Stripe bans Trump campaign(axios.com)
axios.com
Stripe bans Trump campaign
https://www.axios.com/payment-processor-stripe-bans-trump-campaign-0f55ff23-973b-4168-9f9c-0992b9a26d08.html
1,036 comments
There is a difference between bank accounts, Visa/MasterCard access and Internet service, on one hand, and App Stores, Twitter accounts and payment providers, on the other hand.
The First Amendment promises both free speech and free assembly. Core to the latter is the freedom not to assemble. This freedom is regulated. You can’t refuse to do business with protected classes. But political affiliation is not a protected class.
There are utilities, which have limited freedom not to assemble. Then there are private persons and private businesses. Stripe and Twitter are clearly the latter. AWS and Visa feel like the former, though they are legally the latter.
The cost of switching private activity to a utility model is a loss of innovation and an increase in political involvement. We are re-evaluating, as a society, the balance between the freedoms of speech and assembly. Let’s not forget these are freedoms in balance, not a spectrum of tyranny and anarchy.
The First Amendment promises both free speech and free assembly. Core to the latter is the freedom not to assemble. This freedom is regulated. You can’t refuse to do business with protected classes. But political affiliation is not a protected class.
There are utilities, which have limited freedom not to assemble. Then there are private persons and private businesses. Stripe and Twitter are clearly the latter. AWS and Visa feel like the former, though they are legally the latter.
The cost of switching private activity to a utility model is a loss of innovation and an increase in political involvement. We are re-evaluating, as a society, the balance between the freedoms of speech and assembly. Let’s not forget these are freedoms in balance, not a spectrum of tyranny and anarchy.
> Stripe and Twitter are pretty clearly the latter.
They might be the latter, but I wouldn't consider it obvious. Regarding social media, we've gotten to the point where even US Visa applications ask for social media handles (and I understand they consider it as a negative datum if you don't provide one). And we're also at the point where some companies won't provide you with respectable service unless you @ them on social media. Regarding payment platforms, generally people expect them to be quite neutral, since getting locked out of the financial system is not exactly going to lead to a great life in the modern digital economy.
I don't know at what point these cross into "utility" territory, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that they might never do so, but I find it quite debatable and very much not clear.
(Note: None of this is to opine on the reactions to this particular incident. Just commenting on the more general idea.)
They might be the latter, but I wouldn't consider it obvious. Regarding social media, we've gotten to the point where even US Visa applications ask for social media handles (and I understand they consider it as a negative datum if you don't provide one). And we're also at the point where some companies won't provide you with respectable service unless you @ them on social media. Regarding payment platforms, generally people expect them to be quite neutral, since getting locked out of the financial system is not exactly going to lead to a great life in the modern digital economy.
I don't know at what point these cross into "utility" territory, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that they might never do so, but I find it quite debatable and very much not clear.
(Note: None of this is to opine on the reactions to this particular incident. Just commenting on the more general idea.)
I'm confused, payment processors often stop working with criminals, or even non-criminals that are just in "unseemly" industries. PayPal arbitrarily freezes people's accounts for even possibly being scams, why not obvious billion dollar ones?
I have never thought they were neutral when it came to actual crimes. That's so much liability, why would anyone expect them to take it on given how risk averse they are?
I have never thought they were neutral when it came to actual crimes. That's so much liability, why would anyone expect them to take it on given how risk averse they are?
> PayPal arbitrarily freezes people's accounts
PayPal kept doing that so much that regulators (FTC? I forget) finally made them stop holding pseudo-cash accounts for people until/unless people specifically requested it. Laws take time to catch up.
> why not obvious billion dollar ones? why would anyone expect them to take it on given how risk averse they are?
Again: I'm not opining on what they should or shouldn't be doing. All I'm saying is, if you think the fact that it's not a utility is a good supporting argument for this, I'm saying their classification is far from obvious to me. But if you have other arguments to make, I'm not expressing any opinions on them; I'm solely replying to the "it's clearly not a utility" bit.
