feel completely ignoring any of the nuance to the situation is disingenuous. It's not like you can moderate a billion people, you could only do your best (I'm not saying Facebook is doing their best). Removing the nuance of the situation to make an easy argument is exactly the problem that got us here in the first place so let's not continue it.
I'm not talking about moderation here. I'm talking about the fact that Facebook promotes certain content in user's feeds (including content that these users have no direct relationship to - they're not friends with the author nor follow him) in order to generate "engagement". This should stop.
Regarding moderation, it's true that you can't moderate billions of people with 100% accuracy, but you can discourage them from posting undesirable content in the first place by associating real consequences such a a permanent ban (or a monetary loss, by charging an entry fee to create an account) or make them earn the privilege of posting content (for example, not being able to post links until your account has certain reputation of good behavior).
Discouraging people from posting bad content, and not amplifying the reach of bad content for engagement's sake should go a long way.
Regarding moderation, it's true that you can't moderate billions of people with 100% accuracy, but you can discourage them from posting undesirable content in the first place by associating real consequences such a a permanent ban (or a monetary loss, by charging an entry fee to create an account) or make them earn the privilege of posting content (for example, not being able to post links until your account has certain reputation of good behavior).
Discouraging people from posting bad content, and not amplifying the reach of bad content for engagement's sake should go a long way.
There's something to this. The things people hate about Facebook aren't caused by some user sitting down and typing a post, and in fact that kind of content gets buried in the feed anyway. The problems start with "sharing the story at the top of the feed" and "your friend liked X article which is really an ad". It's a more aggressive version of 90s email chain-letters.
Absolutely. I don't think most of these people woke up one day and suddenly decided "hey let's storm the Capitol".
Instead, these people were groomed over a period of months or years by way of recommending conspiratorial or outrageous content and it finally blew up.
So not only did Facebook create the problem in the first place, they also had plenty of early warnings about what's been going on, but it's hard to consider an increase in "engagement" (thus revenue) as a "warning" and even harder to act upon it.
This also raises another question regarding the efficiency of our intelligence services if large-scale domestic terrorism was organized all in public on a platform they had privileged access to.
Instead, these people were groomed over a period of months or years by way of recommending conspiratorial or outrageous content and it finally blew up.
So not only did Facebook create the problem in the first place, they also had plenty of early warnings about what's been going on, but it's hard to consider an increase in "engagement" (thus revenue) as a "warning" and even harder to act upon it.
This also raises another question regarding the efficiency of our intelligence services if large-scale domestic terrorism was organized all in public on a platform they had privileged access to.
You're looking at it wrong.
This is free expression, they are providing a platform as free as you going in the street and expressing yourself.
If the government wants to censor this type of expression, it must pass laws, and it must dictates what you can say or can't say. With such a move, social medias would become forbidden, or inefficient (as every post would need to be approved before being released).
If this is the world you want to live in, it's fine, but you need to understand the consequences and the ways to get there.
This is free expression, they are providing a platform as free as you going in the street and expressing yourself.
If the government wants to censor this type of expression, it must pass laws, and it must dictates what you can say or can't say. With such a move, social medias would become forbidden, or inefficient (as every post would need to be approved before being released).
If this is the world you want to live in, it's fine, but you need to understand the consequences and the ways to get there.
> This is free expression, they are providing a platform as free as you going in the street and expressing yourself.
The street does not automatically reshape itself to promote the most offensive graffiti to as many people as possible.
I wouldn't have a problem with Facebook being hands-off if it was limited to content you explicitly followed in reverse-chronological order (like it used to be), as all you'd need to filter out the bullshit is to not follow bullshit sources. Of course, Facebook's revenue would drop off a cliff if they made this change because bullshit is what drives Facebook's revenue and not the friends/family pictures users originally came there for.
The street does not automatically reshape itself to promote the most offensive graffiti to as many people as possible.
I wouldn't have a problem with Facebook being hands-off if it was limited to content you explicitly followed in reverse-chronological order (like it used to be), as all you'd need to filter out the bullshit is to not follow bullshit sources. Of course, Facebook's revenue would drop off a cliff if they made this change because bullshit is what drives Facebook's revenue and not the friends/family pictures users originally came there for.
Phones don't allow complete strangers to discover each other and work themselves into a frenzy over their shared angst.
Phones do in fact allow this, the difference is that it doesn't scale up in a 1:many relationship, and the phone users are not incentivized to use the phone more for this purpose over, say, calling their mom.
Phones don't automatically make calls to people who disagree with your opinion or peddle misinformation all the time in order to generate "engagement" for the phone company.
People didn't, because phones are not useful for this purpose. And, yes, if they were, we would be asking ourselves how to prevent their use for this purpose.
The phone network is useful for other uses society deems to be net-negative, such as spammy calls. As a result, technical and legal barriers were erected to curtail such abuses.
The phone network is useful for other uses society deems to be net-negative, such as spammy calls. As a result, technical and legal barriers were erected to curtail such abuses.
A better analog for a specific Facebook Group might be a hotline, like "1-900-Do-Terrorism".
I would have no problem banning certain phone numbers that only exist to incite violence.
I would have no problem banning certain phone numbers that only exist to incite violence.
Phones provide communication over distances unlike what was previously available. This is something that society has kind of settled into at this point.
Social media is new, and it provides communication fan-out unlike anything we've dealt with before except from people that are powerful enough to be given a platform on major TV networks.
Guns don't kill people, but...
Social media is new, and it provides communication fan-out unlike anything we've dealt with before except from people that are powerful enough to be given a platform on major TV networks.
Guns don't kill people, but...
No, but no one seems to be trying to blame ISPs either. If there was a domestic terrorist 900 number, it would be a target.
We (collectively) said that about Parler.
When telephones were a new technology, say in the 1890s, then yes, they probably would have.
So Facebook is a public utility?
Aren't phone lines also technically managed by private companies?
AFAIK, postal service is a public service, but not phones.
AFAIK, postal service is a public service, but not phones.
[deleted]
we did declare that phones were dangerous and we did take steps to mitigate their ability to carry out attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MYSTIC_(surveillance_program)
See also BuzzFeed News article about this:
“If They Won’t Hear Us, They Will Fear Us”: How The Capitol Assault Was Planned On Facebook
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-capito...
“If They Won’t Hear Us, They Will Fear Us”: How The Capitol Assault Was Planned On Facebook
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-capito...
The government should fear its people and not the other way around. The gun of the public's ire should also be focused on class instead of in-class fighting over race.
Who would rather be poor and white over rich and black? Exactly. Privilege comes from class, not skin.
Who would rather be poor and white over rich and black? Exactly. Privilege comes from class, not skin.
When will Apple remove FB then?
FB has said it is too big to moderate effectively, ergo in principle it is unmoderated just like Parler.
FB has a point, for example, in Myanmar the platform is being used to organize genocide. There is no way FB could hire enough local moderators to deal with this without turning off the service.
FB has said it is too big to moderate effectively, ergo in principle it is unmoderated just like Parler.
FB has a point, for example, in Myanmar the platform is being used to organize genocide. There is no way FB could hire enough local moderators to deal with this without turning off the service.
I honestly doubt that is the case. Movements like this are going to have a small number of popular leaders. Ban people, rather than just removing some posts, and you can disrupt that social graph pretty quick.
>The Capitol Attack
Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?
Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?
Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
On one hand we have hooligans using a crowd as cover to get away with property damage.
On the other we have hooligans organized for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election.
In the case of BLM, the crimes don't reflect on the movement's overall purpose. Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform -- it's an argument for more police presence, if anything. In the case of the capitol riots, not only are the crimes worse (storming the capitol >> property damage), but the criminal acts absolutely do reflect on the movement's agenda. Intimidating congress is a plausible vehicle for obtaining the votes they needed that day to overturn the election. Trump's pre-riot speech emphasized that this was the goal. These factors increase the culpability of platforms and leadership in the capitol riots as compared to BLM.
On the other we have hooligans organized for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election.
In the case of BLM, the crimes don't reflect on the movement's overall purpose. Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform -- it's an argument for more police presence, if anything. In the case of the capitol riots, not only are the crimes worse (storming the capitol >> property damage), but the criminal acts absolutely do reflect on the movement's agenda. Intimidating congress is a plausible vehicle for obtaining the votes they needed that day to overturn the election. Trump's pre-riot speech emphasized that this was the goal. These factors increase the culpability of platforms and leadership in the capitol riots as compared to BLM.
What would you call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone if not an attempt at insurrection? Come on, can we have some intellectual honesty here? Both situations sucked, the people involved sucked, their reasoning sucked and they should all go to jail so that sane people can get back to their lives in peace. We are being forced into building absurd logical houses of cards just so we do not concede an inch to the other side. What childish madness.
If we're being binary, yes, both situations sucked. For some reason, most arguments I see regarding this fail to even see the slightest shade of gray.
I, for one, believe that taking over a city block and declaring it an autonomous zone is significantly less concerning than attempting to stop the presidential election -- arguably the single most important piece of our democracy -- from happening, calling for the death of the vice president while building gallows, and potentially looking for other politicians to kill.
Yeah, CHAZ was wrong and stupid. Yeah, the people who did it should get some kind of punishment. So should the people who destroyed private property during the riots, that's not cool.
But it seems pretty clear to me that the storming of the capital is so much worse than that as it is a clear attempt to undermine our democracy. I believe the response should reflect that.
I, for one, believe that taking over a city block and declaring it an autonomous zone is significantly less concerning than attempting to stop the presidential election -- arguably the single most important piece of our democracy -- from happening, calling for the death of the vice president while building gallows, and potentially looking for other politicians to kill.
Yeah, CHAZ was wrong and stupid. Yeah, the people who did it should get some kind of punishment. So should the people who destroyed private property during the riots, that's not cool.
But it seems pretty clear to me that the storming of the capital is so much worse than that as it is a clear attempt to undermine our democracy. I believe the response should reflect that.
I don't understand the need to rank violent events. Outrage against these violent events isn't a zero sum game that requires us to pick and choose between them.
Vandalism, trespassing, arson, assault, and so on can and should be prosecuted because they are crimes. Full stop. The ideological motivation of the perpetrators should be irrelevant with respect to prosecuting the crimes.
I do realize that the impact and repercussions of the events is certainly a point for debate, but that seems orthogonal to the immediate and critical goal of keeping the peace.
Vandalism, trespassing, arson, assault, and so on can and should be prosecuted because they are crimes. Full stop. The ideological motivation of the perpetrators should be irrelevant with respect to prosecuting the crimes.
I do realize that the impact and repercussions of the events is certainly a point for debate, but that seems orthogonal to the immediate and critical goal of keeping the peace.
It's not about "ranking events" or some nonsense, it's about making sure everything that should be prosecuted gets prosecuted. The right desperately wants to focus on
> Vandalism, trespassing, arson, assault
, which BLM and the Capitol Riots had in common, to distract from the attempt to overturn the election of the President of the United States of America, which they did not have in common.
All of it should be prosecuted. Both the parts they had in common and the parts they did not.
> Vandalism, trespassing, arson, assault
, which BLM and the Capitol Riots had in common, to distract from the attempt to overturn the election of the President of the United States of America, which they did not have in common.
All of it should be prosecuted. Both the parts they had in common and the parts they did not.
This has been the left’s rhetoric for eons. They always excuse their actions because of their ”noble” goals. Same regarding policy - its the stated goal that matters, not the end results and real-world consequences of their policies.
Having a convicted terrorist as a director of their beloved BLM movement means nothing. Lofty ideals matter.
Invading a city block means nothing. Lofty ideals matter.
If you don’t think the people who did CHOP and Capitol are equally dangerous to society, you’re wilfully turning a blind eye.
Having a convicted terrorist as a director of their beloved BLM movement means nothing. Lofty ideals matter.
Invading a city block means nothing. Lofty ideals matter.
If you don’t think the people who did CHOP and Capitol are equally dangerous to society, you’re wilfully turning a blind eye.
> This has been the left’s rhetoric for eons.
Except it hasn't been. You just don't want to listen to what people are actually saying because it's easier to argue against a strawman.
FWIW lots of people on the left do the same thing. So I guess you're in good company?
Except it hasn't been. You just don't want to listen to what people are actually saying because it's easier to argue against a strawman.
FWIW lots of people on the left do the same thing. So I guess you're in good company?
I’m always willing to listen to a factual counterargument but you’re not presenting one.
[deleted]
Most folks that I know in Seattle didn't think that CHOP/CHAZ was a good thing, and one of their leaders Raz Simone was heavily criticized for being... well, dumb to put it lightly.
It's okay to criticize both things here. CHOP/CHAZ was clearly wrong, as is throwing a molotov at a police officer. No question about that. The capitol was wrong as well.
It's okay to criticize both things here. CHOP/CHAZ was clearly wrong, as is throwing a molotov at a police officer. No question about that. The capitol was wrong as well.
If CHAZ was so clearly wrong, then why was the democratic city council of Seattle so reluctant to do something about it for so long?
We want to pretend that this is all Trump’s fault- but we’re unable to recognize that it’s Trump who is a symptom of a systemic failure of logic and reason.
We want to pretend that this is all Trump’s fault- but we’re unable to recognize that it’s Trump who is a symptom of a systemic failure of logic and reason.
> If CHAZ was so clearly wrong, then why was the democratic city council of Seattle so reluctant to do something about it for so long?
It wasn't "clearly" wrong initially; just weird and novel. It was a nice break from SPD's regular violence against protesters.
Why didn't the city's electeds attempt to move back in sooner? Because something about gassing their own citizens was politically unpopular for some reason. Note that this was summer, most Seattlites don't have air conditioning, and teargas spreads in the air. People I knew on Cap hill were coughing despite having all their windows closed (and sweltering).
It wasn't "clearly" wrong initially; just weird and novel. It was a nice break from SPD's regular violence against protesters.
Why didn't the city's electeds attempt to move back in sooner? Because something about gassing their own citizens was politically unpopular for some reason. Note that this was summer, most Seattlites don't have air conditioning, and teargas spreads in the air. People I knew on Cap hill were coughing despite having all their windows closed (and sweltering).
+1000000 on this. It's all stupid and bad, and we need to stop looking for reasons to excuse it, regardless who is doing it, when or why.
That's exactly right. The amount of mental gymnastics people do to excuse the thing they agree with but not the one they disagree with is staggering.
Unlike the Capitol Hill issue, the ChaZ people actually had guns, and shooting deaths there (and not shootings by cops).
From my perspective as someone outside the US, I don't have an emotional dog in this fight. That said, the Capitol raid was the one thing that made me stop joking around for a bit in the entire Trump era because I genuinely believed a coup was not only possible but probably underway given the parameters. In the end it turned out to just a bunch of disorganized wannabes but the context was still genuinely worrying especially with reports of the police standing down to let the mob in, even if we cast aside the shrill theatrics that followed in the media.
In comparison, the BLM unrest seemed like it would predictably peter out fairly quickly without much in the way of concrete changes, and that's exactly what happened. At no point did I expected some radical uncertainty in the future as a result.
In comparison, the BLM unrest seemed like it would predictably peter out fairly quickly without much in the way of concrete changes, and that's exactly what happened. At no point did I expected some radical uncertainty in the future as a result.
> it turned out to just a bunch of disorganized wannabes
... who were trying to get an election overturned at the behest of POTUS. Motive matters, even if they were too disorganized to stand a chance.
... who were trying to get an election overturned at the behest of POTUS. Motive matters, even if they were too disorganized to stand a chance.
> What would you call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone if not an attempt at insurrection?
CHAZ: An occupation. They weren't killing anyone. They weren't trying to kill people. They literally setup a community garden.
Capitol Hill attack: An insurrection. It was clearly a violent rebellion against the government of the US, with people actively working to kill the VPOTUS and members of the government.
I can easily see the differences. So can many others.
> What childish madness.
It's childish madness to treat the two as the same.
CHAZ: An occupation. They weren't killing anyone. They weren't trying to kill people. They literally setup a community garden.
Capitol Hill attack: An insurrection. It was clearly a violent rebellion against the government of the US, with people actively working to kill the VPOTUS and members of the government.
I can easily see the differences. So can many others.
> What childish madness.
It's childish madness to treat the two as the same.
In fact there were two shootings within a week in “CHAZ”, and one of the victims died.
Neither of which were the goals of CHAZ, both were related to gangs that happened to be there.
Context matters. One group had specific goals, none of which involved killing. The other group specifically was calling out to kill someone.
Context matters. One group had specific goals, none of which involved killing. The other group specifically was calling out to kill someone.
So it’s OK that someone died, because your political framework is aligned with some ethereal goal of CHOP. Based on the definitions stated in this thread, you support terrorism.
It's possible to support CHOP's intentions as non-terroristic and also think that the deaths are not OK. I personally don't support CHOP but I think the deaths were caused more by negligence than malice: they didn't intend for violence and death, but they eventually lost control of their cop-free paradise. Some would argue that was inevitable and that's what made the whole thing a stupid idea in the first place.
CHOP started as a bunch of protestors who saw the police make the terrible strategic decision to withdraw from their own precinct building and said "hey, let's declare that this area is self-governing to make a political statement about how police presence isn't improving things." And it initially really was peaceful enough to walk your kids through to look at all the hippie positivity. The chaos and violence came about after the "autonomy" went on way too long and opportunists (anarchists and wannabe vigilantes) moved in.
Everything would have worked out a lot better if the CHOP folks yelled "you're retreating? This is our neighborhood now! Rah, rah, rah!" and then a day or two later the cops said "very funny, you made your point, but we are coming back and you better get the fuck out of the way or get your heads beaten in" and that was the end of it.
CHOP started as a bunch of protestors who saw the police make the terrible strategic decision to withdraw from their own precinct building and said "hey, let's declare that this area is self-governing to make a political statement about how police presence isn't improving things." And it initially really was peaceful enough to walk your kids through to look at all the hippie positivity. The chaos and violence came about after the "autonomy" went on way too long and opportunists (anarchists and wannabe vigilantes) moved in.
Everything would have worked out a lot better if the CHOP folks yelled "you're retreating? This is our neighborhood now! Rah, rah, rah!" and then a day or two later the cops said "very funny, you made your point, but we are coming back and you better get the fuck out of the way or get your heads beaten in" and that was the end of it.
It is NOT OK that someone died. However people die all the time in American cities because of gun violence. With your logic schools are bad actually because people die in them, so are cities, jails, etc. I’m not saying it is a good thing, I’m saying it happens.
Equating a bunch of dumb activists taking over six city blocks to an attempt to overturn the election of POTUS is "intellectual honesty"?
Look, I'll agree that everyone involved with both CHAZ and the Capitol Riots needs to go to jail. That includes Donald Trump, though. He was the one trying an end-run around the US electoral process in order to hold on to power for four more years.
Look, I'll agree that everyone involved with both CHAZ and the Capitol Riots needs to go to jail. That includes Donald Trump, though. He was the one trying an end-run around the US electoral process in order to hold on to power for four more years.
Who is "equating"? They are different but both bad. No reason to excuse either of them in any way. No need to decide which one is worth prosecuting and which one isn't.
> Who is "equating"?
You are, in your post upthread.
You are, in your post upthread.
Having things in common is not the same thing as "equating"
>Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform
Yet hundreds of cities are in the process of reevaluating how they allocate police and social service resources.
In light of that it'll be interesting to see what comes out of the capital mess.
Yet hundreds of cities are in the process of reevaluating how they allocate police and social service resources.
In light of that it'll be interesting to see what comes out of the capital mess.
Honestly? Probably nothing, not to their advantage anyway. The blm peaceful protests /riots had the backing and mandate of their mainstream. From what I've seen of the fight wrong media /power centers, this does not. The capitol hill protests /riots have drawn immediate flak not just from the left aligned media, but even their own side.
On the one hand, we have a large crowd of protesters you personally agree with, some of whom turned violent and whom you can surgically disavow. On the other hand, we have a large crowd of protesters you personally disagree with and treat as a monolith.
- The BLM movement is, while poorly framed and easily co-opted by other people, about genuine problems with policing in the United States. Problems that are backed up with verifiable facts rather than scummy used car salesmen and the Inventor of Email™.
- The BLM movement, while the source of many large large scale protests (several of which turned into riots and outstayed their welcome) never, at any point, even pretended to stage a coup or murder a member of the Capitol Police.
- The BLM movement, while the source of many large large scale protests (several of which turned into riots and outstayed their welcome) never, at any point, even pretended to stage a coup or murder a member of the Capitol Police.
A couple cops were killed by blm rioters. Sure they weren't capital police but they were still police. ACAB was all over Facebook and Twitter which at a minimum raised the temperature and hatred towards cops.
Incitement some might call that.
Do you have links? I only heard about the Boogaloo right wing extremists using the cover of the protests to kill police in Oakland and Santa Cruz.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings
I don't have links or time to find a list but
David Dorn was a retired black police officer killed.
Shay Mikalonis was shot in the head, but survived. He is paralyzed from below the neck.
And to add. The rhetoric has likely been causing the increase in cop killings this year. As of July it was up 28%. https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officers-killed-surge-28-ye...
David Dorn was a retired black police officer killed.
Shay Mikalonis was shot in the head, but survived. He is paralyzed from below the neck.
And to add. The rhetoric has likely been causing the increase in cop killings this year. As of July it was up 28%. https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officers-killed-surge-28-ye...
There was the Dallas shooting in 2015, murdering five and wounding many others
Not BLM.
> Officials said they had found no evidence that the gunman, Micah Johnson, 25, had direct ties to any protest or political group
You don't have to be part of BLM to be black and angry at cops.
> Officials said they had found no evidence that the gunman, Micah Johnson, 25, had direct ties to any protest or political group
You don't have to be part of BLM to be black and angry at cops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...
Except it happened at a BLM protest. And in this day and age, evidently having someone commit some violent act at an event is enough to blame scores (and more) of other people at that event, and organizations associated with it. And then de-platform them, and de-monetize them, .... and generally de-humanize them. (Like the protest at the Capitol)
Also, he was a member of the New Black Panther Party:
> NBPP head Quanell X said after the shooting that Johnson had been a member of the NBPP's Houston chapter for about six months, several years before.
> Following the shooting, a national NBPP leader distanced the group from Johnson, saying that he "was not a member of" the party.
But of course, any organization with ties to him would want to cut those ties and disavow him, making themselves look clean. Do you think BLM or other organizations would want ties to such people exposed?
Except it happened at a BLM protest. And in this day and age, evidently having someone commit some violent act at an event is enough to blame scores (and more) of other people at that event, and organizations associated with it. And then de-platform them, and de-monetize them, .... and generally de-humanize them. (Like the protest at the Capitol)
Also, he was a member of the New Black Panther Party:
> NBPP head Quanell X said after the shooting that Johnson had been a member of the NBPP's Houston chapter for about six months, several years before.
> Following the shooting, a national NBPP leader distanced the group from Johnson, saying that he "was not a member of" the party.
But of course, any organization with ties to him would want to cut those ties and disavow him, making themselves look clean. Do you think BLM or other organizations would want ties to such people exposed?
> A couple cops were killed by blm rioters.
Citation?
Citation?
It's also easy to look at the summer's riots and forget that it was a mixture of peaceful protestors and violent antagonists. Until we have some convictions with evidence in court, we can't say BLM'ers killed cops.
and to your 2nd point, I don't think it was ppl saying ACAB that raised the temperature and hatred towards cops. It was the cops killing innocent black people.
and to your 2nd point, I don't think it was ppl saying ACAB that raised the temperature and hatred towards cops. It was the cops killing innocent black people.
It can be both. Police racism is a real problem. But saying ACAB ("All Cops Are Bastards") is both untrue and hardly improves the situation. That said, I don't believe the majority of the BLM movement is that extreme.
Some of the black people who were shot by cops were in all likelihood not innocent. Look at Jacob Blake for example. He came at the cops with a knife. Blake did survive though.
Just because one event raises the temperature doesn't mean another event also doesn't. Saying ACAB and defund the police seems like it would also raise the temperature.
Just because one event raises the temperature doesn't mean another event also doesn't. Saying ACAB and defund the police seems like it would also raise the temperature.
I looked at the Jacob Blake video. You said 'He came at the cops with a knife.' If the video is accurate, then that is untrue. There was no provocation by Jacob Blake with a knife or any other weapon shown in that video. He was shot in the back multiple times while getting in to his car, and there was no knife in his hand when the trigger was pulled. It's possible that he may have possessed a knife or that there was a knife in his car, but there was no imminent danger to the police officer when the officer fired 7 times point blank.
That you can speak this untruth so casually is discomforting. You appear to believe the lies that are being spouted by someone who is attempting to defame Jacob Blake, without ever having evaluated the original video. If you had seen the video, you never would have made the claim that "he came at the cops with a knife." Who was this person that lied to you in this way? It would be useful to name and shame this individual or group.
Please watch the video, reassess your claim, and cast your doubts upon these people who told you this untruthful story.
That you can speak this untruth so casually is discomforting. You appear to believe the lies that are being spouted by someone who is attempting to defame Jacob Blake, without ever having evaluated the original video. If you had seen the video, you never would have made the claim that "he came at the cops with a knife." Who was this person that lied to you in this way? It would be useful to name and shame this individual or group.
Please watch the video, reassess your claim, and cast your doubts upon these people who told you this untruthful story.
Jacob Blake, himself, admitted he had a knife (prior to the video that is circulating) when he was fighting with cops. He did literally came at cops with a knife.
Shortly after that he went into the car where there was another knife. He already showed he was willing to do violence towards cops with a knife prior to the video so when he went for a second one they shot him.
I never meant to imply he was shot when he was coming at the cops with a knife. It is not clear based on the video if he was coming towards the cops right when he is shot. He was moving around in the car and may have made moves towards the cops, but I cannot tell based on the video.
To suggest there was no imminent danger is non-sense. Jacob Blake just struggled with cops while holding a knife.
Of course if you look at more than just a couple second video you would know this.
Shortly after that he went into the car where there was another knife. He already showed he was willing to do violence towards cops with a knife prior to the video so when he went for a second one they shot him.
I never meant to imply he was shot when he was coming at the cops with a knife. It is not clear based on the video if he was coming towards the cops right when he is shot. He was moving around in the car and may have made moves towards the cops, but I cannot tell based on the video.
To suggest there was no imminent danger is non-sense. Jacob Blake just struggled with cops while holding a knife.
Of course if you look at more than just a couple second video you would know this.
According to The Washington Post, 19 unarmed black men were killed by police in the entirety of 2019. Black people are disproportionately killed by police for their population, but almost exactly in proportion to the rate of violent crime broken down by race.
Obviously every "unjustified" death, especially deaths by the police (who are trained and held to higher expectations given their position) is a tragedy. The riots and protests led to far more deaths, far more injuries, and far more damage (including causing the second wave as cases were decreasing) than seems at all justified even considering these tragic police shootings.
In other words, while police brutality is a genuine problem, the response was completely disproportionate, misinformed, and morally wrong.
Obviously every "unjustified" death, especially deaths by the police (who are trained and held to higher expectations given their position) is a tragedy. The riots and protests led to far more deaths, far more injuries, and far more damage (including causing the second wave as cases were decreasing) than seems at all justified even considering these tragic police shootings.
In other words, while police brutality is a genuine problem, the response was completely disproportionate, misinformed, and morally wrong.
What are the verifiable facts again? Do you have alternative statistics because they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying. The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. I hate to be stone cold but that's my understanding of what unfolded. We witnessed something similar in 2015.
I should add a caveat around "the BLM movement is about." One of its problems (like many progressive movements) is everyone has a different idea what it is about, and the mainstream media does not help with that in the slightest.
So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true. There are no statistics to worry about for that one and there don't need to be: just look at a handful of publicized cases and be angry.
But of course, people do like statistics. You can't be angry without statistics. (Truly, you shouldn't. It's unhealthy). Also, that framework makes a terrible export. (Which is unfortunate because Canada loves importing protests from the States instead of making its own).
So, various other progressive movements globbed on to the name, as they do, but fortunately it's a more visceral thing than, say, Occupy Wall Street, so they are at least mostly on topic. I think the real problem, which is the source of most of the recent anger (see the equally badly named and easily co-opted slogan "Defund the police"), is that police are killing a lot of people for stupid reasons.
It is still important to emphasize that black lives matter, because they do, and it's infuriating that that makes people uncomfortable. But the root cause is the United States has an unreasonable approach to policing in general, which creates as many problems as it solves. And I think if you talk to most BLM supporters, they aren't going to tell you about racial sensitivity training or hiring more black cops: they're going to tell you how the police in a developed country shouldn't act as if they're expecting a war.
So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true. There are no statistics to worry about for that one and there don't need to be: just look at a handful of publicized cases and be angry.
But of course, people do like statistics. You can't be angry without statistics. (Truly, you shouldn't. It's unhealthy). Also, that framework makes a terrible export. (Which is unfortunate because Canada loves importing protests from the States instead of making its own).
So, various other progressive movements globbed on to the name, as they do, but fortunately it's a more visceral thing than, say, Occupy Wall Street, so they are at least mostly on topic. I think the real problem, which is the source of most of the recent anger (see the equally badly named and easily co-opted slogan "Defund the police"), is that police are killing a lot of people for stupid reasons.
It is still important to emphasize that black lives matter, because they do, and it's infuriating that that makes people uncomfortable. But the root cause is the United States has an unreasonable approach to policing in general, which creates as many problems as it solves. And I think if you talk to most BLM supporters, they aren't going to tell you about racial sensitivity training or hiring more black cops: they're going to tell you how the police in a developed country shouldn't act as if they're expecting a war.
I'll join you on beating that drum. Statistics are the key skill for making policy decisions. One that the vast majority of the population, educated or not, fail to grasp.
>So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true.
Is it though? Seems to me you're advocating feelings matter more than facts. I believe it would be more accurate to say "police in the United States are killing people for stupid reasons, which is true." while keeping in mind that those incidents are the exception, not the norm. The police shot 28 unarmed people in 2019. On a population of 320 million.
>This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_anal...
>We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.
https://archive.is/Xppla
>In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
https://archive.is/MIoYJ
Is it though? Seems to me you're advocating feelings matter more than facts. I believe it would be more accurate to say "police in the United States are killing people for stupid reasons, which is true." while keeping in mind that those incidents are the exception, not the norm. The police shot 28 unarmed people in 2019. On a population of 320 million.
>This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_anal...
>We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.
https://archive.is/Xppla
>In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.
https://archive.is/MIoYJ
I think the issue isn’t just police killing unarmed black people but also an incredibly large disparity in use of all physical force which your stats allude to:
>This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.
>This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.
Further down in their comment they cite statistics about variant violent crime rates by race, where African Americans commit more than 50% of violent crime, which seems in line with your cited non-lethal force rates. Violent criminals receiving proportionate rates of violent force doesn't stand out as a disparity.
>African Americans commit more than 50% of violent crime,
Out of curiosity, I understand that you're simply citing statistics from a source but I'd like to know if you think this reflects reality? If so, what reason would you suggest creates this?
Out of curiosity, I understand that you're simply citing statistics from a source but I'd like to know if you think this reflects reality? If so, what reason would you suggest creates this?
Statistics, measurements, are the only lens on reality that we have. It's something we have to be able to talk about.
Be very wary of someone who thinks their intuition is stronger than our best pursuits of data. And, based on what, Reddit r/videos and Twitter?
Be very wary of someone who thinks their intuition is stronger than our best pursuits of data. And, based on what, Reddit r/videos and Twitter?
That’s fascinating. I personally haven’t found any statistics on how many crimes of any type are committed that didn’t include estimates, only statistics that count arrests(1) since those are discrete and easily countable.
I agree that statistics are an incredibly powerful tool to understand the world but I disagree that they’re the “only lens on reality” since in some cases, ideologues are able to summon numbers that fit a preconceived notion.
Edit: oops, forgot the link (1) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
I agree that statistics are an incredibly powerful tool to understand the world but I disagree that they’re the “only lens on reality” since in some cases, ideologues are able to summon numbers that fit a preconceived notion.
Edit: oops, forgot the link (1) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
I believe it reflects reality, or is at least a strong approximation of reality.
I think the cause to first order is economics. Second and third order terms with much less but still contributing importance are political (decades of policy failures like the War on Drugs and welfare expansion, for-profit prisons, etc), and cultural (there is far too much celebration of crime culture, gang culture, and respect culture that normalizes the state of things in the black community).
I think the cause to first order is economics. Second and third order terms with much less but still contributing importance are political (decades of policy failures like the War on Drugs and welfare expansion, for-profit prisons, etc), and cultural (there is far too much celebration of crime culture, gang culture, and respect culture that normalizes the state of things in the black community).
> they're going to tell you how the police in a developed country shouldn't act as if they're expecting a war.
Which gives me a bit of whiplash when I see many of those people outraged that the Capitol Police didn’t just start shooting indiscriminately into the crowd on 1/6.
Which gives me a bit of whiplash when I see many of those people outraged that the Capitol Police didn’t just start shooting indiscriminately into the crowd on 1/6.
> Which gives me a bit of whiplash when I see many of those people outraged that the Capitol Police didn’t just start shooting indiscriminately into the crowd on 1/6.
What I've seen is mostly people pointing to that response as proving police know how to respond nonviolently to mass, even violent, protests, and therefore that the reason they choose a different stance and response when, e.g., BLM is involved is racial bias, not neutral procedure.
What I've seen is mostly people pointing to that response as proving police know how to respond nonviolently to mass, even violent, protests, and therefore that the reason they choose a different stance and response when, e.g., BLM is involved is racial bias, not neutral procedure.
The Capitol Police retreated from most of the capitol building and only shot one rioter before eventually recapturing the building later that evening. Police responding to BLM protests shot virtually nobody and retreated from multiple police stations, some of which were either occupied for weeks or burned to the ground.
> The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election
I noticed that that the BLM protests happened a few months before the 2016 election and then vanished. Then the same thing happened before the 2020 election.
To make this quantitative, here's a Google Trends link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
I noticed that that the BLM protests happened a few months before the 2016 election and then vanished. Then the same thing happened before the 2020 election.
To make this quantitative, here's a Google Trends link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
To be specific, the data shows Google search interest - not number of protest events.
Protests are not necessarily “newsworthy”; however, that search interest would track media stirring up news before elections seems likely.
Further, (and I say this as a Minneapolitan) the significant protests of this summer were very clearly and obviously precipitated by real world events, not astroturfed protest crowds.
Protests are not necessarily “newsworthy”; however, that search interest would track media stirring up news before elections seems likely.
Further, (and I say this as a Minneapolitan) the significant protests of this summer were very clearly and obviously precipitated by real world events, not astroturfed protest crowds.
One question is why and how certain specific real-world events go viral and others get memory-holed.
I would surmise that a lot of the protests this summer were, emotionally, a consequence of the stress, economic uncertainty, and way-too-online cabin fever of the early stages of the COVID epidemic.
I would surmise that a lot of the protests this summer were, emotionally, a consequence of the stress, economic uncertainty, and way-too-online cabin fever of the early stages of the COVID epidemic.
You wouldnt believe how sophisticated the firms are that the dem party hires. They have their own versions of Cambridge Analytica which are more than capable of amplifying messages.
I'd believe it. It would certainly explain a lot.
> they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying
You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s
When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view
You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s
When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view
"You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s" what is the context of this joke Im not following. I stated a fact (FBI statistics) and then an opinion. Are we allowed to do that on the internet?
> The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters.
So, Trump was behind it, so he could run on a law and order platform? Because he certainly did take advantage of it.
I'm afraid the boring truth was that ordinary people got angry during a time of high unemployment, with protests and rioting being a predictable result. It's not as though large protests over police shootings are new.
So, Trump was behind it, so he could run on a law and order platform? Because he certainly did take advantage of it.
I'm afraid the boring truth was that ordinary people got angry during a time of high unemployment, with protests and rioting being a predictable result. It's not as though large protests over police shootings are new.
[deleted]
This is a disingenuous false equivalence. Local protests that turn violent based on political grievances regarding police violence are not the same as storming the nation's capitol with the goal of overturning a democratic election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rosenberg
> Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001,[5] his final day in office.[6][7]
She was charged, served some of her time (16 years of 58 years is 27.586%), and then a president pardoned her.
> Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001,[5] his final day in office.[6][7]
She was charged, served some of her time (16 years of 58 years is 27.586%), and then a president pardoned her.
Doesn't appear to be a pardon, which involves the conviction being expunged. Commuting a sentence means more like "you have been punished enough, but we were right to punish you". A pardon is "we were wrong to punish you".
Oh sorry, you are correct. The president commuted her sentence. I got confused with pardons today.
>Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?
Blessing? The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned.
>Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
And served 15 years in prison for it with a 58 YEAR sentence. Clinton faced plenty of criticism for the pardon too. That being said, are you suggesting someone who has served their time should... permanently be ostracized by society? Prison is meant to punish not reform?
If you're suggesting she's still supporting violence, provide the evidence. Her book seems to indicate she has a different world view after spending time in prison. Literally the outcome we SHOULD want from people being arrested and imprisoned.
Blessing? The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned.
>Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
And served 15 years in prison for it with a 58 YEAR sentence. Clinton faced plenty of criticism for the pardon too. That being said, are you suggesting someone who has served their time should... permanently be ostracized by society? Prison is meant to punish not reform?
If you're suggesting she's still supporting violence, provide the evidence. Her book seems to indicate she has a different world view after spending time in prison. Literally the outcome we SHOULD want from people being arrested and imprisoned.
> The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned.
I know many people who defended the BLM rioters on social media. The actual rioters - not just the protesters.
I know many people who defended the BLM rioters on social media. The actual rioters - not just the protesters.
We aren't talking about random idiots on social media. He said "corporations and mainstream media".
> the rioters were universally condemned
No, they were not.
There was hand-wringing about “the language of the unheard”, bail funds being raised for arrested rioters, the author of a book titled “In Defense of Looting” being interviewed uncritically on NPR, Chris Cuomo on CNN rhetorically asking why protesters need to be peaceful, and many other such examples.
No, they were not.
There was hand-wringing about “the language of the unheard”, bail funds being raised for arrested rioters, the author of a book titled “In Defense of Looting” being interviewed uncritically on NPR, Chris Cuomo on CNN rhetorically asking why protesters need to be peaceful, and many other such examples.
>There was hand-wringing about “the language of the unheard”
By who, this is supposedly coming from mainstream media, so cite your source.
>bail funds being raised for arrested rioters
By which major corporation or media group? Again, citation please.
>the author of a book titled “In Defense of Looting” being interviewed uncritically on NPR
That's what NPR does, they attempt to give a platform without injecting their own opinions into the interview. Regardless, I'd again say: citation, I even took the liberty this time for you:
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
>Chris Cuomo on CNN rhetorically asking why protesters need to be peaceful
It's great to take a part of a clip out of context. If you listen to the FULL clip - he's referring to protestors yelling and being angry and not following curfew (which he says they'll justifiably arrested for). In the very same clip he literally says
"Looting, arson, violence, now that’s something else. Don’t confuse that with protest or the people doing it with protesters"
So yes, taken out of context you can pretend that Cuomo was supporting violence.
Citation? Did I say that yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1z0ekwqQX4&feature=emb_titl...
By who, this is supposedly coming from mainstream media, so cite your source.
>bail funds being raised for arrested rioters
By which major corporation or media group? Again, citation please.
>the author of a book titled “In Defense of Looting” being interviewed uncritically on NPR
That's what NPR does, they attempt to give a platform without injecting their own opinions into the interview. Regardless, I'd again say: citation, I even took the liberty this time for you:
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178...
>Chris Cuomo on CNN rhetorically asking why protesters need to be peaceful
It's great to take a part of a clip out of context. If you listen to the FULL clip - he's referring to protestors yelling and being angry and not following curfew (which he says they'll justifiably arrested for). In the very same clip he literally says
"Looting, arson, violence, now that’s something else. Don’t confuse that with protest or the people doing it with protesters"
So yes, taken out of context you can pretend that Cuomo was supporting violence.
Citation? Did I say that yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1z0ekwqQX4&feature=emb_titl...
> Prison is meant to punish not reform?
slightly off-topic but I don't think a 58-year sentence will reform anyone more than a 10-year sentence would. The entire American prison system is built around punishing our prisoners.
slightly off-topic but I don't think a 58-year sentence will reform anyone more than a 10-year sentence would. The entire American prison system is built around punishing our prisoners.
I think you hit diminishing returns even before 10 years. Unless you have a reason to believe that if let out they would immediately do harm I would cap it at 5 for the very worst offenders.
Absolutely, I figured the argument would stand stronger with 10 years as, even if you're of the mindset that prison works, 10 years is obviously more than enough for the "rehabilitation." If anything, prison seems to breed more resentment for the system that put them there in the first place.
I really think the entire prison system needs to be rethought from the ground up though. It doesn't make sense that excons carry this weight with them throughout their life, failing background checks. If someone's been released from prison, they should be done with their punishment. Period.
I really think the entire prison system needs to be rethought from the ground up though. It doesn't make sense that excons carry this weight with them throughout their life, failing background checks. If someone's been released from prison, they should be done with their punishment. Period.
So 5 years for premeditated murder?
Yep! What do you gain by having it be longer? What reform happens in 10, 25, 50 years but not 5?
You can add on non-prison sentencing if you must but I very much don’t like wasting people’s lives by holding them in a box.
And again, if you can make a case that the hypothetical murderer will immediately do it again if let out you can hold them longer.
You can add on non-prison sentencing if you must but I very much don’t like wasting people’s lives by holding them in a box.
And again, if you can make a case that the hypothetical murderer will immediately do it again if let out you can hold them longer.
Some people simply can’t be reformed; keeping them in prison for life is the only option.
In other cases, most violent criminals seem to be young men, so there’s some value in running out the clock so they aren’t young men anymore by the time they’re released.
In other cases, most violent criminals seem to be young men, so there’s some value in running out the clock so they aren’t young men anymore by the time they’re released.
Even if you are right, there is also therapy, house arrest, 24 hour monitoring, etc.
Prison is not the only option by a long shot.
Prison is not the only option by a long shot.
I strongly agree that prison isn't the only option. At the same time, I can't support the notion that Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Dylann Roof, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should all be free men today.
Be that as it may, and maybe they shouldn’t be free. But I don’t think they should be in prison either. You can have your freedom punitively stripped away from you without being held in prison.
I agree they shouldn't be in prison. They should be dead. One of them is.
The problem with capitol punishment is that it's irrevocable. Even though we know these people committed these heinous crimes, there's going to be a line for where it's not ok to sentence someone to death because the proof is not airtight. When cases are close to that line, there's always the chance that they weren't actually guilty. I believe this will be the case no matter where that line is.
[deleted]
Thank you for the first legitimate critique of the Black Lives Matter organization that I've seen.
I don't think it invalidates all of the points of the platform of BLM, but it does make me question the sanity and legitimacy of the organization's leadership.
I don't think it invalidates all of the points of the platform of BLM, but it does make me question the sanity and legitimacy of the organization's leadership.