PayPal kept doing that so much that regulators (FTC? I forget) finally made them stop holding pseudo-cash accounts for people until/unless people specifically requested it. Laws take time to catch up.
> why not obvious billion dollar ones? why would anyone expect them to take it on given how risk averse they are?
Again: I'm not opining on what they should or shouldn't be doing. All I'm saying is, if you think the fact that it's not a utility is a good supporting argument for this, I'm saying their classification is far from obvious to me. But if you have other arguments to make, I'm not expressing any opinions on them; I'm solely replying to the "it's clearly not a utility" bit.
I would think that because of “know your customer” and other regulations banks and payment processors have to be able to decline business. They can’t possibly be utilities unless we overturn all the anti money laundering regulations. Am I missing something here?
Can a utility refuse to provide service?
Yes. In general, a utility provider may refuse to initiate service if the requesting customer cannot comply with the requirements outlined in the utility’s tariffs or rules. Utility tariffs and rules are authorized by the CPUC.
https://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/cab_faq/
Utilities must provide service to any member of the public living within the utility’s service area who has applied for service and is willing to pay for the service and comply with the utility’s rules and regulations. The utility’s duty to serve is not absolute, however. A utility may deny service for good cause (e.g., nonpayment).
https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/older_consumers/consumer_fac...
Yes. In general, a utility provider may refuse to initiate service if the requesting customer cannot comply with the requirements outlined in the utility’s tariffs or rules. Utility tariffs and rules are authorized by the CPUC.
https://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/cab_faq/
Utilities must provide service to any member of the public living within the utility’s service area who has applied for service and is willing to pay for the service and comply with the utility’s rules and regulations. The utility’s duty to serve is not absolute, however. A utility may deny service for good cause (e.g., nonpayment).
https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/older_consumers/consumer_fac...
To my knowledge, Paypal continues to randomly and often very opaquely freeze people's funds for months at a time or longer, so if you have a link to this FTC ruling, im honestly curious to see it.
I don't have a twitter account and login to Facebook once a month. If both went away tomorrow, my life would continue, very much as now. And I think this is true for most people.
If my water, power, or internet was cut off, I would immediately suffer real, life changing inconvenience and hardship.
To me, the difference between these things is incredibly stark.
If my water, power, or internet was cut off, I would immediately suffer real, life changing inconvenience and hardship.
To me, the difference between these things is incredibly stark.
If you can't get access to a payment provider, you can't launch a business effectively.
Sex workers face this problem. Even in countries where sex work is legal, the payments industry refuses to deal with them (in part because the chargeback rates are high for these kinds of transactions). They're forced to deal in cash and have all sorts of problems because of it (not least the fact that depositing large amounts of cash triggers money laundering regulations, and doing that too much can cause a bank to close the account).
Sex workers face this problem. Even in countries where sex work is legal, the payments industry refuses to deal with them (in part because the chargeback rates are high for these kinds of transactions). They're forced to deal in cash and have all sorts of problems because of it (not least the fact that depositing large amounts of cash triggers money laundering regulations, and doing that too much can cause a bank to close the account).
If you were cut off from social media, payment processors, web hosts and mail providers, would you practically be able to launch a political campaign?
That is a non-sequitur right? Twitter , Google and Apple via their app stores, and now stripe are refusing to doing business not with a political party. They are refusing to doing business with people who have committed alleged(?) crimes.
The _actions_ by a group of people are resulting in these bans. Not the group's affiliation. Am I missing something here?
The _actions_ by a group of people are resulting in these bans. Not the group's affiliation. Am I missing something here?
In the case of Stripe cutting off the Trump campaign, I guess you could make the argument that Trump (and therefore his campaign) are indeed alleged to have committed crimes. Then again, Trump is still the sitting president and therefore the effective head of his party (even tho, thankfully, at least some of his party are now abandoning him). I wonder what would happen if the Trump campaign switched to RNC-operated stripe accounts, with the RNC's blessing...