I don't mean this unkindly, but your information diet has incredibly serious problems if you haven't come across any legitimate criticisms of the BLM org in the past. As someone whose pet issue has been police and justice system violence for a really, really long time, I really wish BLM wasn't the organization/movement representing this particular struggle[1]. The 2020 iteration is a little more connected to reality and a little less hateful than the 2015 one, so I'd count myself as a supporter in a way that I didn't in 2015, but if you've not come across _any_ valid criticism of them before now, I suggest sitting down and taking a hard look at your media diet.
By far the scariest facet of the modern moment to me is all the people sneering at Trumpists detachment from reality while happily wallowing in their own post-truth bubble. The average person has always been horribly un- and misinformed, but the shift in the last couple of years in my white-collar, coastal social group legitimately terrifies me.
[1] Though I'm well-aware that getting attention and support is probably the most important part of driving social change, and they've obviously done very well there.
By far the scariest facet of the modern moment to me is all the people sneering at Trumpists detachment from reality while happily wallowing in their own post-truth bubble. The average person has always been horribly un- and misinformed, but the shift in the last couple of years in my white-collar, coastal social group legitimately terrifies me.
[1] Though I'm well-aware that getting attention and support is probably the most important part of driving social change, and they've obviously done very well there.
This is such a spot on comment. I think the trouble is that you can’t pick the way that opposition to very bad things finds it’s moment. We have had decades of horrible abuses and creeping police state totalitarianism. It affects everyone. It permeates life everywhere. I wish the current zeitgeist around changing that was less identitarian, but I will take what I can get and happily support it.
Yes, I agree, and tried to capture this sentiment in my edit. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and sniff about how the masses don't agree with you, and it's much harder to find an intersection point that fires up the masses while also doing some good. The latter is how change actually happens, so I give a lot of leeway to activist or policy groups when it comes to not having perfect policy goals.
BLM 2015 didn't quite meet this tradeoff, and was in some cases explicitly against race-blind solutions to police violence and in favor of pseudoscience like IATs (at which point their detachment from reality points them in the opposite direction from managing to do good). BLM 2020 is pretty different in character, and while it still has its stupidities, I reckon that it's a decent enough direction that it may lead to some positive change.
BLM 2015 didn't quite meet this tradeoff, and was in some cases explicitly against race-blind solutions to police violence and in favor of pseudoscience like IATs (at which point their detachment from reality points them in the opposite direction from managing to do good). BLM 2020 is pretty different in character, and while it still has its stupidities, I reckon that it's a decent enough direction that it may lead to some positive change.
If BLM isn't the face of the justice reform movement, then why is the capitol riot the face of the "the election was stolen" movement?
I do not follow the connection to my comment. Could you elaborate?
I would appreciate any pointers at good news sources you recommend.
Thank you for the courteous response to a comment that could easily have been taken as an insult!
I don't think it's about individually high-quality sources as much as it is about how you take in information. Don't consider yourself to understand an issue until you've heard a compelling argument on both sides, or have thoroughly convinced yourself that you've adequately searched through diverse enough fora. Don't read anything, from Alex Jones's Facebook page to the frontpage of the NYT, without spot-checking sources, reading studies, etc. There's no filter that ensures that journalists are the best humanity has to offer: just like all humans, plenty of them are incompetent or dishonest, and beyond that groupthink exists in cultures that get as insular and self-aggrandizing as journalism's. Correctly combine a variety of low-quality signals and you can get a really high-quality signal.
That being said, some general recommendations for individual sources are (in ascending order of obscurity) The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Marginal Revolution (economist Tyler Cowen's blog). I find they do a better job than most of:
1) representing different opinions intellectually honestly
2) being thorough in their reasoning and analysis
and/or
3) being fairly high-quality
I don't think it's about individually high-quality sources as much as it is about how you take in information. Don't consider yourself to understand an issue until you've heard a compelling argument on both sides, or have thoroughly convinced yourself that you've adequately searched through diverse enough fora. Don't read anything, from Alex Jones's Facebook page to the frontpage of the NYT, without spot-checking sources, reading studies, etc. There's no filter that ensures that journalists are the best humanity has to offer: just like all humans, plenty of them are incompetent or dishonest, and beyond that groupthink exists in cultures that get as insular and self-aggrandizing as journalism's. Correctly combine a variety of low-quality signals and you can get a really high-quality signal.
That being said, some general recommendations for individual sources are (in ascending order of obscurity) The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, and Marginal Revolution (economist Tyler Cowen's blog). I find they do a better job than most of:
1) representing different opinions intellectually honestly
2) being thorough in their reasoning and analysis
and/or
3) being fairly high-quality
In addition to wutbrodo, I find that Wikipedia is actually a great starting point to find out more information for yourself.
For example, take the comment that you originally replied to, which asserted "Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients.""
That is obviously a great soundbite that seems tailor made for the "the left ignores the terrorism on their side" argument. But on the Wikipedia page for Susan Rosenberg, you can see what her level of involvement was, see how she was punished (she served 16 years), see what she's been doing since she was released from prison, and follow lots of links to original sources, like the tax return for Thousand Currents.
Snopes is also a great source for stuff like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/. Again, you don't have to agree with the simple "true/false/mixture" checkbox Snopes puts on their stories. Just read the article, which always has tons of well-researched factual info, and make up your mind for yourself.
My main point is that whenever you see some soundbite or statistic on Twitter, Facebook or HN, it was often taken out of context in order to make an argument. It's usually pretty easy to use Wikipedia as a starting point to find out more about that context.
And to be clear, while I obviously have a point of view, my main point is that you shouldn't take anyone's opinions at face value - the Internet actually makes it pretty easy to find original sources.
For example, take the comment that you originally replied to, which asserted "Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients.""
That is obviously a great soundbite that seems tailor made for the "the left ignores the terrorism on their side" argument. But on the Wikipedia page for Susan Rosenberg, you can see what her level of involvement was, see how she was punished (she served 16 years), see what she's been doing since she was released from prison, and follow lots of links to original sources, like the tax return for Thousand Currents.
Snopes is also a great source for stuff like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/. Again, you don't have to agree with the simple "true/false/mixture" checkbox Snopes puts on their stories. Just read the article, which always has tons of well-researched factual info, and make up your mind for yourself.
My main point is that whenever you see some soundbite or statistic on Twitter, Facebook or HN, it was often taken out of context in order to make an argument. It's usually pretty easy to use Wikipedia as a starting point to find out more about that context.
And to be clear, while I obviously have a point of view, my main point is that you shouldn't take anyone's opinions at face value - the Internet actually makes it pretty easy to find original sources.
> I don't mean this unkindly, but your information diet has incredibly serious problems if you haven't come across any legitimate criticisms of the BLM org in the past.
This is a fair point, but most people are happy to go along with the narrative rather than think critically about these issues. If you aren’t wallowing in a post-truth groupthink bubble, the world of today is really uncomfortable and lonely sometimes.
This is a fair point, but most people are happy to go along with the narrative rather than think critically about these issues. If you aren’t wallowing in a post-truth groupthink bubble, the world of today is really uncomfortable and lonely sometimes.
> If you aren’t wallowing in a post-truth groupthink bubble, the world of today is really uncomfortable and lonely sometimes.
I dunno... For the most part, my close friends are too intelligent to have this tendency (likely not a coincidence, but implicit assortative matching), but I have a couple close friends and many less-close friends who aren't. It seems to bring them a lot of emotional pain and frustration.
If your worldview is effectively religious, the heretics who blaspheme against the One True Flawless Way by disagreeing with you are reduced to actively-evil monsters. If you happen to live in a modern, pluralistic society instead of Reconquista Spain, this is a recipe for constant frothing fury at the tens of millions of people who don't share any given viewpoint you may hold. To my eyes, this is wayyy more uncomfortable than always being the person disagreeing,even if minorly, with the groupthink session.
Regarding loneliness, the part of my brain that enjoys the seduction of blind, rabid group membership seems to be missing (eg I've never been a pro sports fan either, despite being a fairly avid sportsman in the past). I can understand how this would be lonely for many, but... I dunno, being a bad person is fun, I don't think that's much of an excuse for doing it.
I dunno... For the most part, my close friends are too intelligent to have this tendency (likely not a coincidence, but implicit assortative matching), but I have a couple close friends and many less-close friends who aren't. It seems to bring them a lot of emotional pain and frustration.
If your worldview is effectively religious, the heretics who blaspheme against the One True Flawless Way by disagreeing with you are reduced to actively-evil monsters. If you happen to live in a modern, pluralistic society instead of Reconquista Spain, this is a recipe for constant frothing fury at the tens of millions of people who don't share any given viewpoint you may hold. To my eyes, this is wayyy more uncomfortable than always being the person disagreeing,even if minorly, with the groupthink session.
Regarding loneliness, the part of my brain that enjoys the seduction of blind, rabid group membership seems to be missing (eg I've never been a pro sports fan either, despite being a fairly avid sportsman in the past). I can understand how this would be lonely for many, but... I dunno, being a bad person is fun, I don't think that's much of an excuse for doing it.
From inside a groupthink bubble, it seems like your half of the population are reasonable and logical people who are destined to win in the end, and the other side are an irrational and stupid cult. Which is definitely stressful, but at least there's the relief of thinking that your side are the good guys.
It's a lot more bleak when you realize there are virtually no good guys, and a lot of the people who might seem like good guys at first are either grifting or gazed too deeply into the abyss.
It's a lot more bleak when you realize there are virtually no good guys, and a lot of the people who might seem like good guys at first are either grifting or gazed too deeply into the abyss.
> It's a lot more bleak when you realize there are virtually no good guys, and a lot of the people who might seem like good guys at first are either grifting or gazed too deeply into the abyss.
It's more to grapple with philosophically, but it's much easier day to day. Having a model of the world that makes sense instead of expecting people to be more intelligent or decent than they are just makes everything go more smoothly. At least, that's my experience.
And it's not as misanthropic or nihilistic as it sounds. I have friends whom I wouldn't consider particularly intelligent, and the ability to accept that about them makes for much smoother interactions and over time has led to deeper connections over other parts of our respective characters/personalities.
It's more to grapple with philosophically, but it's much easier day to day. Having a model of the world that makes sense instead of expecting people to be more intelligent or decent than they are just makes everything go more smoothly. At least, that's my experience.
And it's not as misanthropic or nihilistic as it sounds. I have friends whom I wouldn't consider particularly intelligent, and the ability to accept that about them makes for much smoother interactions and over time has led to deeper connections over other parts of our respective characters/personalities.
> while happily wallowing in their own post-truth bubble
Explain? I have not seen any conspiracy theories on the left that are remotely close to the Qanon/plandemic/stop-the-steal clusterfuck of recent years.
Explain? I have not seen any conspiracy theories on the left that are remotely close to the Qanon/plandemic/stop-the-steal clusterfuck of recent years.
Even though I also haven't seen those kind of theories on the left, that doesn't mean that the information consumed is unbiased in the slightest. I mean, you have the sideplot of the Trump presidency playing out on CNN where every time he coughs there are calls for him to be removed from office for being a dementia patient... or something.
The point I'm trying to make with this winding comment is that you can still consume an unhealthy amount of biased media without delving into the levels of Qanon- expand your horizons and try other sources!
I personally even make it a point to read FOX and r/conservative once in a while through a critical lens to see what exactly the right is consuming.
The point I'm trying to make with this winding comment is that you can still consume an unhealthy amount of biased media without delving into the levels of Qanon- expand your horizons and try other sources!
I personally even make it a point to read FOX and r/conservative once in a while through a critical lens to see what exactly the right is consuming.
Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media?
This is incendiary and false.
This is incendiary and false.
Is it?
https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2020/06/protests-blm-mo... - "Violence Has Been An Important Tool For Protests"
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-ar... - "The Double Standard of the American Riot"
https://time.com/5849679/history-protest-debate/ - "History Shows the Problem With Focusing on Whether a Protest Is Nonviolent"
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote... - "In Defense of Destroying Property"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/if-vio... - "If Violence Isn't the Way To End Racism In America, Then What Is?"
https://qz.com/1863651/violence-and-extreme-actions-shouldnt... - "Why Extreme Actions Shouldn’t Delegitimize A Protest"
Here's the now VP-elect fundraising for the rioters' bail fund: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643
https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2020/06/protests-blm-mo... - "Violence Has Been An Important Tool For Protests"
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-ar... - "The Double Standard of the American Riot"
https://time.com/5849679/history-protest-debate/ - "History Shows the Problem With Focusing on Whether a Protest Is Nonviolent"
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote... - "In Defense of Destroying Property"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/if-vio... - "If Violence Isn't the Way To End Racism In America, Then What Is?"
https://qz.com/1863651/violence-and-extreme-actions-shouldnt... - "Why Extreme Actions Shouldn’t Delegitimize A Protest"
Here's the now VP-elect fundraising for the rioters' bail fund: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643
[deleted]
BLM is fighting to end police violence against the Black community. Antifa is fighting to stop white supremacists from gaining power in the streets and in government.
The people who attacked the Capitol were fighting to end democracy and keep an unelected would-be dictator in power.
Do you see the difference?
The people who attacked the Capitol were fighting to end democracy and keep an unelected would-be dictator in power.
Do you see the difference?
That is an utterly false comparison. Black Lives Matter is more of a slogan than an organization or a movement. Many if not most of the BLM related protests were peaceful. There were many events such as police making a show of taking the knee in front of protesters that have no comparison. Where in the capitol actions did police take the knee as a show of empathy?
And there was a great deal of push back against BLM related protests. Near me in Oakland, California the discount grocery store that serves a mostly black and largely poor neighborhood was ransacked and this caused a huge uproar and major social upheaval. There was considerable resistance against the rioting at that time.
But all we heard from the right was a wretched flow of lies. Democrats do nothing to stop violence they said, even when police were hurting from attempts to bring peace. And then the same lovers of political theater cheered on an attack on the capitol.
And there was a great deal of push back against BLM related protests. Near me in Oakland, California the discount grocery store that serves a mostly black and largely poor neighborhood was ransacked and this caused a huge uproar and major social upheaval. There was considerable resistance against the rioting at that time.
But all we heard from the right was a wretched flow of lies. Democrats do nothing to stop violence they said, even when police were hurting from attempts to bring peace. And then the same lovers of political theater cheered on an attack on the capitol.
The magnitude of threatening the lives of national leadership is different from the property damage of the BLM movements. The implications of each are different, too. Both are bad things.
Do citizens lives matter less than politicians lives?
Of course not. But institutions matter, and shutting down a governing body through threats of violence has consequences far beyond just the immediate politician's lives.
Shutting down a judicial governing body through nightly attacks for month should also have consequences...but it didn't. I literally watched it happen for months on end with little repercussions by local law enforcement (because they were restricted by the mayor).
What happens when you take over multiple city blocks for a few weeks and don't allow any government agencies to do their jobs? That should also have reprecussions...but it didn't.
What happens when you take over multiple city blocks for a few weeks and don't allow any government agencies to do their jobs? That should also have reprecussions...but it didn't.
Don't forget trying to torch the justice building with people in it. Or throwing burning stuff into Ted Wheeler's apartment building where many other people lived.
It sounds like you are talking about the federal judiciary in Portland? Being specific helps readers understand how to address your comments.
Or the incident at the white House that had the secret service moving trump to a bunker for his safety. Note that left aligned media considered this a good thing.
Contrasting this to the reaction to capitol hill does not bode well to me.
Contrasting this to the reaction to capitol hill does not bode well to me.
A small number of protestors made it over some waist high barricades and nearly made it to the white house lawn. They were arrested. Trump himself said he wasn't whisked to a bunker.
If you don't see a categorical difference between the two events, I'd recommend checking your biases.
If you don't see a categorical difference between the two events, I'd recommend checking your biases.
Sounds pretty similar to me. Both sides involved an attempted violent incursion into a core zone of the government. On bias checks, I'd probably just ask you to do the same first. Hell, I'm not even American.
One was met with celebration, I recall reddit threads on the top of all celebrating trumps weakness retreating to the bunker. Conversely, looking at msm rw response, they're not too happy with the capitol riots, with the wsj condemming then.
There are many things I dislike from the rw over the left. Their response to rioting isn't one of them.
One was met with celebration, I recall reddit threads on the top of all celebrating trumps weakness retreating to the bunker. Conversely, looking at msm rw response, they're not too happy with the capitol riots, with the wsj condemming then.
There are many things I dislike from the rw over the left. Their response to rioting isn't one of them.
No incident of rioting is acceptable...celebrating any of them is ridiculous. It does seem to be a double standard in allowing it for months in 2020 only to condemn it when the same tactics are used on 1/6. Violence and lawlessness isn't acceptable...unless you claim your voices are being ignored and your rights trampled upon...that was the message we have seen since May of last year.
Take political sides out of the equation...and none of the events like this that have transpired in the last year are acceptable.
Take political sides out of the equation...and none of the events like this that have transpired in the last year are acceptable.
[deleted]
Yes, the citizens' lives do matter.
Which is why our intelligence and security infrastructure are moving heaven and earth right now to locate and intercept the many foreign agents who attacked the capitol alongside their american collaborators. With luck, they will be intercepted before anything can happen that might be deleterious to the safety of all these lives we're all claiming are we care about so deeply.
It's good to see so many loyal and patriotic americans keeping eyes forward in this common endeavor. And not being sidetracked by matters like, say, street crime, that can be reliably left to the capable handling of municipal authorities.
Which is why our intelligence and security infrastructure are moving heaven and earth right now to locate and intercept the many foreign agents who attacked the capitol alongside their american collaborators. With luck, they will be intercepted before anything can happen that might be deleterious to the safety of all these lives we're all claiming are we care about so deeply.
It's good to see so many loyal and patriotic americans keeping eyes forward in this common endeavor. And not being sidetracked by matters like, say, street crime, that can be reliably left to the capable handling of municipal authorities.
idk how to tell you this in a way you'll listen to but doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.
Yeah, I'm sure the guy burning down someone's small business and looting television sets was doing it with the intention that it would stop police brutality.
You can't use "good intentions" to justify horrific actions.
The idea that you can do so is pretty fundamental in politics. It's how the federal government justified the US Civil War, for example, and how the Founding Fathers justified a lot of things that tend to get glossed over in grade school history books.
The debate ultimately hinges on sympathies. For someone who wholeheartedly supports BLM, the riots might be regarded as something that was regrettable, but also understandable. In the words of Martin Luther King, "A riot is the language of the unheard." The observation also works in the direction of the Capitol insurrection. The rioters were there because they believed that their opinion on the election was not being heard.
Deciding which group had more grounds to be angry is left as an exercise for the reader.
The debate ultimately hinges on sympathies. For someone who wholeheartedly supports BLM, the riots might be regarded as something that was regrettable, but also understandable. In the words of Martin Luther King, "A riot is the language of the unheard." The observation also works in the direction of the Capitol insurrection. The rioters were there because they believed that their opinion on the election was not being heard.
Deciding which group had more grounds to be angry is left as an exercise for the reader.
Violence is categorically bad, regardless of what the intentions are. Referring to violence as "doing things" purposely avoids recognizing this.
Violence is not categorically bad, I don't think. Rarely, violence is necessary in self defense. It might be the option of last resort, but sometimes violence can stop worse consequences.
I'm not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)
I'm not justifying any particular actions that anyone has taken in specific, just objecting to the categorization that it is always bad. (For example, someone suffering from domestic violence might strike back in an effort to escape.)
If we're saying all violence is categorically bad, I guess you'll want to abolish the military and the police, too, right?
Violence is not categorically bad. Violence is a tactic that is sometimes necessary and sometimes good. For example if you are being attacked, it is completely justifiable to defend yourself, violently if necessary.
The BLM protests were explicitly non-violent. The riots that broke out were swiftly condemned and not supported by any organizing group. At no point did any leader express any kind of approval of violence. And most importantly, no one told the rioters that they love them and that they are special.
I'm sorry, but that's revisionist history.
Ariel Atkins - Chicago BLM leader:
"That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it"
She said that about a riot in which 13 police officers were injured, and at least one rioter fired at police.
This is just one example of many where BLM leaders justified (or glorified) violence.
Ariel Atkins - Chicago BLM leader:
"That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it"
She said that about a riot in which 13 police officers were injured, and at least one rioter fired at police.
This is just one example of many where BLM leaders justified (or glorified) violence.
Agreed. Additionally, it's important to recognize that "peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive -- but they were explicitly non-violent.
>"peaceful" does not mean the same thing as "non-violent". The protests were not necessarily peaceful -- they intended to be disruptive
peaceful:
1. free from disturbance; tranquil.
2. not involving war or violence.
peaceful:
1. free from disturbance; tranquil.
2. not involving war or violence.
Yes, thank you for agreeing. There are two different definitions, and the first (free from disturbance) is the one used in this context. The protests aimed to be non peaceful (eg, causing disturbance) and non violent.
The protests were neither free of disturbance nor non violent (on the fringe)
You do realize that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and bad right? I cant believe how naive this statement is.
Golly it's just so hard to know who to trust. The crowds protesting racial injustice and police brutality? Or the literal, self identifying nazis, white supremacists, and cultish conspiracy theorists trying to kill political leaders.
Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective.
edit: to the below, really, no. There's no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis, your group is, at best, nazi adjacent. Nazis are the hyperbolic euphemism of peak historical immorality. It is preposterous that anyone feels they're making a good faith argument throwing whatabout comparisons when the starting point is nazis.
Alas our moral non cognizance in a post modern perspective.
edit: to the below, really, no. There's no hyperbole. If your group features nazis, and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis, your group is, at best, nazi adjacent. Nazis are the hyperbolic euphemism of peak historical immorality. It is preposterous that anyone feels they're making a good faith argument throwing whatabout comparisons when the starting point is nazis.
Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views.
Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.
Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.
The ‘Camp Auschwitz’ hoody and the “6MWE” (6 million Jews wasn’t enough) not enough of a signpost for you?
Continuing to prove my point. "wide brushes of their opposing views" Thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a nazi because you saw a a guy with a t-shirt is something stupid people do.
Someone who thinks that the holocaust didn’t go far enough is, literally, a nazi.
The fact that this is something you’re in a state of active denial about is a ‘you’ problem, not a ‘me’ problem.
The fact that this is something you’re in a state of active denial about is a ‘you’ problem, not a ‘me’ problem.
Talking about some remote person or group of people and pretending it represents a nonexistent large population is insanity. There have always been fringe groups on both sides. The issue at hand is you have no perspective after being gaslit and think everyone you disagree with is a "nazi".
No, I don’t believe everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi. However, if I see a group of people displaying actual nazi sentiments then I will assume that all the group are either actual nazis or cool with being associated with nazis.
Remember, the OG antifa were on the beaches at Normandy.
Remember, the OG antifa were on the beaches at Normandy.
Who, that little group or 70 million Americans? What are we talking about here.
Voting for trump doesn't mean you endorse the capitol insurrectionists. The world is more nuanced than right vs. left. Wide brushes go both ways. If you decide otherwise, then yeah, you're tacitly aligning yourself with the nazis.
I severely doubt that 70 million Americans were holding anti-jewish flags / Confederate flags and beating officers with them on January 6th. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of conservatives are horrified at what they saw that day.
But if you want to paint the viewpoints of the entire 70-million with that kind of hatred, that's on you, not me.
But if you want to paint the viewpoints of the entire 70-million with that kind of hatred, that's on you, not me.
We are talking about the little group of seditionists, trying so desperately hard to convince people that a larger group agrees with their goals or their tactics.
70 million people cast a vote based on political affiliations. And their side lost, and they accepted that. The commonality with the seditionists ends there.
70 million people cast a vote based on political affiliations. And their side lost, and they accepted that. The commonality with the seditionists ends there.
No, they were a Stalinist street gang: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
> Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot.
How about this guy, self identifying neo nazi, who live streamed himself going into the capitol?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
I use "your" in the general sense. I don't know who you are.
But here's the thing, you can be a conservative and not align with the opinions of nazis. But if you look at the nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups attacking the capitol; and say "I think they're working for a good cause", I'm going to make some assumptions.
If you stop and find yourself arguing similar talking points as nazi groups... I don't know what you expect to happen. This isn't hyperbole. These are literal nazi groups. We are so far removed from what should be a societally tolerable difference of opinion. It's not "conservatism" at play here.
How about this guy, self identifying neo nazi, who live streamed himself going into the capitol?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
I use "your" in the general sense. I don't know who you are.
But here's the thing, you can be a conservative and not align with the opinions of nazis. But if you look at the nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups attacking the capitol; and say "I think they're working for a good cause", I'm going to make some assumptions.
If you stop and find yourself arguing similar talking points as nazi groups... I don't know what you expect to happen. This isn't hyperbole. These are literal nazi groups. We are so far removed from what should be a societally tolerable difference of opinion. It's not "conservatism" at play here.
> and your group is not making every effort to expel associations with said nazis
This was the most bothersome part to me. Trump talked about wanting to punch protestors, but tip-toed around actual Nazi's supporting him and coming to events. He would eventually denounce violence or hate after being prodded, but never seemed to be able to state plainly if someone is a Nazi, then GTFO.
Personally, if I'm in a group and literal Nazi's are also allowed in the group, that's not a group I'm going to remain a part of.
This was the most bothersome part to me. Trump talked about wanting to punch protestors, but tip-toed around actual Nazi's supporting him and coming to events. He would eventually denounce violence or hate after being prodded, but never seemed to be able to state plainly if someone is a Nazi, then GTFO.
Personally, if I'm in a group and literal Nazi's are also allowed in the group, that's not a group I'm going to remain a part of.
> never seemed to be able to state plainly if someone is a Nazi, then GTFO.
> Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin... we must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence... Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-...
Donald Trump has many qualities worth criticizing. You should do some basic research to make sure you're repeating real ones and not just nonsense from an echo chamber.
> Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin... we must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence... Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-...
Donald Trump has many qualities worth criticizing. You should do some basic research to make sure you're repeating real ones and not just nonsense from an echo chamber.
I’ve read that, yet he kept on walking the line. His initial statements always seemed to need clarification later. As I said, he always managed to denounce later after prodding.
From the summer: https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/28/trump-tweets-video-with...
And this: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/880377872/facebook-removes-tr...
And then stuff like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-suprem...
When asked to condemn “white supremacists and right-wing militia groups,” Trump verbally articulated a willingness to do so (“Sure, I’m willing to do that”), but also prevaricated, delayed, and bristled at the request, for example asking “Who do you want me to condemn?” when the terms of the request had already been made clear, and saying “Give me a name, go ahead.” He also swiftly shifted focus from white supremacists (the subject of the moderator’s question to him) to a condemnation of “the left wing.”
While it can be argued that Trump did not unequivocally refuse to condemn white supremacists, he undoubtedly demonstrated a reluctance to do so, one that will be very worrying to many voters. When Trump ultimately got around to issuing his version of the condemnation requested by Wallace and Biden, it was shrouded in ambiguity (“Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by”) and followed by another rapid shift in focus to “antifa and the Left.” Whatever Trump did say, he did not condemn white supremacists.
Unfortunately, because of the pandemic I’ve probably watched, read, and listened to more Trump than his supporters. The only echo chamber I’m in is his own material. His hesitancy around the white supremacist topic has always been alarming.
From the summer: https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/06/28/trump-tweets-video-with...
And this: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/880377872/facebook-removes-tr...
And then stuff like this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-condemn-white-suprem...
When asked to condemn “white supremacists and right-wing militia groups,” Trump verbally articulated a willingness to do so (“Sure, I’m willing to do that”), but also prevaricated, delayed, and bristled at the request, for example asking “Who do you want me to condemn?” when the terms of the request had already been made clear, and saying “Give me a name, go ahead.” He also swiftly shifted focus from white supremacists (the subject of the moderator’s question to him) to a condemnation of “the left wing.”
While it can be argued that Trump did not unequivocally refuse to condemn white supremacists, he undoubtedly demonstrated a reluctance to do so, one that will be very worrying to many voters. When Trump ultimately got around to issuing his version of the condemnation requested by Wallace and Biden, it was shrouded in ambiguity (“Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by”) and followed by another rapid shift in focus to “antifa and the Left.” Whatever Trump did say, he did not condemn white supremacists.
Unfortunately, because of the pandemic I’ve probably watched, read, and listened to more Trump than his supporters. The only echo chamber I’m in is his own material. His hesitancy around the white supremacist topic has always been alarming.
Also Donald :
"We love you" "You are patriots" "They love their country"
Sure, he did say that quote in 2017. That is clearly not the messaging that was consistently conveyed. Hell, you can just ask the hate groups themselves what they think trump thought of them.
"We love you" "You are patriots" "They love their country"
Sure, he did say that quote in 2017. That is clearly not the messaging that was consistently conveyed. Hell, you can just ask the hate groups themselves what they think trump thought of them.
Yes, that doesn't mean we have to respect all opinions equally. The lies about election fraud should not be tolerated even if some people are foolish enough to entertain them.
> doing things for good reasons is good and doing them for bad reasons is bad.
"Things are justified because I support them or unjustified because I don't support them".
This is how children and narcissists think. Reality is that a lot of arguments are really this with a layer or two of post-hoc justification though.
I can't tell if this post was meant as a joke, but if it wasn't it's either impressively self-aware or completely and utterly lacking self-awareness.
"Things are justified because I support them or unjustified because I don't support them".
This is how children and narcissists think. Reality is that a lot of arguments are really this with a layer or two of post-hoc justification though.
I can't tell if this post was meant as a joke, but if it wasn't it's either impressively self-aware or completely and utterly lacking self-awareness.
from my point of view, the jedi are evil
[deleted]
“The ends justify the means”?
Hacker news seems to really struggle with this, partly because there are still Trump supporters here somehow.
> somehow
Computing has long been an interplay of curious, light-hearted hacker types and business/military types. e.g. Woz/Yannes/Stoll/Stallman and Jobs/DARPA/Musk/Thiel.
I don't think the values of skill, sacrifice, daring, and greed (sorry if that offends anyone) that roughly underlie HN are effective filters to remove Trump values. In fact, they move the needle toward the business/military side. HN appreciates the fun hacks, but, by design, amplifies the business side.
Computing has long been an interplay of curious, light-hearted hacker types and business/military types. e.g. Woz/Yannes/Stoll/Stallman and Jobs/DARPA/Musk/Thiel.
I don't think the values of skill, sacrifice, daring, and greed (sorry if that offends anyone) that roughly underlie HN are effective filters to remove Trump values. In fact, they move the needle toward the business/military side. HN appreciates the fun hacks, but, by design, amplifies the business side.
It's pretty clear what's going on. The mass-media elite who dictate the prevailing narrative are telling the masses that it's good to support BLM and Antifa, while it's bad to support the others. Simple as that. "It's only bad if it's not my group doing it".
There is nothing more disgusting than a person who applies ideals and values selectively like this, who doesn't commit to the ideals themselves (gleaned from a related comment which I love [1]):
"I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in the middle East.
Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn't like.
Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported.
This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!").
I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred.
When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476
There is nothing more disgusting than a person who applies ideals and values selectively like this, who doesn't commit to the ideals themselves (gleaned from a related comment which I love [1]):
"I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in the middle East.
Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn't like.
Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported.
This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!").
I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred.
When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476
The search term you are looking for is "repressive tolerance". Old concept, newly applied.
[deleted]
prions(1)
matchbok(1)
It's extremely dishonest to compare a QAnon fueled outright 'voter fraud' & child abduction conspiracy that lead to Congress being forcibly entered to legitimate & coherent concerns about policing, race, & the prison system in USA.
Ah some classic "whataboutism".
Nice way to detract from the point that people are directing violence towards politicians.
But yes a Target got looted and some fires were set because people are fucking angry about the institutional violence directed towards their communities.
Clearly the same thing, yeah?
Nice way to detract from the point that people are directing violence towards politicians.
But yes a Target got looted and some fires were set because people are fucking angry about the institutional violence directed towards their communities.
Clearly the same thing, yeah?
> Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months
This sentence fragment appears deliberately vague and it assumes the conclusion. Compare, for example, "The Capitol Attack" vs "Right Wing Violence in America". One references a specific event with specific actors, the other is a vague non-specific description of a phenomena that may or may not exist.
I'd encourage you to be more specific -- which instances of fires and looting do you feel were not adequately described as attacks? Who is failing to describe them, again, specifically.
Right now, this does not read like you are interested in discussing this in good faith.
This sentence fragment appears deliberately vague and it assumes the conclusion. Compare, for example, "The Capitol Attack" vs "Right Wing Violence in America". One references a specific event with specific actors, the other is a vague non-specific description of a phenomena that may or may not exist.
I'd encourage you to be more specific -- which instances of fires and looting do you feel were not adequately described as attacks? Who is failing to describe them, again, specifically.
Right now, this does not read like you are interested in discussing this in good faith.
What about CHAZ/CHOP?
-Armed protestors took over government buildings and city blocks
-Promoted/condoned/excused by government officials
-Lots of violence and murder
-Armed protestors took over government buildings and city blocks
-Promoted/condoned/excused by government officials
-Lots of violence and murder
Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct... And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with? In my experience it was umbrellas and loud voices.
And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time.
And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time.
>Which government buildings? The police just left the east precinct
Isn't the east precinct a government building?
>And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with?
Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/
>And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time.
How many people were shot within the protest zone by occupants of CHAZ versus police over that time? By my count, it seems 5:0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone...
Isn't the east precinct a government building?
>And who were the armed protestors, what were they armed with?
Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raz-simone-guns/
>And keep in mind that the SPD did considerably more violence to a larger group over that time.
How many people were shot within the protest zone by occupants of CHAZ versus police over that time? By my count, it seems 5:0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone...
> Isn't the east precinct a government building?
Yes, but your framing isn't genuine. Some protestors did wander into an abandoned building. I'm not sure whether any of them were armed. That's a far cry from "Armed protestors took over a government building."
> Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles:
Again, your framing is clearly flamebait. I obviously don't deny that Raz was there, and that there appears to be a video of him giving a long gun to someone. (Singular.)
But calling Raz "the Warlord of CHAZ" is needlessly biased and inflammatory. Just say Raz Simone, or if you feel you need to clarify, add some factual clarification.
> How many people were shot within the protest zone by occupants of CHAZ versus police over that time?
Again, your framing lacks nuance.
The first shooting in the protests was by someone driving into a crowd who claimed to have a brother who worked in the east precinct.
The second shooting does not have a clear connection to the protest occupants. The Police chose not to help the shooting victim (and the reason for the shooting is unknown). This may have been protest related violence. It may have been non-protest related violence. It's unclear if the victim would have survived if the Police had made any effort.
The third shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) appears to be racially motivated, and according to the victim was allegedly at the hands of a white supremacist. It's unclear if this is related to the second shooting.
The fourth and fifth shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) have no details beyond someone getting shot in the arm.
The sixth and seventh shootings were of two teens who had reportedly driven an SUV through the crowds overnight, including through the park. Details are hazy, and it's not clear whether this was an act of self defense or something else.
So, on my counting there were seven shootings:
2 appear to be against protestors or racially motivated.
3 have no clear details that link them to the protest, and 2 of which did not take place in the zone
2 are allegedly in self defense, though the veracity of those claims is TBD.
Yes, but your framing isn't genuine. Some protestors did wander into an abandoned building. I'm not sure whether any of them were armed. That's a far cry from "Armed protestors took over a government building."
> Raz the Warlord of CHAZ giving out assault rifles:
Again, your framing is clearly flamebait. I obviously don't deny that Raz was there, and that there appears to be a video of him giving a long gun to someone. (Singular.)
But calling Raz "the Warlord of CHAZ" is needlessly biased and inflammatory. Just say Raz Simone, or if you feel you need to clarify, add some factual clarification.
> How many people were shot within the protest zone by occupants of CHAZ versus police over that time?
Again, your framing lacks nuance.
The first shooting in the protests was by someone driving into a crowd who claimed to have a brother who worked in the east precinct.
The second shooting does not have a clear connection to the protest occupants. The Police chose not to help the shooting victim (and the reason for the shooting is unknown). This may have been protest related violence. It may have been non-protest related violence. It's unclear if the victim would have survived if the Police had made any effort.
The third shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) appears to be racially motivated, and according to the victim was allegedly at the hands of a white supremacist. It's unclear if this is related to the second shooting.
The fourth and fifth shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) have no details beyond someone getting shot in the arm.
The sixth and seventh shootings were of two teens who had reportedly driven an SUV through the crowds overnight, including through the park. Details are hazy, and it's not clear whether this was an act of self defense or something else.
So, on my counting there were seven shootings:
2 appear to be against protestors or racially motivated.
3 have no clear details that link them to the protest, and 2 of which did not take place in the zone
2 are allegedly in self defense, though the veracity of those claims is TBD.
Stoo spreading fake news.
>The first shooting in the protests was by someone driving into a crowd who claimed to have a brother who worked in the east precinct.
Wrong. The first shooting came after an argument between leftists escalated. No vehicle involved.
>The second shooting does not have a clear connection to the protest occupants. The Police chose not to help the shooting victim (and the reason for the shooting is unknown).
Wrong again, it is directly linked because it happened when the protest occupants were marching back from a protest around city hall. Protestors blocked the police and firefighters from entering the area, and once the police made headway, the victim was already moved.
>The third shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) appears to be racially motivated, and according to the victim was allegedly at the hands of a white supremacist. It's unclear if this is related to the second shooting.
Wrong, it was a Black leftist/anarchist that shot himself.
>The sixth and seventh shootings were of two teens who had reportedly driven an SUV through the crowds overnight, including through the park.
Driving a vehicle that was a different make and model, but similar color, and they were killed for it. Two Black teens died because CHOP security extra-judicially shot and killed them because they were misidentified.
Two teens, killed in a no-cop-zone, by "community security", during a protest that was started due to the extra-judicial killings of Blacks... May have been the most ironic moment of 2020.
So, on my counting there were seven shootings:
None of them were racially motivated.
All have direct links to the protest.
>The first shooting in the protests was by someone driving into a crowd who claimed to have a brother who worked in the east precinct.
Wrong. The first shooting came after an argument between leftists escalated. No vehicle involved.
>The second shooting does not have a clear connection to the protest occupants. The Police chose not to help the shooting victim (and the reason for the shooting is unknown).
Wrong again, it is directly linked because it happened when the protest occupants were marching back from a protest around city hall. Protestors blocked the police and firefighters from entering the area, and once the police made headway, the victim was already moved.
>The third shooting (which occurred outside of the zone) appears to be racially motivated, and according to the victim was allegedly at the hands of a white supremacist. It's unclear if this is related to the second shooting.
Wrong, it was a Black leftist/anarchist that shot himself.
>The sixth and seventh shootings were of two teens who had reportedly driven an SUV through the crowds overnight, including through the park.
Driving a vehicle that was a different make and model, but similar color, and they were killed for it. Two Black teens died because CHOP security extra-judicially shot and killed them because they were misidentified.
Two teens, killed in a no-cop-zone, by "community security", during a protest that was started due to the extra-judicial killings of Blacks... May have been the most ironic moment of 2020.
So, on my counting there were seven shootings:
None of them were racially motivated.
All have direct links to the protest.
Seattle protesters were unarmed and getting tear gassed by SPD for a solid month before SPD decided to just leave the East Precinct on their own. "Armed protectors took over gov. buildings and city blocks" is just completely false. After SPD left, some people put up some signs and blockades and that's about it.
SPD is an arm of executive branch of the municipal government. Again, SPD was beating and gassing protesters (and the entire neighborhood — gas spreads) for a solid month. That is the city's clear policy on protests against police brutality — bash the protesters until they stop protesting. Outside of maybe Sawant, who is a weirdo, no city official promoted, condoned, or "excused" SPD leaving the east precinct.
Lots of violence and murder: your implication is that the handful of shootings in cap hill while SPD were out of the precinct were caused by CHOP/CHAZ, but correlation isn't causation. (And N is also pretty small.) Outside of the handful of shootings, there was only increased violence in Cap hill after the cops left if you don't count violence by cops.
SPD is an arm of executive branch of the municipal government. Again, SPD was beating and gassing protesters (and the entire neighborhood — gas spreads) for a solid month. That is the city's clear policy on protests against police brutality — bash the protesters until they stop protesting. Outside of maybe Sawant, who is a weirdo, no city official promoted, condoned, or "excused" SPD leaving the east precinct.
Lots of violence and murder: your implication is that the handful of shootings in cap hill while SPD were out of the precinct were caused by CHOP/CHAZ, but correlation isn't causation. (And N is also pretty small.) Outside of the handful of shootings, there was only increased violence in Cap hill after the cops left if you don't count violence by cops.
> Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983
I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention.
It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca...
I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention.
It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca...
OK, I stand corrected. Apparently, this did really happen [1], but my other comment still holds.
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-u...
[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/07/bomb-explodes-in-u...
Even if correct it is a moot point. There have been left wing terrorists for a long time now, and most of them get adequate police response, and sometimes even condemnation from other left wing groups. But even if it didn’t that still doesn’t make the leeway right wing terrorists get justified.
Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.
Susan Rosenberg has paid for her crimes and no longer uses terrorism to further the cause. Pointing to her case is a sever form of whataboutism, and is never done in good faith.
She was pardoned by Clinton even though some of the incidents she was involved in resulted in deaths.
Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?
Not sure how she has paid for her crimes, and why her case of known crimes and casualties should not be pointed?
It is still a moot point. You can point out the specifics all you want, it still wont make this good faith argument.
If a cause was void because terrorists advocate for it, there would be no cause worth celebrating. And there is no evidence that left wing terrorism is given more leeway then right wing terrorism. Quite the contrary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-us...
If a cause was void because terrorists advocate for it, there would be no cause worth celebrating. And there is no evidence that left wing terrorism is given more leeway then right wing terrorism. Quite the contrary. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/13/us-police-us...
I have no clue who that is but from reading other comments, I learned
> She was pardoned by Clinton
Her sentence was commuted. She wasn't pardoned.
> Not sure how she has paid for her crimes
She served 16 years of a 58-year sentence. You can consider that at least partial payment.
> She was pardoned by Clinton
Her sentence was commuted. She wasn't pardoned.
> Not sure how she has paid for her crimes
She served 16 years of a 58-year sentence. You can consider that at least partial payment.
If Facebook does not face any punishment for that, even though smaller platforms did, the result cannot be good. Double standards are at least as corrosive for democracy as fringe groups organizing themselves. A lot of current political turmoil worldwide is just long shadows of the double standards of the past, these things do not have a short expiration date.
I recently found out that on May 30th, there were numerous Secret Service members injured in a BLM/antifa attack (oh, scratch that, "peaceful protest") on the White House. I briefly wondered why I hadn't heard about that, then I chuckled at my own naivete. Of course, one might ask how that was coordinated, but then it was a peaceful protest, so who cares?
I particularly appreciate Sam Harris' take on the event in light of the prior BLM protests : https://samharris.org/podcasts/230-insurrection-lies/
It's interesting he notes the ripple effects BLM protests in the capitol coming to head here. ~28:03 in the podcast
>[00:28:03] It could be something that reaches all the way to Trump, or it could be due to the fact that the mayor of D.C. didn't like the heavy handed federal response to the BLM demonstrations that happened in D.C., in particular when Trump orchestrated his photo op in front of the church. So ironically, it could be a fairly woak mayor is resistance to heavy handed policing that left the capital undefended. That would be amazing to have that be the underlying cause of what is now being alleged to be proof positive of the truth of white supremacy and white privilege governing law enforcement in this country.