As for Google + Apple + Amazon (+ probably every other cloud provider and virtually every other hosting company) cutting off Parler or refusing their business in the first place: Parler was accused of not moderating "enough". This in itself is not yet criminal, given section 230 (which in this context ironically Trump wanted gone so bad he tried to hold the military budget hostage over it), and the definition of "enough moderation" was kept vague enough by Apple and Google and Amazon that Parler couldn't possibly ever comply if they wanted to.
The same argument about under-moderation can be made against facebook, e.g. when they aided - or even enabled - the Rohingya genocide, which saw thousands of people killed and hundreds of thousands of people displaced. Even the UN directly pointed fingers at facebook. Facebook admitted to their role[1], but came up with a bunch of lame excuses like that they do not really have any content moderators that understand the language.
People dug up quite a number of screenshots (anecdotal evidence) of abhorrent things written on Parler to justify them getting punished. But I found that not really convincing to single out Parler like that. If I went digging on Twitter or Facebook, or could see what people tell each other in Whatapp of Telegram groups, I would find the exact same things. I have reported things on twitter in the past, like people making extremely thinly-veiled death threats or inciting violence, and twitter's response has been sluggish and often in favor of the people talking about "nooses" and "you'll get what's coming to you" in the same sentence.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
As for Google + Apple + Amazon (+ probably every other cloud provider and virtually every other hosting company) cutting off Parler or refusing their business in the first place: Parler was accused of not moderating "enough". This in itself is not yet criminal, given section 230 (which in this context ironically Trump wanted gone so bad he tried to hold the military budget hostage over it), and the definition of "enough moderation" was kept vague enough by Apple and Google and Amazon that Parler couldn't possibly ever comply if they wanted to.
The same argument about under-moderation can be made against facebook, e.g. when they aided - or even enabled - the Rohingya genocide, which saw thousands of people killed and hundreds of thousands of people displaced. Even the UN directly pointed fingers at facebook. Facebook admitted to their role[1], but came up with a bunch of lame excuses like that they do not really have any content moderators that understand the language.
People dug up quite a number of screenshots (anecdotal evidence) of abhorrent things written on Parler to justify them getting punished. But I found that not really convincing to single out Parler like that. If I went digging on Twitter or Facebook, or could see what people tell each other in Whatapp of Telegram groups, I would find the exact same things. I have reported things on twitter in the past, like people making extremely thinly-veiled death threats or inciting violence, and twitter's response has been sluggish and often in favor of the people talking about "nooses" and "you'll get what's coming to you" in the same sentence.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
I dunno.
BLM may claim not to be responsible for the horrendous roiots and crime that has been committed in its name across America.
Trump may claim that he is not responsible for the tiny (in proportion) riots that happened in DC.
(IMO, they are both responsible, thus making BLM the one with more blood on its hands. But nobody asked me.)
BLM may claim that it is in their rights to fight law and order if it causes harm to individuals.
Trump may claim it is in his right to complain about law and order when (in his opinion) it was not lawful.
(IMO, this is a finer line. He certainly can legally complain. Riots are over the line for either right or left)
Stripe processes payments for BLM, and Twitter allows their posts, etc. So IMO the line they walk is fine and biased.
BLM may claim not to be responsible for the horrendous roiots and crime that has been committed in its name across America.
Trump may claim that he is not responsible for the tiny (in proportion) riots that happened in DC.
(IMO, they are both responsible, thus making BLM the one with more blood on its hands. But nobody asked me.)
BLM may claim that it is in their rights to fight law and order if it causes harm to individuals.
Trump may claim it is in his right to complain about law and order when (in his opinion) it was not lawful.
(IMO, this is a finer line. He certainly can legally complain. Riots are over the line for either right or left)
Stripe processes payments for BLM, and Twitter allows their posts, etc. So IMO the line they walk is fine and biased.