It's interesting he notes the ripple effects BLM protests in the capitol coming to head here. ~28:03 in the podcast
>[00:28:03] It could be something that reaches all the way to Trump, or it could be due to the fact that the mayor of D.C. didn't like the heavy handed federal response to the BLM demonstrations that happened in D.C., in particular when Trump orchestrated his photo op in front of the church. So ironically, it could be a fairly woak mayor is resistance to heavy handed policing that left the capital undefended. That would be amazing to have that be the underlying cause of what is now being alleged to be proof positive of the truth of white supremacy and white privilege governing law enforcement in this country.
Can you provide a source please?
I hadn't heard about it either, but this Guardian article backs it up: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/30/protest-wash...
From the article:
"The Secret Service said in a statement on Saturday that six protesters were arrested in Washington and “multiple” officers were injured. There were no details on the charges or nature of the injuries. A spokesman for US park police said their officers made no arrests, but several suffered minor injuries and one was taken to a hospital after being struck in the helmet by a projectile."
A few injuries, with perhaps only one serious enough to lead to a hospitalization. A far cry from a police officer beaten to death by a mob of right wingers invading the Capitol.
"The Secret Service said in a statement on Saturday that six protesters were arrested in Washington and “multiple” officers were injured. There were no details on the charges or nature of the injuries. A spokesman for US park police said their officers made no arrests, but several suffered minor injuries and one was taken to a hospital after being struck in the helmet by a projectile."
A few injuries, with perhaps only one serious enough to lead to a hospitalization. A far cry from a police officer beaten to death by a mob of right wingers invading the Capitol.
You seem to forget or ignore that one capitol rioter was shot in the neck/face and died. One officer allegedly died from a head strike from a fire extinguisher. Another committed suicide. I am not aware of any officer being beaten to death by the mob. One officer was caught in a door but survived.
I believe the person who died from the the head strike from the fire extinguisher was the officer who got beaten to death.
I could, but why not search for it? As an exciting exercise, look at who reported it and, more interestingly, who didn't. Examine how the event was described, when it was described at all.
I only asked after searching for it failing to find a good source
I don't know where you've been living that you didn't hear about the night Trump went into a bunmer.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-took-trump-t...
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protests-05-31...
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2020/05/secr...
You'll notice some very interesting words there in the Secret Service write up:
> No individuals crossed the White House Fence and no Secret Service protectees were ever in any danger.
Does that sound like the scene at the Capitol where Congresspeople were hidden behind a makeshift barricade while an officer was forced to shoot a woman dead literal steps away from them?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-took-trump-t...
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george-floyd-protests-05-31...
https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2020/05/secr...
You'll notice some very interesting words there in the Secret Service write up:
> No individuals crossed the White House Fence and no Secret Service protectees were ever in any danger.
Does that sound like the scene at the Capitol where Congresspeople were hidden behind a makeshift barricade while an officer was forced to shoot a woman dead literal steps away from them?
From your own source:
> Numerous Secret Service agents were injured, fires set by rioters blazed near the White House and authorities were searching for car bombs
> The official initially put the number of agents injured at over 50, but that may have referred to the weekend toll; the Secret Service has since said the number injured on Sunday was 14.
50 people injured is a serious attack. It's interesting that leftists are allowed to continue their violent attacks for days, weeks, or months while right-wing movements are immediately suppressed. Yet we're supposed to be afraid of right-wing violence. Right.
> Numerous Secret Service agents were injured, fires set by rioters blazed near the White House and authorities were searching for car bombs
> The official initially put the number of agents injured at over 50, but that may have referred to the weekend toll; the Secret Service has since said the number injured on Sunday was 14.
50 people injured is a serious attack. It's interesting that leftists are allowed to continue their violent attacks for days, weeks, or months while right-wing movements are immediately suppressed. Yet we're supposed to be afraid of right-wing violence. Right.
BoorishBears(1)
> It's interesting that leftists are allowed to continue their violent attacks for days, weeks, or months while right-wing movements are immediately suppressed.
Why the passive voice here? Who exactly is doing the "allowing?"
From what I saw both Capitol police and Secret Service were doing the dual job of trying to de-escalate while securing the premises.
The obvious difference is that a) there weren't enough Capitol police so the Capitol got breached, and b) we still don't know why that was nor who may have aided the trespassers in breaching it.
That's the stuff of cheapo action movie plots. If there's a persuasive argument for believing group.chooseAtRandom() similarly breaching the White House wouldn't generate the same amount of outrage and fear, I haven't read it.
Why the passive voice here? Who exactly is doing the "allowing?"
From what I saw both Capitol police and Secret Service were doing the dual job of trying to de-escalate while securing the premises.
The obvious difference is that a) there weren't enough Capitol police so the Capitol got breached, and b) we still don't know why that was nor who may have aided the trespassers in breaching it.
That's the stuff of cheapo action movie plots. If there's a persuasive argument for believing group.chooseAtRandom() similarly breaching the White House wouldn't generate the same amount of outrage and fear, I haven't read it.
Did they forcibly enter into the White House, or like outside on public property? Protests with injuries aren't uncommon, but I really doubt they forcibly entered a government building and threatened people inside. Police & military are always well prepared ahead of time, well researched, in mass for leftist agitators.
If this is true, why did big tech and the mainstream media (and many of us here) focus on killing Parler, and not Facebook? It feels like Facebook is too useful to many people, so gets a pass. Parler, because it hosts our ideological opponents, must be shut.
Despite blaming Parler and the media putting free speech in scare quotes ("free speech"), the attack was planned on Facebook all along?
Despite blaming Parler and the media putting free speech in scare quotes ("free speech"), the attack was planned on Facebook all along?
Half of a billion in lobbying dollars well spent by FAANG[1] - business as usual continues for facebook despite their decreasing popularity and repeated scandal and failure, from Cambridge Analytica to Libra.
Those in my immediate circle have mothballed or closed their accounts, although Instagram seems to have more holding power.
1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2019/04/30/how-the-...
Those in my immediate circle have mothballed or closed their accounts, although Instagram seems to have more holding power.
1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2019/04/30/how-the-...
Members of Congress will use this event as a catalyst for fundraising, soon after the election they will draft legislation that threatens to control and/or regulate the tech giants. Shortly after that the lobbyists representing Big Tech get wind of this new legislation on the horizon and donations will flow like a river to the PACs and re-election campaigns, then the proposed legislation will be shelved.
If you see how much wealth the politicians, especially the one holding important position, you see why they want the job for a merely $200,000 a year.
Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.
Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.
Fame has a direct financial value. Any US president is among the most famous and well known people on earth.
trump will make more money from speaking appearances than he did from any of his businesses over the last several decades
trump will make more money from speaking appearances than he did from any of his businesses over the last several decades
This is what I've never understood about post presentient lives.
People like Trump and Bush can barely deliver a speech or speak coherently, who is paying to hear them attempt it??
People like Trump and Bush can barely deliver a speech or speak coherently, who is paying to hear them attempt it??
Difficult to prove, but many believe these sorts of payments are often a delayed bribe, for services rendered while in office. Look after us while you’re in power and we’ll look after you later. And other politicians watching this will notice, and will behave properly while they are in power as well.
On trump, I agree, but Bush? Didn't you see Bush's eulogy for his father? He is a skilled public speaker, in spite of his infamous gaffes.
I'll be honest i did not...
He hasn't had much air time over here since leaving office, my opinion of him is all drawn from 2000-2008.
He hasn't had much air time over here since leaving office, my opinion of him is all drawn from 2000-2008.
People who want to say to their friends that they were in the same room as those people. It's social capital.
Corporate speeches are like Cameo for really rich people. People will pay for a personal message / attention from a celebrity. It doesn't matter what they say
Same people buying his paintings.
Why are you not mentioning any Republicans?
Because there is plenty coverage of Republican sleaze. The mistake is in thinking one set of politicians is “doing the right thing”.
Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.
Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.
Except Democrats are promising regulation, taxes and the like.
IE the mistaken thought that Democrats won't remove 230 - despite Obama, Biden, etc all saying they want to remove it (if for different reasons than Trump, etc)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-presid...
And with promises of Paris Accord, Green New Steal and removal of stuff like the Keystone Pipeline...
It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.
IE the mistaken thought that Democrats won't remove 230 - despite Obama, Biden, etc all saying they want to remove it (if for different reasons than Trump, etc)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-presid...
And with promises of Paris Accord, Green New Steal and removal of stuff like the Keystone Pipeline...
It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.
> It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.
Well that’s been how Democrat control has worked out at the federal level for the last 50 years or so. Regulation does indeed get passed, but it’s against narrow industries (e.g. natural resource extraction).
Given the revolving door between the biggest tech companies and the Biden/Obama administration, I suspect that will magically escape anything beyond superficial changes.
Well that’s been how Democrat control has worked out at the federal level for the last 50 years or so. Regulation does indeed get passed, but it’s against narrow industries (e.g. natural resource extraction).
Given the revolving door between the biggest tech companies and the Biden/Obama administration, I suspect that will magically escape anything beyond superficial changes.
clearly because of political astroturfing.
there I explicitly stated what you are insinuating with your simple question.
his/her point still stands; famous politicians gain wealth from said fame. can we stay on track here?
there I explicitly stated what you are insinuating with your simple question.
his/her point still stands; famous politicians gain wealth from said fame. can we stay on track here?
Yellen getting paid millions for public speaking to banks and hedge funds. And now she's going to regulate them. I'm sure those million dollar paychecks won't affect her judgement at all. I'm sure the insight based on intelligence and expertise, completely outside of getting an advantage understanding and/or influencing regulatory behaviour is what they all felt was worth the money.
I'm sure it's all completely legal but it's completely corrupt. The best we can hope for is she doesn't let these intended bribes influence her - and she may not.
Fame you say? Do you really believe that? If you do does it matter that the optics are foul and most won't agree? Square that when people are going broke and wondering about food and children's future when considering her millions in fees.
I'm sure it's all completely legal but it's completely corrupt. The best we can hope for is she doesn't let these intended bribes influence her - and she may not.
Fame you say? Do you really believe that? If you do does it matter that the optics are foul and most won't agree? Square that when people are going broke and wondering about food and children's future when considering her millions in fees.
[deleted]
> Why are you not mentioning any Republicans?
That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.
That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.
Trump didn't make money off of the presidency, if anything he spent (2016-2017) or lost (2020) wealth: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-tr...
Just because he didn't make money because he's a failure at business and his particular ventures were negatively affected by the coronavirus (the explanation given in your article) completely ignores that he funneled a substantial amount of tax payer dollars into his private ventures by spending so much time there with his security detail.
That’s not what the article says at all. It says that his hotel businesses went south due to COVID. That’s orthogonal to the myriad ways he extracted money from being a president.
...incorrect, that's the second dip only. The virus wasn't around for the first.
The article you linked makes no statement about the origin of that first dip. Regardless, whatever dips there are, this is completely unrelated to him using his position for personal gain, which is the original discussion here.
His tax returns show he didn’t make any to start with - or possibly more accurately, he just avoided saying he made any money and thereby didn’t pay any tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...
I’m betting he did his taxes right and really is just insolvent.
Does this comment account for his $500M+ "loan"?
I honestly think you'd have a hard time finding any politician that made more than trump from his office. Mar a lago was literally a place to go pay 200k so you could lobby trump.
His re-election campaign ran out of money! How could that even be possible without massive embezzlement!?
His fake stop the steal con pulled in over 200 mil! Most of that is going to end up in his pocket.
His re-election campaign ran out of money! How could that even be possible without massive embezzlement!?
His fake stop the steal con pulled in over 200 mil! Most of that is going to end up in his pocket.
You mean other than charging the Secret Service for his weekly stays at his resort? Or how lobbyists in DC made sure to book at a Trump property?
Trump apparently decreased his wealth severely.
> then the proposed legislation will be shelved
My bet is when legislation appears it will pass and subtly entrench the incumbents. Win-win!
My bet is when legislation appears it will pass and subtly entrench the incumbents. Win-win!
> to control and/or regulate the tech giants
What is it exactly that qualifies Facebook to be a tech company? A database? A website? They display advertising.
What is it exactly that qualifies Facebook to be a tech company? A database? A website? They display advertising.
Perhaps it is the fact that they are one of the largest employers of software engineers in the world.
That’s it? Expedia employs over 15000 software engineers, far more than anything else, and they aren’t a software company. Samsung has more software engineers than most tech companies have total employees and they aren’t a software company.
They move information around using software datacenters and the internet.
Patiently waiting for Apple and google to remove the facebook app, and AWS to... well... say they can’t join AWS someday.
They use aws for some things. For example, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/facebook-uses-...
Actually maybe municipalities can go after data centers. Discretionary permits, zoning etc.
> their decreasing popularity
FTFY: in the US
> repeated scandal and failure
At this point what large company hasn't had breaches or cancelled projects? Hell, is your company doing OK in terms of security? Are they hashing passwords correctly? How large is the security team? My company doesn't even hash passwords...
At some point you need to stop living in a bubble and recognize that plenty of people, businesses, communities, etc. rely on the app in a positive way.
I can understand that you're not using it, or think it's evil, but not everyone shares your opinion.
FTFY: in the US
> repeated scandal and failure
At this point what large company hasn't had breaches or cancelled projects? Hell, is your company doing OK in terms of security? Are they hashing passwords correctly? How large is the security team? My company doesn't even hash passwords...
At some point you need to stop living in a bubble and recognize that plenty of people, businesses, communities, etc. rely on the app in a positive way.
I can understand that you're not using it, or think it's evil, but not everyone shares your opinion.
> My company doesn't even hash passwords...
I understand this is somewhat my privilege speaking here, but I don't think I could continue working at a company that didn't do something as basic as hashing passwords (and refused to prioritize fixing that as soon as I pointed it out). It's a massive ethical, if not legal (IANAL), liability -- and a huge breach of users' trust. It's 2021, hashing user passwords is astonishingly easy; I can't imagine any remotely justifiable excuse for something like that.
I understand this is somewhat my privilege speaking here, but I don't think I could continue working at a company that didn't do something as basic as hashing passwords (and refused to prioritize fixing that as soon as I pointed it out). It's a massive ethical, if not legal (IANAL), liability -- and a huge breach of users' trust. It's 2021, hashing user passwords is astonishingly easy; I can't imagine any remotely justifiable excuse for something like that.
For what it's worth, the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity publishes recommendations[0] for measures that digital services should implement to fulfil their responsibilities under the GDPR. One of the recommendations, K.6 is:
> User passwords must be stored in a “hashed” form.
These guidelines aren't legal requirements for every service, but if a data breach occurred, and passwords were leaked, regulators would presumably point to this recommendation, and the ease of complying with it, and take that into consideration when issuing a fine.
[0] https://www.enisa.europa.eu/risk-level-tool/help
> User passwords must be stored in a “hashed” form.
These guidelines aren't legal requirements for every service, but if a data breach occurred, and passwords were leaked, regulators would presumably point to this recommendation, and the ease of complying with it, and take that into consideration when issuing a fine.
[0] https://www.enisa.europa.eu/risk-level-tool/help
> At this point what large company hasn't had breaches or cancelled projects?
'Breaches' and 'cancelled projects' aren't the only scandals and failures to come out of Facebook ... just the other day on HN front page was an article (from 2018) where Facebook openly admitted that their platform enabled the Myanmar crisis.
'Breaches' and 'cancelled projects' aren't the only scandals and failures to come out of Facebook ... just the other day on HN front page was an article (from 2018) where Facebook openly admitted that their platform enabled the Myanmar crisis.
>FTFY: in the US
No, in lots of places. In Scandinavia Facebook is "for old people".
>not everyone shares your opinion
I do and everyone I have asked (and maybe informed as part of asking) agrees. The thing is that people are lazy - it is not that they don't think Facebook is evil - they are just too lazy to do anything about it. Very few informed people sees facebook as Not Evil.
Also, please don't do FTFY reddit post crap.
No, in lots of places. In Scandinavia Facebook is "for old people".
>not everyone shares your opinion
I do and everyone I have asked (and maybe informed as part of asking) agrees. The thing is that people are lazy - it is not that they don't think Facebook is evil - they are just too lazy to do anything about it. Very few informed people sees facebook as Not Evil.
Also, please don't do FTFY reddit post crap.
woah your personal anecdote really helps!
What company? Just need to know so I can close/avoid making an account.
> My company doesn't even hash passwords...
I can't imagine anything even resembling a reasonable excuse for not doing something as basic as hashing passwords, and I don't even want to imagine what else isn't being done by a company which operates in that manner.
I can't imagine anything even resembling a reasonable excuse for not doing something as basic as hashing passwords, and I don't even want to imagine what else isn't being done by a company which operates in that manner.
> How large is the security team?
More importantly, how big is their whiskey budget?
It's not the greatest proxy, but how regularly your security team drinks is a not-terrible way to gauge how much trouble your org is going to be in should something happen.
More importantly, how big is their whiskey budget?
It's not the greatest proxy, but how regularly your security team drinks is a not-terrible way to gauge how much trouble your org is going to be in should something happen.
It's worth noting that quite a few politicians hold facebook stock, most notably Nancy Pelosi. I believe most of her current personal wealth is from facebook stock.
My point is not to be skeptical of Pelosi from some partisan perspective; I have never voted Republican. I merely aim to cast doubt on whether anything will fundamentally change.
My point is not to be skeptical of Pelosi from some partisan perspective; I have never voted Republican. I merely aim to cast doubt on whether anything will fundamentally change.
Did a quick fact check on this. Her husband is an investor and traded options* for tech companies including Facebook, which she disclosed out of their own will since she was attacking them at the time. Basically everyone has been trading FAANG in the past year so that tells you nothing.
* which also means most likely he never actually held the stocks
* which also means most likely he never actually held the stocks
This should be a pretty easy to verify claim. Do you have any source for this?
[deleted]
What’s interesting about this to me is that Facebook, where most of the planning took place, is still online, while Parler has been, for all intents and purposes, killed. I wonder why AANG isn’t colluding to kill F like they did with Parler - by tomorrow morning - now that this has come to light. It seems only fair given that we now have an established standard of user behavior that dictates whether or not companies can continue to exist.
> Parler has been, for all intents and purposes, killed.
Parler wasn't “killed” because planning took place there, but because they were openly at least unable if not actually unwilling to take action against a huge backlog of specific problem identified to them; the problem was current and forward, not retrospective.
Parler wasn't “killed” because planning took place there, but because they were openly at least unable if not actually unwilling to take action against a huge backlog of specific problem identified to them; the problem was current and forward, not retrospective.
Amazon has stated that it warned Parler for months without redress, but to offer another perspective, the CEO of Parler stated in an interview that they were notified the day before they got the plug pulled, sought to work with AWS on solving the issue, then were "deplatformed" the following day.
He said she said, but obviously both sides are incentivized to make themselves look clean
He said she said, but obviously both sides are incentivized to make themselves look clean
Though I doubt that Parler has many employees, it seems unlikely the emails from your hosting company would be read by the CEO. It's entirely possible both people are telling the truth.
Your CTO of your social media startup would definitely surface threats of deplatforming from your cloud provider to the CEO.
In a well run organization with great employees that is what you would expect to happen.
How did you come up with that conclusion? Honestly, just asking
Not the OP, but it's the reason AWS gave:
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.
“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.
“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
Even that does not say any planning was done on parler.
This does [1]. According to the description, Parler was the "preferred" platform for planning of right-wing election-related violence. According to the video, now that Parler is gone, Telegram, a tool that over 500 million people use everyday for entirely legitimate purposes, is now nothing more than an outlet for Qanon. If this isn't a prima facie example of the completely balanced, factual, and accurate reporting by our friends at MSNBC, I don't know what is.
[1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
[1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
I read Aws letter not buzzfeed take on it. I advise you do the same
I did, and I see no distinction between what Parler was accused of and what the article we are discussing uncovered about Facebook. Actual planning - not just vague calls for violence - occurred, in plain view, on Facebook, and nothing was done about it. Therefore, if we apply the same standard, Facebook should not be operating this morning. Here’s a direct quote from the Amazon letter you referred to:
”...we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others.”
The article we are discussing clearly found that Facebook meets precisely the same criteria. Therefore, services should not be provided to them, correct? Whoever provides their bandwidth undoubtedly has the very similar TOS...they all have similar provisions about network abuse.
Also, here’s a quote from the article you’re referring to:
”People on Parler used the social network to stoke fear, spread hate, and allegedly coordinate the insurrection at the Capitol building on Wednesday.”
I don’t know why you and others on here continue to argue that a double standard, combined with either inaccurate reporting or outright lies, is not at play here - despite overwhelming and obvious evidence to the contrary. But it’s disingenuous and makes me sad not just for HN, but for the country at large.
”...we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others.”
The article we are discussing clearly found that Facebook meets precisely the same criteria. Therefore, services should not be provided to them, correct? Whoever provides their bandwidth undoubtedly has the very similar TOS...they all have similar provisions about network abuse.
Also, here’s a quote from the article you’re referring to:
”People on Parler used the social network to stoke fear, spread hate, and allegedly coordinate the insurrection at the Capitol building on Wednesday.”
I don’t know why you and others on here continue to argue that a double standard, combined with either inaccurate reporting or outright lies, is not at play here - despite overwhelming and obvious evidence to the contrary. But it’s disingenuous and makes me sad not just for HN, but for the country at large.
I am not arguing against double standard at all. I am saying there is no evidence that riots were planned on parler and Aws never said they were
The parent post was pointing out that Parler was banned because of an ineffective to moderate content going forward (not if things were historically planned there or not).
If anything, the same is true for other platforms like Facebook and Twitter as well.
Parler was killed for one reason. They said they wouldn't ban Trump. It's probably tamer than Facebook, Twitter or even Reddit where one search and you can find threats and calls for violence.
There are two really simple reasons. One is that any such collusion would itself be a breach of anti-trust. The other is that they can't. Facebook has its own servers in its own data centers, its own fiber lines, etc. They could remove the apps from the iOS and Android app stores, but that wouldn't affect the billions who already have the app or get it preinstalled by carriers. And that's all beside the question of whether Facebook deserves such special treatment, either compared to the others or at all.
This reminds me of a discussion with a parent who was distressed about Parler being deplatformed. She was never on it, but her choices of news media told her this was “bad”.
I argued that threats of violence were viable on the platform. She didn’t seem to believe me. I later sent screenshots of violent rhetoric that I found with a quick web search. No response.
There are people who refuse the validity of reality right up until they can’t anymore. Then silence.
I argued that threats of violence were viable on the platform. She didn’t seem to believe me. I later sent screenshots of violent rhetoric that I found with a quick web search. No response.
There are people who refuse the validity of reality right up until they can’t anymore. Then silence.
If you’re referring to me being silent, the discussion seems to have made my point for me. I didn’t see the need to further interject. But here’s my take...
If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there - in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there. Yet it turns out that Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter users also engaged in this behavior, and most of it occurred on Facebook.
There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that these “news” sources are knowingly lying to their audience about the reason big tech colluded to kill Parler. The second is that they believe what they are saying, which means that there is a new standard by which we decide whether or not social networks are allowed to operate - if attacks are planned on a given platform, big tech colludes to instantly shut it down.
We know that as of this morning, Facebook is still fully operational. So we either have “news” sources openly lying to their almost exclusively Democratic audience, or there is extreme hypocrisy in the way that big tech applies the new “Parler Standard”. It is one or the other, and neither of these say good things about our society.
If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there - in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there. Yet it turns out that Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter users also engaged in this behavior, and most of it occurred on Facebook.
There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that these “news” sources are knowingly lying to their audience about the reason big tech colluded to kill Parler. The second is that they believe what they are saying, which means that there is a new standard by which we decide whether or not social networks are allowed to operate - if attacks are planned on a given platform, big tech colludes to instantly shut it down.
We know that as of this morning, Facebook is still fully operational. So we either have “news” sources openly lying to their almost exclusively Democratic audience, or there is extreme hypocrisy in the way that big tech applies the new “Parler Standard”. It is one or the other, and neither of these say good things about our society.
> If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there
I do listen to, and read, mainstream media (and others), and I haven't seen that explanation. I've seen lots of people on the right attributing it vaguely to the MSM to lead into arguments against it, but that's the only place I've seen that explanation of the deplatforming, rather than the failure to moderate when unacceptable content was identified.
> in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there.
Again, no, I've seen plenty of references to planning elsewhere, social media and otherwise, in the MSM. Again, this is a frequent thing I've seen people with a right-wing media preference attribute without detail to the MSM, but not actually seen in the MSM.
I do listen to, and read, mainstream media (and others), and I haven't seen that explanation. I've seen lots of people on the right attributing it vaguely to the MSM to lead into arguments against it, but that's the only place I've seen that explanation of the deplatforming, rather than the failure to moderate when unacceptable content was identified.
> in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there.
Again, no, I've seen plenty of references to planning elsewhere, social media and otherwise, in the MSM. Again, this is a frequent thing I've seen people with a right-wing media preference attribute without detail to the MSM, but not actually seen in the MSM.
Read this video description [1]. "NBC’s Anna Schecter reports that extremists are recalibrating and planning for January 20th even though their preferred app to plan, Parler, was shut down". Does that not directly say that Parler was the "preferred" app for the planning of right-wing election violence? I won't spend all morning detailing the rest of them (there are too many), but arguing that mainstream media is not saying that planning occurred on Parler is about as ridiculous as Kamala Harris' argument that the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over California jails - an argument she made when she was trying to keep nonviolent prisoners in custody in direct violation of a Supreme Court order [2].
The larger point, though, is the hypocrisy surrounding the continued operation of Facebook while Parler was shutdown. The first paragraph of this [3] pretty much says it all:
"Parler all but vanished from the internet this week. Major tech platforms, including Apple and Amazon, booted the social network popular with the far-right for what the companies said was a failure to moderate incitement and violent rhetoric on its service that contributed to last week's deadly Capitol riots."
Does the report we are discussing in this thread not clearly underscore the fact that Facebook also failed to "to moderate incitement and violent rhetoric on its service that contributed to last week's deadly Capitol riots"? If that is the standard by which all social networks are judged, then should Facebook not meet the same fate? It's hypocritical that they are still online today.
Are you arguing that Facebook is not guilty of the exact same crime for which Parler was executed?
[1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
[2] https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-kee...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/tech/parler-online-violence/i...
The larger point, though, is the hypocrisy surrounding the continued operation of Facebook while Parler was shutdown. The first paragraph of this [3] pretty much says it all:
"Parler all but vanished from the internet this week. Major tech platforms, including Apple and Amazon, booted the social network popular with the far-right for what the companies said was a failure to moderate incitement and violent rhetoric on its service that contributed to last week's deadly Capitol riots."
Does the report we are discussing in this thread not clearly underscore the fact that Facebook also failed to "to moderate incitement and violent rhetoric on its service that contributed to last week's deadly Capitol riots"? If that is the standard by which all social networks are judged, then should Facebook not meet the same fate? It's hypocritical that they are still online today.
Are you arguing that Facebook is not guilty of the exact same crime for which Parler was executed?
[1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
[2] https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-kee...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/tech/parler-online-violence/i...
None of your reports communicates either of the two claims you attributed as consistent messages of the mainstream media uphtread:
(1) that Parler was deplatformed because planning for the Capitol attack took place on the platform, (taking your best swing, you've managed to find an article presenting the incitement—not planning—cause for deplatforming as being specifically about incitement for the Capitol attack.)
(2) Planning for the Capitol attack took place exclusively on Parler, (the closest you got to this was the claim that Parler was a “preferred” app for planning for extremist groups, not that it was the exclusive venue for planning the attack)
(1) that Parler was deplatformed because planning for the Capitol attack took place on the platform, (taking your best swing, you've managed to find an article presenting the incitement—not planning—cause for deplatforming as being specifically about incitement for the Capitol attack.)
(2) Planning for the Capitol attack took place exclusively on Parler, (the closest you got to this was the claim that Parler was a “preferred” app for planning for extremist groups, not that it was the exclusive venue for planning the attack)
That’s not my “best swing”. It was an example that I found in 30 seconds of Googling. There are countless others.
Again, I don’t really understand your argument here. This is something that you often see on HN. People going deep into the woods, disputing minutiae while avoiding the entire point of the thread because there is no argument to be had. Combined with the upvote/downvote system, it’s an effective tactic. It silences opinions you disagree with by pushing them deep into threads where few will read them. But it is destructive to our community and makes debate on here absolutely pointless.
There is hypocrisy in the Parler situation, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. Planning of attacks and general violence advocacy, from both the left and the right, occur daily on Facebook, just as it may have in the darker corners of Parler. The only difference is that Facebook is still operating, and Parler is not.
Again, I don’t really understand your argument here. This is something that you often see on HN. People going deep into the woods, disputing minutiae while avoiding the entire point of the thread because there is no argument to be had. Combined with the upvote/downvote system, it’s an effective tactic. It silences opinions you disagree with by pushing them deep into threads where few will read them. But it is destructive to our community and makes debate on here absolutely pointless.
There is hypocrisy in the Parler situation, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. Planning of attacks and general violence advocacy, from both the left and the right, occur daily on Facebook, just as it may have in the darker corners of Parler. The only difference is that Facebook is still operating, and Parler is not.
It's chilling how quickly the tech industry has coalesced around oppressive and biased social media censorship policies. A scant few years ago, the tech industry was a beacon of free expression.
You know what’s also chilling? Major tech platforms choosing to publish, amplify, and normalize: white supremacy, antisemitism, serious calls to violently overthrow democracy, conspiracies about the deep state cabal of satan-worshiping pedophiles, the health benefits of drinking bleach, denial of well understood scientific facts, etc.
These things are fine for the town square, since people have free speech, but nobody should be handing them a megaphone that reaches 7 billion people.
Free speech does not mean you are entitled to have your speech broadcast to a global audience.
These things are fine for the town square, since people have free speech, but nobody should be handing them a megaphone that reaches 7 billion people.
Free speech does not mean you are entitled to have your speech broadcast to a global audience.
Honest question, what are you referring to when in regards to published/public content?
All of these topics you've mentioned are and always have been far away from trending ('amplified', 'normalized') pages. You can't go anywhere on these sites and see these topics without searching for them, and when you do the hashtags are either immediately taken over by the rest of the users on the site or taken off of trending deliberately by administrators, often both. Can you provide one example of these topics consistently being 'amplified' or 'normalized' by one of the major tech platforms? I'm talking public content, not private groups. Posts that are 'amplified', not just present. You can find posts from anyone about anything online, so I don't really see what separates these private facebook groups from something like a mailing list. It doesn't seem "normalized" at all.
All of these topics you've mentioned are and always have been far away from trending ('amplified', 'normalized') pages. You can't go anywhere on these sites and see these topics without searching for them, and when you do the hashtags are either immediately taken over by the rest of the users on the site or taken off of trending deliberately by administrators, often both. Can you provide one example of these topics consistently being 'amplified' or 'normalized' by one of the major tech platforms? I'm talking public content, not private groups. Posts that are 'amplified', not just present. You can find posts from anyone about anything online, so I don't really see what separates these private facebook groups from something like a mailing list. It doesn't seem "normalized" at all.
I’m going by what the article said: “Facebook spent the past year allowing election conspiracies and far-right militia activity to proliferate on its platform, laying the groundwork for the broader radicalization that fueled the Capitol insurrection in the first place.”
Facebook exercises editorial control (moderation) of what user-provided content is published on its site. Therefore if something is there, it’s because their moderation system allowed it to be there. I don’t use Facebook myself so I can’t provide a first-hand example, but it’s increasingly being reported that this content spreads virally through these platforms’ recommendation rabbit-holes and through promotion by end users.
Facebook exercises editorial control (moderation) of what user-provided content is published on its site. Therefore if something is there, it’s because their moderation system allowed it to be there. I don’t use Facebook myself so I can’t provide a first-hand example, but it’s increasingly being reported that this content spreads virally through these platforms’ recommendation rabbit-holes and through promotion by end users.
I also don't use Facebook which is why I was asking. Supposedly after some more research it seems that Facebook has a feature that actually recommends private groups to people, which I was not aware of. It's interesting that they choose to do that, then.
Who gets the megaphone? My answer is either everybody or nobody. :)
The trouble in my opinion comes when these social networks begin to promote content to the user algorithmically. My Twitter feed is filled with content from users I do not follow. It makes up the majority of my feed. Likely, even if it was content that I was following, the most "engaging", or oftentimes "enraging" content, would be the content shown first.
If social networks were largely just content crafted by the people I follow, it would then be more representative towards a digital representation of the in-person social structures that would or do exist.
They make much less money that way though. Your average user would probably also use it less.
If social networks were largely just content crafted by the people I follow, it would then be more representative towards a digital representation of the in-person social structures that would or do exist.
They make much less money that way though. Your average user would probably also use it less.
Even harder: Who gets to decide who gets the megaphone? I see the problems with "nobody, therefore everybody gets the megaphone", but I see nobody that I actually trust to decide who gets it...
i mean, in the literal sense most people don't get megaphones, so nobody seems fair to me
[deleted]
which mythical social media platform choose the amplify and publish "white supremacy, antisemitism, serious calls to violently overthrow democracy", because those I know were and are removing such content
Seriously. That is stuff that nearly everybody's against and is a constant boogeyman brought up by many on the left, but they can't ever seem to demonstrate that it is a pervasive problem. Nobody admits to being a white supremacist because it's basically universally denounced.
But those same folks will happily excuse the whole BLM/Antifa rioting during 2020 where billions of dollars in property damage was caused and dozens of people died.
But those same folks will happily excuse the whole BLM/Antifa rioting during 2020 where billions of dollars in property damage was caused and dozens of people died.
Weird, I distinctly remember Twitter, Facebook and Google removing Islamic religious content under the guise of stopping terrorism a decade ago. What I don't remember is the current free speech absolutist crowd objecting to such censorship. In fact, I remember them cheering those companies on.
Because they are largely hypocrites. In fact a lot of them identify more with the capitol rioters being delatformed and are scared that they could be next in line, and this was not the case with ISIS for example.
[deleted]
This isn’t so. I and many other free speech proponents did not support that. There were people supporting it, but to the best of my knowledge they appear to mainly be the same people supporting censorship now.
I agree with your use of “chilling” but more in the traditional sense when it comes to expression: that any censorship/bans/etc will likely have a chilling effect on this type of speech. In this case I think “this type of speech” comes down to people expressing their violent fantasies or plans, and I don’t think it’s bad if we have less of that particular kind of speech. As the classic argument goes, however, you can’t have it both ways with both total freedom of speech and some kind of moderating censorship.
All that said, if we can make our way past the obvious consequences of limiting speech we might get to a more interesting place. In particular I’m more interested in how social media moderation might change our opinions and laws about speech itself. Does everyone’s speech deserve to be treated the same way by the algorithms that decide what gets traction and what doesn’t? Should the algorithms or platforms themselves be restricted in their “speech” in some way? How do we square our desire to allow corporations to develop algorithms to increase commerce when those same algorithms also necessarily foment rage and violence?
I don’t think it’s worth arguing whether free speech is worth protecting (it is, despite the evils you also have to protect) but I do think it’s worth considering how we think about what constitutes speech when commerce, social media platforms, and algorithms come into play.
All that said, if we can make our way past the obvious consequences of limiting speech we might get to a more interesting place. In particular I’m more interested in how social media moderation might change our opinions and laws about speech itself. Does everyone’s speech deserve to be treated the same way by the algorithms that decide what gets traction and what doesn’t? Should the algorithms or platforms themselves be restricted in their “speech” in some way? How do we square our desire to allow corporations to develop algorithms to increase commerce when those same algorithms also necessarily foment rage and violence?
I don’t think it’s worth arguing whether free speech is worth protecting (it is, despite the evils you also have to protect) but I do think it’s worth considering how we think about what constitutes speech when commerce, social media platforms, and algorithms come into play.
I would like to believe you that this would be even handed at all violent talk and extremism, but blm from just months back stands as a major counterpoint.
I'd argue that this has been creeping for a while. At first it's used to ban blatantly illegal posts and obvious spam. However the power to moderate is easily abused. Big Tech is now effectively punishing wrong-think, and it doesn't even have to happen on the platform in question.
Society has been steadily picking off free speech diehards. I think the turning point is when reddit started cracking down
>A scant few years ago, the tech industry was a beacon of free expression.
It wasn't. Not since the 00s and at that point social media was small enough that rooting for the underdog was rooting for themselves.
It wasn't. Not since the 00s and at that point social media was small enough that rooting for the underdog was rooting for themselves.
Its going to get worse: https://youtu.be/-wThP4i80Tw?t=25
It's chilling how quickly radical terrorist groups have coalesced around using social media to coordinate their hatred and their attacks. A scant few years ago, America actively fought terrorists instead of encouraging and facilitating them.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. Can you please not do that? It's against the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), regardless of which politics they're battling for. This is because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.
If there are other accounts doing this, I'd like to know who they are (irrespective of which politics they're for or against). It's impossible for us to look at the history of every account posting like this, but this is a serious problem and it's getting worse, so we're raising the bar.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
If there are other accounts doing this, I'd like to know who they are (irrespective of which politics they're for or against). It's impossible for us to look at the history of every account posting like this, but this is a serious problem and it's getting worse, so we're raising the bar.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Off topic but I'm having increasingly more difficulty with the term Terrorist. How'd you call American intrusions in sovereign states? Just somewhat recently the drone strike of the General Soleimani on sovereign grounds were an act of terrorism if perceived through the eyes of most Iranians, and possibly Iraqis as the strike was on their ground. Terrorist is a term that is stretched and applied beyond meaning.
I would define terrorism as forced coercion of an outside group (or group perceived to be "outside") through violent actions. Controlling through fear.
So yes, any assassination, and especially that one, would be terrorism. However, terrorism committed by independent actors makes them terrorists, but terrorism committed by the state is more appropriately classified as military aggression, or acts of war.
The whole point of the military doing anything short of all out war is to scare an "enemy" into compliance through threat of violence. So it's not classified as terrorism for the same reason as lethal action by police is not murder. The blessing of the state changes its definition.
The whole point of the military doing anything short of all out war is to scare an "enemy" into compliance through threat of violence. So it's not classified as terrorism for the same reason as lethal action by police is not murder. The blessing of the state changes its definition.
That's not the standard understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism
We all know how things are - the world is not a fair place. It never was, and so far its rigged in a way that it never will be. Strong oppress the weak. Skillful strong oppress in a way that weak don't even notice but that's another topic. The word terrorist currently means 'enemy of me', if me is state powerful enough to project its power on others. US took any other meaning internationally from this word over last 17 years pretty effectively.
If you actively object the biggest military in the world, there is no safe place on this planet. A country that effectively uses black op sites to do torture on suspects that would be illegal back home, a country that actively uses a prison to indefinitely detain (and torture) suspects without any legal process (and so on and on... really, there are whole books about this), has absolutely 0 issues with bombing some enemy general. It can be even in the centre of Brusel for all they care, if the benefits outweigh the cons. If they kill 50 kids along, all they do is try to minimize media damage. Do you see many americans shedding tears over this? From outside its pretty hard to spot any, and anybody who cares knows how things are.
Let's not pretend wars are something nice, fair and some gentlemanly approach is applied. Almost anything that works will be used.
If you actively object the biggest military in the world, there is no safe place on this planet. A country that effectively uses black op sites to do torture on suspects that would be illegal back home, a country that actively uses a prison to indefinitely detain (and torture) suspects without any legal process (and so on and on... really, there are whole books about this), has absolutely 0 issues with bombing some enemy general. It can be even in the centre of Brusel for all they care, if the benefits outweigh the cons. If they kill 50 kids along, all they do is try to minimize media damage. Do you see many americans shedding tears over this? From outside its pretty hard to spot any, and anybody who cares knows how things are.
Let's not pretend wars are something nice, fair and some gentlemanly approach is applied. Almost anything that works will be used.
See, the general assumption is. If its a white rich nation (except Russia) doing something, its moral. If its a rich ally of the said nations, its moral.
I doesn't matter what they do, commit war-crimes, liberate people from democracy(to free the people) and install dictators, fund terrorists, lie to the international community about wars, kill people in embassies, it doesn't matter. It is you who are at fault, for not being able to understand their deeper moral motives.
Everything that the enemy does, that is either illegal or it's just lies and propaganda to improve their image. They can do nothing right.
Now, With this context you can understand very clearly how to think and feel about who the terrorists are and who the bad guys are.
I doesn't matter what they do, commit war-crimes, liberate people from democracy(to free the people) and install dictators, fund terrorists, lie to the international community about wars, kill people in embassies, it doesn't matter. It is you who are at fault, for not being able to understand their deeper moral motives.
Everything that the enemy does, that is either illegal or it's just lies and propaganda to improve their image. They can do nothing right.
Now, With this context you can understand very clearly how to think and feel about who the terrorists are and who the bad guys are.
Terrorism is committing violent acts targeting non-combatants for political goals
That’s a bit loose. Terrorism aims to inspire terror, those violent acts have to be extreme and indiscriminate to do so.
That seems like the loose understanding between the two. Were the 1944 USAAF bombings of Krupp Stahl works terrorism? They would be according to your understanding.
For example, missiles from unmanned drones hitting civilian targets like schools and hospitals.
Note the statistics here [0] - of course the numbers are very fuzzy but at the worst case scenario it's 1:2.5 civilians: military targets. So for every 2.5 military targets, 1 civilian. That fits the bill for extreme and indiscriminate.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
Note the statistics here [0] - of course the numbers are very fuzzy but at the worst case scenario it's 1:2.5 civilians: military targets. So for every 2.5 military targets, 1 civilian. That fits the bill for extreme and indiscriminate.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
Hitting is not the same as targeting, so no.
Also, one needs to indicate the difference between e.g. a hospital building acting as nothing but a hospital, and one that has been evacuated of patients and used as a militant staging post.
Also, one needs to indicate the difference between e.g. a hospital building acting as nothing but a hospital, and one that has been evacuated of patients and used as a militant staging post.
This reminded me of the song "Pirates & Emperors", which you might enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8
Too long, didn't listen: If you rob with a little ship, you're a "pirate", but if you steal with a big fleet, thou art "emperor".
Too long, didn't listen: If you rob with a little ship, you're a "pirate", but if you steal with a big fleet, thou art "emperor".
Thanks. I really appreciate the link. Especially the reference to duck typing, haha.
Uuuuuuuum, that is emphatically not the parallel you want to draw here. We did fuck all to prevent extremism from metastasizing and set the Middle East on a course to be a shatter belt for our lifetimes and likely that of our kids. We also killed a bunch of civilians and terrorism was used as a pretext for a hell of a lot of pretty racist policies. Having power means you have to be the grownup in the room. It sucks but the choice is that or a kind of repression that strengthens the grievances of the people you’re supposed to be fighting. The way terrorists work, when they’re successful, is by leveraging the overreaction of their adversary to win adherents, resources, and eventually legitimacy. We can’t let that happen again, we can’t let that happen here, and we sure as hell can’t let it happen with white supremacists.
Are you referring to Antifa and BLM, who also organized on FB and Twitter during 2020, too?
You mean the fictitious boogeyman "group" that not one member has ever been identified and the movement for black rights that was widely brutalized by the police?
I suppose not, seeing as one is a fantasy and the other clearly had the police paying attention to their plans. Besides, neither has attempted a coup to overturn an election so it's not really the same is it?
I suppose not, seeing as one is a fantasy and the other clearly had the police paying attention to their plans. Besides, neither has attempted a coup to overturn an election so it's not really the same is it?
Do you honestly believe that Antifa is not real?
"Real" and "worth pissing your pants over" aren't quite the same.
Why does that same description not apply to their adversaries?
When antifa storms the Capitol and gets Congressional representation (i.e. folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene), do let me know.
Well, actually an Antifa activist (who also came on CNN) was one of those charged for inciting the Capitol attack:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/utah-man-charged-federal-...
https://www.newsweek.com/john-sullivan-capitol-attack-leftwi...
With men like these deliberately egging on rioters, it's no wonder a protest turned violent.
With men like these deliberately egging on rioters, it's no wonder a protest turned violent.
One guy? This guy?
> Activists in Utah have spent months condemning Sullivan, who has at turns identified himself as a racial justice protester and leftist documentarian, and they have warned others to be leery of his motives and any events he sponsored.
> He held rallies featuring Black organizers. But attendees said one demonstration also featured members of the Proud Boys, an all-male extremist group with ties to white nationalism. The Proud Boys who attended, organizers said, told the crowd they wished to make peace with Black activists.
> Later in the summer, Sullivan helped organize a pro-gun-rights rally and marched with self-styled militia members at the Utah Capitol, KSL-TV reported, further infuriating Black activists.
> Sullivan’s reputation as an agitator and bad actor has followed him into other protest circles. In encrypted chats among left-leaning activists, organizers routinely flag posts by Sullivan to new members, saying, “Don’t trust that guy” and, pointing to his past ties with the Proud Boys, “He’s a double agent.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/16/sullivan-vi...
"Our mob can be incited to kill a cop by a single probably-not-really-antifa infiltrator tagging along" is a hell of a way to argue they're not dangerous.
> Activists in Utah have spent months condemning Sullivan, who has at turns identified himself as a racial justice protester and leftist documentarian, and they have warned others to be leery of his motives and any events he sponsored.
> He held rallies featuring Black organizers. But attendees said one demonstration also featured members of the Proud Boys, an all-male extremist group with ties to white nationalism. The Proud Boys who attended, organizers said, told the crowd they wished to make peace with Black activists.
> Later in the summer, Sullivan helped organize a pro-gun-rights rally and marched with self-styled militia members at the Utah Capitol, KSL-TV reported, further infuriating Black activists.
> Sullivan’s reputation as an agitator and bad actor has followed him into other protest circles. In encrypted chats among left-leaning activists, organizers routinely flag posts by Sullivan to new members, saying, “Don’t trust that guy” and, pointing to his past ties with the Proud Boys, “He’s a double agent.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/16/sullivan-vi...
"Our mob can be incited to kill a cop by a single probably-not-really-antifa infiltrator tagging along" is a hell of a way to argue they're not dangerous.
We can keep arguing past each other or you can listen to his own speech delivered personally by him to know where his alignment truly lies:
https://www.air.tv/watch?v=wZAuX4HmTK6WCuGoqPLB4w
"We fought against white militia. [expletive]. We are going to rip Trump out of office. We are going to rip that [expletive]. "
The left may have abandoned this guy now after his arrest and are busy deflecting all association, but he was most definitely an "anti-trump" activist.
It takes just a couple of people to incite a riot honestly and this guy is an expert who was egging people on while standing safe.
https://www.air.tv/watch?v=wZAuX4HmTK6WCuGoqPLB4w
"We fought against white militia. [expletive]. We are going to rip Trump out of office. We are going to rip that [expletive]. "
The left may have abandoned this guy now after his arrest and are busy deflecting all association, but he was most definitely an "anti-trump" activist.
It takes just a couple of people to incite a riot honestly and this guy is an expert who was egging people on while standing safe.
> The left may have abandoned this guy now after his arrest and are busy deflecting all association, but he was most definitely an "anti-trump" activist.
Nah, long before that. From November, for example: https://twitter.com/RebellionBaby/status/1331902008765206528
> It takes just a couple of people to incite a riot honestly and this guy is an expert who was egging people on while standing safe.
Who mentioned Trump?
Nah, long before that. From November, for example: https://twitter.com/RebellionBaby/status/1331902008765206528
> It takes just a couple of people to incite a riot honestly and this guy is an expert who was egging people on while standing safe.
Who mentioned Trump?
Antifa is real, but not an organization.
Antifa are Facebook's version of Anonymous.
Antifa is a very minor left wing subculture centered around protests.
I honestly believe that antifa is not an organized entity.
Antifa exists as a vaguely defined concept around the idea of counterprotesting right-wing groups. Its the same thing as the alt-right, an ill-defined idea that can be whatever bogeyman you want it to be to whoever you want to scare.
This is the problem. You asked if people really don't believe that antifa is real. Obviously it is real in some sense since we are talking about something called antifa, but we have no idea if you are thinking of the bogeyman organization that doesn't exist, and I am thinking of a philosophy of counterprotest.
When people talk about 'getting rid of antifa' there's a reason that so many people on the left laugh. It's because there is a false conception on the right that it is some sort of unified organization like the ACLU or NRA where you can literally be a card carrying member. People on the left understand that there is no such thing, it is just an ill-defined idea.
This is the problem. You asked if people really don't believe that antifa is real. Obviously it is real in some sense since we are talking about something called antifa, but we have no idea if you are thinking of the bogeyman organization that doesn't exist, and I am thinking of a philosophy of counterprotest.
When people talk about 'getting rid of antifa' there's a reason that so many people on the left laugh. It's because there is a false conception on the right that it is some sort of unified organization like the ACLU or NRA where you can literally be a card carrying member. People on the left understand that there is no such thing, it is just an ill-defined idea.
How is it that this fictitious bogeyman group has managed to take over portions of Seattle, get two people killed in Seattle, and spend months burning down neighborhoods in Seattle and Portland?
Easy, my friend. All it has to do is deny its existence, and ensure that this denial is reflected up and down the stack. Under such cover, it can do anything, and blame anything that goes wrong on its opponents.
Oh right, I forgot about the part where "Antifa" or the BLM protests ended in them infiltrating the United States Capitol, killing guards with fire extinguishers and american flags, stole laptops from members of congress and attempted to sell them to Russia, and were wearing literal Nazi propaganda and claiming a revolution.
An angry mob surrounded the White House and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents on May 31, 2020.
Trump had to shelter in the bunker, but he was just a coward, and the people were just demanding justice.
> Then came darkness, and with it, another night of mayhem. In the park, protesters faced the familiar pop, pop, pop of pepper bullets and stinging clouds of tear gas meant to push back hundreds of them as they tried, again and again, to break through the police barricades set up around President Trump’s home.
> Later, American flags and parked cars and buildings were lit ablaze — including St. John’s Church, a historic landmark opened in 1816 and attended by every president since James Madison. Firefighters quickly extinguished the basement fire, which police said was intentionally set.
Protesters then, as on Jan 6th, tried to entice officers to take their side;
> A black officer, according to witnesses, briefly took a knee in solidarity with the protesters, who cheered.
> Not long after, another officer made an announcement on a megaphone: “Attention: We will continue to move back unless you break the police line.”
> And again, cheering from the protesters, many of whom appeared to want the officers to join them rather than fight with them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/washington-dc...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-braces-for-third-day...
Trump had to shelter in the bunker, but he was just a coward, and the people were just demanding justice.
> Then came darkness, and with it, another night of mayhem. In the park, protesters faced the familiar pop, pop, pop of pepper bullets and stinging clouds of tear gas meant to push back hundreds of them as they tried, again and again, to break through the police barricades set up around President Trump’s home.
> Later, American flags and parked cars and buildings were lit ablaze — including St. John’s Church, a historic landmark opened in 1816 and attended by every president since James Madison. Firefighters quickly extinguished the basement fire, which police said was intentionally set.
Protesters then, as on Jan 6th, tried to entice officers to take their side;
> A black officer, according to witnesses, briefly took a knee in solidarity with the protesters, who cheered.
> Not long after, another officer made an announcement on a megaphone: “Attention: We will continue to move back unless you break the police line.”
> And again, cheering from the protesters, many of whom appeared to want the officers to join them rather than fight with them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/washington-dc...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-braces-for-third-day...
This is the biggest downer of our time to me. The media/elite control of the narrative is astounding and nearly ironclad - and as best I can tell social media is just being used to reinforce it.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if white supremacists performed those same actions, it would be described as a violent terroristic insurrection.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if white supremacists performed those same actions, it would be described as a violent terroristic insurrection.
None of that was linked to transfer of power or an election
You don’t think attacking the elected head of state is related to a transfer of power? At least 11 Secret Service agents had to be hospitalized after they defended the WH and President from angry rioters...how on earth is that materially different from January 6? Suppose they had succeeded in breaking through the line?
What exactly is so sacrosanct about elections that disputing them is an insurrection, but not storming Senate chambers to stop a Supreme Court confirmation, trying to storm the WH, or literally declaring an autonomous zone not subject to the US government?
It’s hard for me to understand how this is not simply nit picking some insubstantial detail and using it to put the things we like on one side and the things we don’t like on another. Never mind that the election nor the integrity thereof were ever remotely threatened by these riots.
What exactly is so sacrosanct about elections that disputing them is an insurrection, but not storming Senate chambers to stop a Supreme Court confirmation, trying to storm the WH, or literally declaring an autonomous zone not subject to the US government?
It’s hard for me to understand how this is not simply nit picking some insubstantial detail and using it to put the things we like on one side and the things we don’t like on another. Never mind that the election nor the integrity thereof were ever remotely threatened by these riots.
Yeah, I was reflecting back on that incident where BLM tried to breach the White House barriers. It was widely seen as a moment of weakness for Trump and opportunity to dunk on him for lying about it, and protests themselves described in supportive tone "Protesters have turned the newly constructed White House fence into a living memorial to racial justice"[0] / passive voice "started relatively cheerfully ... "tensions between protesters and police mounted ... multiple fires broke out near the White House late on Sunday evening etc etc." not like "an angry mob was about to try to storm the White House and that's bad"[1]
In fact these were really violent, dangerous protests and god knows what would have happened if they had breached the fences. Likely a lot of dead protestors and a major regime legitimacy crisis.
The night prior, more than 60 Secret Service personnel were injured from thrown bricks, rocks, bottles and fireworks, officials said.
"Secret Service personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched, and exposed to bodily fluids," the Secret Service said. "A total of 11 injured employees were transported to a local hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries."[1]
It's impossible to play the counterfactual, but I have to believe months of extremely violent political protests being tacitly allowed/encouraged sent a signal to many in the country that violent political protests are ok or even good, or at least what the other side has coming to them.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/white-house-fence-bl...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyd-protest-updates-joe-b...
In fact these were really violent, dangerous protests and god knows what would have happened if they had breached the fences. Likely a lot of dead protestors and a major regime legitimacy crisis.
The night prior, more than 60 Secret Service personnel were injured from thrown bricks, rocks, bottles and fireworks, officials said.
"Secret Service personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched, and exposed to bodily fluids," the Secret Service said. "A total of 11 injured employees were transported to a local hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries."[1]
It's impossible to play the counterfactual, but I have to believe months of extremely violent political protests being tacitly allowed/encouraged sent a signal to many in the country that violent political protests are ok or even good, or at least what the other side has coming to them.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/white-house-fence-bl...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyd-protest-updates-joe-b...
No they didn’t. Look at the damage done to Seattle and Portland with the full cooperation of Twitter and Facebook.
I've never understood this "what-about-ism". I see it as a bad faith tactic of deflecting attention from one issue to another, when the person doing it knows exactly how bad and indefensible their chosen stance is, and is trying to downplay it. I think it would be vocal to see why this OP is so instinctively fixated on BLM, Seattle and Portland and not on the Capitol attack. What does this reveal about the OP's own biases and what and whom they consider important?
I missed the part where BLM advocated overthrowing democracy. At worst they advocated to defund police and held obnoxious signs. And despite the right wing narrative, the people carrying signs and doing sit ins were not the ones rioting and looting, but rather getting their ass beat by police.
What do you call CHAZ? Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?
You mean that thing[1]
> The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands:
> 1. cut Seattle's $409 million police budget by 50 percent,
> 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and
> 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes.
Is that what you meant?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone
> The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands:
> 1. cut Seattle's $409 million police budget by 50 percent,
> 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and
> 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes.
Is that what you meant?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone
None of those points take away from it being "a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government".
If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified? I certainly don't think so.
If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified? I certainly don't think so.
> If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified?
I don't think anyone should be screaming to melt down the government or set up their own, but let's be clear there is a difference in both degree and kind from BLM to the Capitol Insurrection: BLM protestors were driven by actual instances of racism--dozens, if not hundreds of people killed by police--and fundamentally wanted accountability for that blatant police misconduct, and Capitol Insurrectionists were driven by nothing more than lies and wanted to assassinate the legislative branch and install a dictator. We both know that "more transparency" and a "more verifiable" election system isn't going to make the crazies go away. They rejected election results outright because there must have been fraud.
I don't think anyone should be screaming to melt down the government or set up their own, but let's be clear there is a difference in both degree and kind from BLM to the Capitol Insurrection: BLM protestors were driven by actual instances of racism--dozens, if not hundreds of people killed by police--and fundamentally wanted accountability for that blatant police misconduct, and Capitol Insurrectionists were driven by nothing more than lies and wanted to assassinate the legislative branch and install a dictator. We both know that "more transparency" and a "more verifiable" election system isn't going to make the crazies go away. They rejected election results outright because there must have been fraud.
[deleted]
Do you mind if I self organize some people to take over the place you live?
> What do you call CHAZ?
The popular view of it, especially on the Right? A fiction deliberately constructed by right-wing media (notably Fox News) and the Trump Administration.
> Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM
BLM isn’t a single, unified organization, so “fully supported by BLM” isn’t a meaningful phrase. The protests which spawned what was briefly called (by unknown persons) CHAZ before being renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest specifically to emphatically repudiate the implication of seditious intent were organized in part by activists identifying with the BLM movement.
> and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?
Nope. Fairly good discussion here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste...
The popular view of it, especially on the Right? A fiction deliberately constructed by right-wing media (notably Fox News) and the Trump Administration.
> Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM
BLM isn’t a single, unified organization, so “fully supported by BLM” isn’t a meaningful phrase. The protests which spawned what was briefly called (by unknown persons) CHAZ before being renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest specifically to emphatically repudiate the implication of seditious intent were organized in part by activists identifying with the BLM movement.
> and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?
Nope. Fairly good discussion here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste...
OK, but what about attacking a federal courthouse for several weeks straight in Portland? All cases had to be moved to another site in a neighboring state. I don't think they should be charged with sedition, but it clearly fits the statute, which states:
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire [...] to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States"
Using violent attacks and arson to force a federal courthouse to close down would seem to fit that definition.
While it's true that the reason the mob attacked the Capitol was arguably worse, both antifa and the Trump mob attacked federal buildings and tried to harm those guarding them.
Also, regarding your source: our media has sadly divided into two, so no resource you list will convince anyone.
Either they already read the resource, and so already agree with you, or they don't read it and know better than to trust it, since it's a partisan source.
We would all do better to stop encouraging open partisanship among the media, and reward non-partisan perspectives. NB: this doesn't have to mean non-opinionated perspectives, although those should be clearly labeled as editorials (now, editorials have blended with news).
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire [...] to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States"
Using violent attacks and arson to force a federal courthouse to close down would seem to fit that definition.
While it's true that the reason the mob attacked the Capitol was arguably worse, both antifa and the Trump mob attacked federal buildings and tried to harm those guarding them.
Also, regarding your source: our media has sadly divided into two, so no resource you list will convince anyone.
Either they already read the resource, and so already agree with you, or they don't read it and know better than to trust it, since it's a partisan source.
We would all do better to stop encouraging open partisanship among the media, and reward non-partisan perspectives. NB: this doesn't have to mean non-opinionated perspectives, although those should be clearly labeled as editorials (now, editorials have blended with news).
The founders of BLM are “trained Marxists“ in their own words. By definition, they advocate overthrowing democracy. That’s what Marxism is all about.
Wait, are you praising the era that gave us the “patriot” act and Waco?
It's chilling how we moved the blame from books and video games to social networks, wondering what will be next, VR?
DangitBobby(1)
trident5000(1)
It amazing how the same people saying “terrorism is overblown” a few years back are jumping on the “terrorism is threatening our republic” bandwagon.
What is the bias, beyond "anti-terrorism"?
It's chilling how quickly misinformation merchants, hostile foreign agents, and other bad actors coalesced around using popular mainstream social media as the world's most effective megaphone.
A scant few years ago, they lacked a direct communications channel by which they could radicalize the average American.
A scant few years ago, they lacked a direct communications channel by which they could radicalize the average American.
How can you explain the radical leftists of the 1960's then? Somehow the Russians (Soviets) must have (I assume you believe it was caused by them) had a communications channel by which they could radicalize all those college students.
What?
What you typed bears little resemblance to anything I claimed.
Yes, I lumped hostile foreign countries in with other sorts of hostile actors. However, I did not claim that they were the only kinds of hostile actors. Nor did I even claim that they were the worst.
Summarizing my views as "the Russians cause everything" is... just wow.
What you typed bears little resemblance to anything I claimed.
Yes, I lumped hostile foreign countries in with other sorts of hostile actors. However, I did not claim that they were the only kinds of hostile actors. Nor did I even claim that they were the worst.
Summarizing my views as "the Russians cause everything" is... just wow.
I think it's simultaneously funny and I feel a bit of empathy for them. They imagined puppies and rainbows on their free speech platform, but what they got was Donald Trump tweeting his way into the White House. They facilitated that and it's gotta be a big punch in the gut to people who consider him literally hitler, an existential threat, etc. When they looked around their very liberal cities they felt like they were the 99%, but a shocking reality check came for them.
Will Apple give them 24 hours to implement content control before removing them from the App Store?
A lot of people tweeted about the Trump supporters attacking Capitol, and many of them wrote variations of "shoot them". This breaches Twitter's guidelines.
I reported 30 of these "shoot them" tweets, but only about half of them were deleted.
I reported 30 of these "shoot them" tweets, but only about half of them were deleted.
I had a thought that came about as a result of this post and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25836503 both being on the HN front page at around roughly the same time I perused HN.
The thought is: why is GitHub so fast at taking down a potentially infringing code repository in response to a DMCA request but Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. so slow at taking down violence-promoting content?
The thought is: why is GitHub so fast at taking down a potentially infringing code repository in response to a DMCA request but Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. so slow at taking down violence-promoting content?
Money. Isn't it obvious? Github was facing a legitimate financial threat, and Facebook probably isn't.
Facebook will suffer no real consequences, and everyone will forget about their newfound moral position that censorship is for the greater good of society and continue to use Facebook.
Facebook will suffer no real consequences, and everyone will forget about their newfound moral position that censorship is for the greater good of society and continue to use Facebook.
Volume of requests and nuance of content also plays much more into Facebook's process than it would Github, at least on the former.
Section 230 makes them not liable.
So won't get the same Parler treatment?
Cool...
Cool...
So with all this evidence of large volumes of abuse and contributions to the Capitol riot, why aren’t Apple, Google, and Amazon banning Facebook and Twitter? It’s because banning Parler was a move for public relations and appeasement to the incoming administration. After all, the first politician to call for the ban of Parler was AOC, who is a Democrat.
The one thing that DIDN'T happen in a widespread fashion, as far as I can tell, was the threat of militant groups "backing up" police as election security. Of course there are always isolated incidents, but my impression is that election day itself was surprisingly free of incidents of physical intimidation.
Kind of eerie that today, Inauguration Day, there were supposed to be demonstrations at all the state capitals and DC but, from what I can tell by the news, none of these happened. I guess the old "And I'll go with you." line only works once.
nice, who's going to deplatform Facebook then ?
if you cant access it like me:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q9ZucDa...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q9ZucDa...
Off topic thing.
> Two different “occupy” event listings were written in a Nazi-style font and began circulating on Facebook in December.
Do they mean a gothic/Fraktur style? Is that considered nazi in the English world? I’ve always learned it as a German script with no relation to the 3rd reich.
Edit: I off course understand that neo nazi use it to express their relationship with nazi Germany, I’m just surprised to see it described as a “nazi-font”
> Two different “occupy” event listings were written in a Nazi-style font and began circulating on Facebook in December.
Do they mean a gothic/Fraktur style? Is that considered nazi in the English world? I’ve always learned it as a German script with no relation to the 3rd reich.
Edit: I off course understand that neo nazi use it to express their relationship with nazi Germany, I’m just surprised to see it described as a “nazi-font”
We live in an age where anything used by bad people is now bad, no matter how it was used in the past.
That goes all the way from clear things like the swastika to not-so-clear things like the 'ok' hand sign. Yes, there are people who say you shouldn't use 'ok' hand signs now because it's used by an extremist group.
So if neo-nazi use a font, that font is now, to those kinds of people, only a neo-nazi font.
That goes all the way from clear things like the swastika to not-so-clear things like the 'ok' hand sign. Yes, there are people who say you shouldn't use 'ok' hand signs now because it's used by an extremist group.
So if neo-nazi use a font, that font is now, to those kinds of people, only a neo-nazi font.
> it's used by an extremist group.
If you have a legitimate source for this (i.e., not probably citogenesis https://xkcd.com/978/) I'd be very interested. As far as I can tell this was essentially made-up and has been spread via the citogenesis cycle ever since.
If you have a legitimate source for this (i.e., not probably citogenesis https://xkcd.com/978/) I'd be very interested. As far as I can tell this was essentially made-up and has been spread via the citogenesis cycle ever since.
I don't. I was seriously told by someone not to use it. I did enough research to make sure they weren't totally delusional, and then said whatever I had to in order to get them to shut up and go away.
Must be nice to defame your competition and have them essentially wiped off the map.
What is the purpose of the NSA and FBI if they can’t prevent something this obvious? Wasn’t the supposed bargain that nearly unlimited surveillance of Americans would prevent terrorism? What should be done with agencies incapable of fulfilling their most basic functions?
Why do you think they had an incentive to prevent it? The President was the one encouraging the insurrection!
By explicitly telling people to “be peaceful“?
Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability.
It's not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.
It's not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.
Even his mid event video was the same. A quick "you need to go home" sandwiched between minutes of babel about how he thinks they are doing the right thing and that he loves them.
> Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability.
I'm sorry to say it, but you're a textbook example of what a confirmation bias is. You ignore what doesn't fit your conclusion and fill the holes with what you the same conclusion.
The proof that this is BS is simple, if it was "clear" he called for the storming of the Capitol, it would have been "clear" for everyone and more security measures would have been taken and news organization would were digging actively for this kind of stuff would have jumped on that story. But they didn't, because there was no call by Trump except in the head of those who want it to be true after the fact.
I'm sorry to say it, but you're a textbook example of what a confirmation bias is. You ignore what doesn't fit your conclusion and fill the holes with what you the same conclusion.
The proof that this is BS is simple, if it was "clear" he called for the storming of the Capitol, it would have been "clear" for everyone and more security measures would have been taken and news organization would were digging actively for this kind of stuff would have jumped on that story. But they didn't, because there was no call by Trump except in the head of those who want it to be true after the fact.
I keep coming up against this phenomenon when discussing online. People on both sides take license to interpret the words of Trump to mean whatever they want it to.
Calling this confirmation bias is too generous. Trump's statements are simply a Rorschach test at this point. The content of his statements is immaterial to the conclusions drawn from them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25744023
Calling this confirmation bias is too generous. Trump's statements are simply a Rorschach test at this point. The content of his statements is immaterial to the conclusions drawn from them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25744023
Maybe be telling people for weeks that the election was a fraud (without providing proof, and presenting "bogus" proof), that he actually had won, and saying the result would not be accepted?
P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.
P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.
If "telling people that the election was a fraud" is equivalent to encouraging insurrection, you'd need to convict everyone who pushed the Trump/Russia narrative for years. So basically every leftist media entity and person and many of the politicians too.
Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth.
People are allowed to question election integrity.
Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth.
People are allowed to question election integrity.
>People are allowed to question election integrity.
Of course they are but at what standard of evidence do they hold themselves to to accept that it might not be true in the end?
You can question anything you want but there is a point where being a doubtless unwavering sceptic biased toward a particular cause will make you slip into cynicism and denial.
Of course they are but at what standard of evidence do they hold themselves to to accept that it might not be true in the end?
You can question anything you want but there is a point where being a doubtless unwavering sceptic biased toward a particular cause will make you slip into cynicism and denial.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Too many people here are unable to distance themselves from their ideological contempt for Trump to be able analyze this with a clear mind. There is not much of a case that Trump "incited" a riot. The fact that this was planned for months only further cements that.
Check your own biases. He was telling a huge crowd that the election was stolen, he would show proof the same day (we are still waiting), and they “will not stand down”. What else is needed to make that case?
(non-US person here)
(non-US person here)
Like it or not, Trump is allowed to dispute the results of the election. He's also allowed to do so openly and to a crowd. Language like "will not stand down" is obviously in reference to the "fight" for his "case" and falls in line exactly with the language he had been using at previous rallies and on Twitter. Was he "inciting" a riot then?
I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.
I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.
I think we can at least agree that despite his double-speak, the fact that he has been stirring his crowd to act on the 'steal' is not inconsequential.
It seems unlikely that he would not have been briefed on the plots that were being organised and the dangers of feeding this crowd that rhetoric.
He has a large responsibility in inciting the level of denial that have led to his supporters to intimidate or threaten officials, many from his own party no less. Allowing this to go for weeks without disavowing or distancing himself publicly has only embolden a crowd that believed in the legitimacy of their actions because the president would not say otherwise.
Maybe we can be generous and say that things got out of hand but that would only show some lack of responsible judgement on his part and I'm not sure it's not somehow even worse.
It seems unlikely that he would not have been briefed on the plots that were being organised and the dangers of feeding this crowd that rhetoric.
He has a large responsibility in inciting the level of denial that have led to his supporters to intimidate or threaten officials, many from his own party no less. Allowing this to go for weeks without disavowing or distancing himself publicly has only embolden a crowd that believed in the legitimacy of their actions because the president would not say otherwise.
Maybe we can be generous and say that things got out of hand but that would only show some lack of responsible judgement on his part and I'm not sure it's not somehow even worse.
If "by allowed" you mean legally then sure.
But the president should have a moral obligation to only talk about actual fraud, not things he wants to have been fraud.
He spent months before the election saying how the postal votes were fraudulent, had his allies set the rules on counting so they would be counted later than other votes (in critical states) and then used that pattern of lots of "late votes" "appearing" as evidence of fraud - when in fact it was the entirely predictable consequences of how it was setup up.
But the president should have a moral obligation to only talk about actual fraud, not things he wants to have been fraud.
He spent months before the election saying how the postal votes were fraudulent, had his allies set the rules on counting so they would be counted later than other votes (in critical states) and then used that pattern of lots of "late votes" "appearing" as evidence of fraud - when in fact it was the entirely predictable consequences of how it was setup up.
What else is needed to make that case is actually incitement. He did no such thing, although the speech was obviously irresponsible. Here in the States incitement has a strict legal meaning and its conditions are nowhere near satisfied by his speech.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
The Pulse nightclub shooter was reported directly to the FBI for being suspicious at a gun store prior to the attack. They did nothing. The surveillance was rolled out under the guise of protecting you, but it never has. It's for control.
What control?
There's no control, else deadly attacks to the capital no less should not occur.
Leverage, the goods, kompromat
You'd think in-the-open discussions would have facilitated their work... but if they can't even spy on public conversations...
[deleted]
I'm not sure I believe this. If it was months in the making on Facebook, why did Facebook not do more to stop it? Reading this it actually gives weight that Facebook was just as responsible for the insurrection as Parler.
Facebook was way more responsible than Parler.
I don't disagree with you. The evidence appears to support that conclusion, so I'm trying to understand why Facebook is given a pass. IMO Facebook has been the single greatest catalyst for abusive online behavior in twenty years, but it's in a protected class. I would like to know why. Is it just money?
It’s also, what functions does Facebook serve beyond organizing violence? Clearly it’s a lot.
You can reasonably discuss banning handguns because they are only used to commit violence. You can’t reasonably discussing the ban of all knives, telling people who ask “how am I supposed to cook?” that they just need to bite their food into little pieces.
You can reasonably discuss banning handguns because they are only used to commit violence. You can’t reasonably discussing the ban of all knives, telling people who ask “how am I supposed to cook?” that they just need to bite their food into little pieces.
Are you implying that Parler was created specifically to organize violence? If that's what you're saying then please provide a clear evidence that proves this is the case. Saying something like that just seems really dishonest in most, if not all, contexts.
I can tell you that the content on Parler was, on a percentage basis, far closer to incitement of violence than, say, Reddit. I saw this for myself. I cannot tell you the motivations of the founders since I’m not a mind reader.
I think that's plausible, but I just have to question the framing that Parler served no other purpose than organizing violence. As an aside, Reddit is pretty tame in general, a more fair comparison would be against Facebook or Twitter.
Hard for me to say what Facebook “is” because everyone’s is different. Mine has a lot more folk music on it than politics, for example. That’s one of the problems with it, no watchdog group (like the media) can evaluate it objectively and say “this is what it is.”
It's probably also rooted in the fact that the owner/CEO of facebook is much richer and better connected.
Apple has a long history of willingness to kneecap Facebook. So reluctance to take on Zuck is not likely the reason.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/16/tech...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/16/tech...
I think people treat Facebook differently than Parler because Facebook is a mainstream communications platform and Parler was founded specifically to host content that other platforms found objectionable.
In reality, it is because Facebook hosts its own infrastructure and doesn't have to answer to anyone.
There were no government edicts behind Parler going down. It was just individual decisions made by other corporations.
There were no government edicts behind Parler going down. It was just individual decisions made by other corporations.
Because dems took total power in the elections and Apple and Google know they are under the antitrust microscope. Its likely indirect bribery in hopes of a returned favor.
Seems like every time big tech went in front of congress- it turned into a public fishing expedition for lobbying dollars.
Democrats overwhelmingly called for censorship and regulation.
Republicans overwhelmingly complained of unfair treatment.
Big tech responds by preemptively censoring and regulating content.
I believe that regulation is coming with dems in total power. Regulation will be written and paid for by big tech as a means to consolidate regulatory capture.
I think you're right, it's indirect bribery. I doubt anything will be done about it.
Democrats overwhelmingly called for censorship and regulation.
Republicans overwhelmingly complained of unfair treatment.
Big tech responds by preemptively censoring and regulating content.
I believe that regulation is coming with dems in total power. Regulation will be written and paid for by big tech as a means to consolidate regulatory capture.
I think you're right, it's indirect bribery. I doubt anything will be done about it.
Now that I think about it: most of the planning happened on American soil under the eyes of the American Government. I'm afraid there's no choice but to abolish government.
> If it was months in the making on Facebook, why did Facebook not do more to stop it?
Two things:
1) If FB is seen to lean too far either left or right, it will create an opportunity for a competitor to emerge on the other side. FB is huge, so they have a lot to lose in that scenario.
2) They literally profit from the circulation of the very stuff that some would have them sensor.
I don't see what is even slightly surprising about they way they've handled this.
Edit: side note - I personally think #1 is likely at some point in the future. People have already gone a fair way towards segregating themselves into various social/political bubbles; why not even more self-segregation? If enough people want that, then either FB will enable it or a competitor will emerge to enable it.
Two things:
1) If FB is seen to lean too far either left or right, it will create an opportunity for a competitor to emerge on the other side. FB is huge, so they have a lot to lose in that scenario.
2) They literally profit from the circulation of the very stuff that some would have them sensor.
I don't see what is even slightly surprising about they way they've handled this.
Edit: side note - I personally think #1 is likely at some point in the future. People have already gone a fair way towards segregating themselves into various social/political bubbles; why not even more self-segregation? If enough people want that, then either FB will enable it or a competitor will emerge to enable it.
>2) They literally profit from the circulation of the very stuff that some would have them sensor.
And as far as we know they may have been promoting inflammatory posts to drive engagement. They keep the algorithm they use to do that secret. I think they should show posts from friends in chronological order and let users filter them, or loose their common carrier status.
And as far as we know they may have been promoting inflammatory posts to drive engagement. They keep the algorithm they use to do that secret. I think they should show posts from friends in chronological order and let users filter them, or loose their common carrier status.
Thanks to the useless virtue signaling from the SV monopolies, these conversations are now moving underground. Nice job guys!
Remember when Trump was elected and the #nevertrumpers rioted for days? Or was it even weeks? I don't recall.
> Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook
Wow, HackerNews has embedded ads for Facebook now?
Wow, HackerNews has embedded ads for Facebook now?
In Big Tech We Trust.
child porno is still there but I haven't seen so much aggressive measure on what was done by private ... only by public officers and law enforcement
Great example of other unwanted content that is more or less impossible to find on mainstream platforms, or even most seedy porn sites, or even the underbelly of the internet that was Parler.
It was apparently easy to find on Pornhub not long ago which is very mainstream? I usually go for the mature category to avoid it...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/sunday/pornhub-ra...
[deleted]
That article is very homophobic and you probably shouldn't be citing it. It's pretending that the only porn that exists is depicting women.
cccc4all(5)
Was Trump participating in the conversations on Facebook?
Shut down Facebook and save the world!
I thought this was “no politics” week on HN?
Er, no, though a link to that failed experiment from 2016 was posted within the past week, so that may have been the source of your confusion.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25785191
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25785191
Ok, thank you for clarifying!
Or, in reality speak: "Some Trump supporters/goofs discussed this protest for months on Facebook".
Makes it sound like it describes some huge conspiracy with dire results instead of the equivalent of partisan people dissatisfied with the results (and driven by polarization from both sides) to discuss and do the equivalent of "Let's go into the Capitol to protest, that'll show them".
Makes it sound like it describes some huge conspiracy with dire results instead of the equivalent of partisan people dissatisfied with the results (and driven by polarization from both sides) to discuss and do the equivalent of "Let's go into the Capitol to protest, that'll show them".
[deleted]
If the point of the NSA was what they claimed it to be, there wouldn't have been a capitol attack.
I think you mean FBI. The NSA is supposed to only watch foreigners.
This has very little to do with technology. This is a culture war, and after the capitol riot the culture has shifted to openly reject the losing ideology. Conservatives are right to fight the threat of censorship because there's always a possibility this could slide out of control, but the rest of society is right to push back until they decide to drop the election fraud lies that are tearing this country apart.
As someone who is sympathetic to both cultures, this has been painful to watch. Now that it's time for the powers that be to punish the red tribe, the blue tribe is all too happy to join in the authoritarianism - eg feigning outrage at the gallows (ignoring the guillotine symbolism of the past year), assertions that speech must be policed, and calls to take right-wing terrorism "seriously" (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests).
Really, the government is demonstrably out of control from its charter, the economy has been coopted by the bankers, the deep state is a thing (for better and for worse), and the ruling class gives no shits about We The People. When asked in the right way, grassroots of both tribes seem to agree on these things! But rather than having any consensus, the division is stoked by journalist clickbaiters and other political hacks.
The tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly - why they went "full retard" with the covid self harm and election theft hoax, well past the expected fomented-division of hating on BLM and "antifa" bogeyman. Some of that is surely due to the charismatic conman figurehead, but not all.
Really, the government is demonstrably out of control from its charter, the economy has been coopted by the bankers, the deep state is a thing (for better and for worse), and the ruling class gives no shits about We The People. When asked in the right way, grassroots of both tribes seem to agree on these things! But rather than having any consensus, the division is stoked by journalist clickbaiters and other political hacks.
The tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly - why they went "full retard" with the covid self harm and election theft hoax, well past the expected fomented-division of hating on BLM and "antifa" bogeyman. Some of that is surely due to the charismatic conman figurehead, but not all.
> As someone who is sympathetic to both cultures, this has been painful to watch. Now that it's time for the powers that be to punish the red tribe, the blue tribe is all too happy to join in the authoritarianism - eg feigning outrage at the gallows (ignoring the guillotine symbolism of the past year), assertions that speech must be policed, and calls to take right-wing terrorism "seriously"
You're equivocating around the elephant (no pun intended) in the room. Members of authority on the red team have been actively working to overturn the election since they were voted out and those attempts finally culminated in a deadly attack on the capitol. These big tech companies are policing speech, but they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing. These companies are saying "enough is enough, if you spread election fraud misinformation you are not welcome here", that's perfectly reasonable, and forcing these companies to rebroadcast this message is the only example of authoritarianism present in this debate.
> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests)
This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused. I'd be interested if you had any examples demonstrating otherwise.
> the tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly
There's a little bit of tech to it, but this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet, the only difference is that twitter is massively popular whereas Fox News is not. If Fox News had 180 million prime time viewers we'd all just say "well, they could just watch MSNBC is if they wanted!"
You're equivocating around the elephant (no pun intended) in the room. Members of authority on the red team have been actively working to overturn the election since they were voted out and those attempts finally culminated in a deadly attack on the capitol. These big tech companies are policing speech, but they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing. These companies are saying "enough is enough, if you spread election fraud misinformation you are not welcome here", that's perfectly reasonable, and forcing these companies to rebroadcast this message is the only example of authoritarianism present in this debate.
> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests)
This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused. I'd be interested if you had any examples demonstrating otherwise.
> the tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly
There's a little bit of tech to it, but this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet, the only difference is that twitter is massively popular whereas Fox News is not. If Fox News had 180 million prime time viewers we'd all just say "well, they could just watch MSNBC is if they wanted!"
> they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing
Agreed. I worded it how I did on purpose - to not take issue with the platforms choosing to censor, but rather with the assertion that all platforms have some duty to censor.
>> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests)
> This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused
When specifically asked, yes, but that's not how such calls are received by policy makers. I've definitely seen videos of rioters complaining for being "attacked like Black people" with blue tribe commenters partaking in schadenfreude. But yes my example was a bit obtuse, trying to capture the general attitude of condemning people being angry at the government in the red tribe way.
> this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet
I agree that this is part of a longer trend. But there is also a qualitative difference now that pent up anger has turned into mass action, especially over something so clearly farcical. If talk radio had incited something like this in the 90s, there would have been a clear target to blame. Even the gaslighting of politicians' sedition as not-sedition is an artifact of our postmodern media environment.
Agreed. I worded it how I did on purpose - to not take issue with the platforms choosing to censor, but rather with the assertion that all platforms have some duty to censor.
>> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests)
> This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused
When specifically asked, yes, but that's not how such calls are received by policy makers. I've definitely seen videos of rioters complaining for being "attacked like Black people" with blue tribe commenters partaking in schadenfreude. But yes my example was a bit obtuse, trying to capture the general attitude of condemning people being angry at the government in the red tribe way.
> this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet
I agree that this is part of a longer trend. But there is also a qualitative difference now that pent up anger has turned into mass action, especially over something so clearly farcical. If talk radio had incited something like this in the 90s, there would have been a clear target to blame. Even the gaslighting of politicians' sedition as not-sedition is an artifact of our postmodern media environment.
> assertions that speech must be policed
You have never been guaranteed a venue on the internet. You have always punched your ticket on any platform - including the one that we're typing on now - by colouring within the lines of the powers that be. Sometimes the lines will change, and what was acceptable or tolerated is suddenly outside the window. Sometimes (most of the time?) these lines move for fairly cynical reasons.
Don't like it? Make your own platform or find one that's happy to host you. That's not censorship - that's internet culture. There are very few places on the internet that are committed to free speech absolutism - 4chan comes to mind, back in the day. Free speech absolutists are trying to assert the right to free speech absolutism on every platform which is a new thing, and disruptive, and not particularly useful.
I understand Parler is back up on non US servers. Good for them. Truly. I'm happy that they've found a place to have their discussions. I'm also happy that they've set up shop in a place that is fair game for the entire law enforcement and intelligence apparatus in case they try to plan more insurrections.
You have never been guaranteed a venue on the internet. You have always punched your ticket on any platform - including the one that we're typing on now - by colouring within the lines of the powers that be. Sometimes the lines will change, and what was acceptable or tolerated is suddenly outside the window. Sometimes (most of the time?) these lines move for fairly cynical reasons.
Don't like it? Make your own platform or find one that's happy to host you. That's not censorship - that's internet culture. There are very few places on the internet that are committed to free speech absolutism - 4chan comes to mind, back in the day. Free speech absolutists are trying to assert the right to free speech absolutism on every platform which is a new thing, and disruptive, and not particularly useful.
I understand Parler is back up on non US servers. Good for them. Truly. I'm happy that they've found a place to have their discussions. I'm also happy that they've set up shop in a place that is fair game for the entire law enforcement and intelligence apparatus in case they try to plan more insurrections.
You've blasted a talking point in response to an assertion that I did not make. There is a significant distinction between a platform choosing to censor, and acting like all platforms have some duty to censor. There are many such calls for the latter in this thread.
FWIW I have previously argued that platforms have a moral obligation to carry less popular speech, but I'm done arguing that after the "stop the steal" propaganda campaign. What's happening now is inevitable, and the real solutions for Freedom are mandated interop (mitigating Metcalfe's law), and/or p2p communications (which has always been the correct answer before AJAX was even a term, albeit economically non-lucrative)
> I'm also happy that they've set up shop in a place that is fair game for the entire law enforcement and intelligence apparatus in case they try to plan more insurrections.
There's that authoritarianism peeking out - "they can go their own way, but we'll hit them with a bigger stick". From a technical perspective, being outside the US seems harder to surveil. US users will continue to use HTTPS and post public comments, so nothing changes there. Meanwhile the session traffic from foreign troll farms becomes invisible. Pushing social media away from domestic firms is actually a national security misstep, IMO.
FWIW I have previously argued that platforms have a moral obligation to carry less popular speech, but I'm done arguing that after the "stop the steal" propaganda campaign. What's happening now is inevitable, and the real solutions for Freedom are mandated interop (mitigating Metcalfe's law), and/or p2p communications (which has always been the correct answer before AJAX was even a term, albeit economically non-lucrative)
> I'm also happy that they've set up shop in a place that is fair game for the entire law enforcement and intelligence apparatus in case they try to plan more insurrections.
There's that authoritarianism peeking out - "they can go their own way, but we'll hit them with a bigger stick". From a technical perspective, being outside the US seems harder to surveil. US users will continue to use HTTPS and post public comments, so nothing changes there. Meanwhile the session traffic from foreign troll farms becomes invisible. Pushing social media away from domestic firms is actually a national security misstep, IMO.
HN is not for all types of discussion. It is specifically for curious conversation. Here's a test you can apply: curiosity is equally open to what's true, false, or interesting about anything. If your position is that your side is right about everything while the opposing side is wrong about everything, you have left the spectrum of curiosity gratification and are functioning in the spectrum of political battle. Those do not overlap.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...