One of the many issues I have with the arguments equating the Black Lives Matter protests to the Trump protests last week is that people tend to want to compare this one single Trump event to all protests nationwide over a period of months. If we’re doing an apples-to-apples comparison, here’s the Black Lives Matter DC protest: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/06/06/large-...
...or, conversely, we should compare damage and lives lost during Black Lives Matter protests to all damage and lives lost by Trump-supporting white supremacists.
...or, conversely, we should compare damage and lives lost during Black Lives Matter protests to all damage and lives lost by Trump-supporting white supremacists.
My point was more that “just because losing access to Facebook/Twitter means nothing to you, doesn’t mean it means nothing to someone else”.
But to more directly address your point, I ask you - what crime has Trump been convicted of?
But to more directly address your point, I ask you - what crime has Trump been convicted of?
The private entities are not the justice department. They are not the judiciary. They are not lawyers and they are not juries. They do not require criminal conviction before taking action. Your question is irellevant.
But to give you a partial answer anyway: Many criminals are never convicted. Many _known_ criminals are never convicted, due to lack of undeniable proof. Some criminals are convicted on lesser crimes, just to get them off the streets. There's plenty of evidence to support the position that Trump is a criminal. He may never be convicted but not because he's innocent.
But to give you a partial answer anyway: Many criminals are never convicted. Many _known_ criminals are never convicted, due to lack of undeniable proof. Some criminals are convicted on lesser crimes, just to get them off the streets. There's plenty of evidence to support the position that Trump is a criminal. He may never be convicted but not because he's innocent.
The question is not “what legal power does Twitter have”. I’m not saying they legally can’t kick him off their platform.
The discussion is whether they should be able to kick someone off their platform who has been convicted of no crime, because of how integral they have become to the political process.
The discussion is whether they should be able to kick someone off their platform who has been convicted of no crime, because of how integral they have become to the political process.
Yes, because you don't have to be convicted of a crime to have done something wrong and regardless it doesn't matter. Twitter can kick someone off for whatever reason they want. That's something currently protected in our law.
On the other hand, there is a legal concept called Common Carriage - private companies that have monopoly are not allowed to refuse service to anyone unless mandated by courts.
If it was a power company shutting off electricity to Facebok, Twitter and AWS, because they disagree with their business practices, we would have an outrage right now about how undemocratic it is.
(And I say this with all my distaste for Trumpism)
If it was a power company shutting off electricity to Facebok, Twitter and AWS, because they disagree with their business practices, we would have an outrage right now about how undemocratic it is.
(And I say this with all my distaste for Trumpism)
Twitter is not a monopoly. There are plenty of media companies, social or not, that he could use to carry his message. He has a freaking press office.
Maybe these are monopolies, and if they are we shouldn't be granting them special status to entrench them further. We should be looking to open them up and break them apart.
Kind of unrelated to the point of your post -- what does it mean when any discussion about current events/politics requires every poster to affirm they do not support a particular political candidate. I don't have an answer myself, I'm just wondering if it's considered somethinf like self-censorship or if there's something else to it. Either way, it kinda feels weird to me.
If someone believes in the principle of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" they will naturally find themselves defending some pretty odious speech - and gaining the support of people who believe pretty odious things.
After all, a free speech advocate and a neo-nazi would both support the publication of Mein Kampf - but the former might well want to be clear they're not the latter. (and of course, to complicate the situation further, the latter may want to disguise themselves as the former)
As to why you see so many posters affirming they don't support Trump - that's because HN readers aren't Trump's target demographics: Trump only got 12% of the vote in San Francisco in 2020. IMHO it's believable that on HN, free speech advocates simply outnumber Trump supporters.
After all, a free speech advocate and a neo-nazi would both support the publication of Mein Kampf - but the former might well want to be clear they're not the latter. (and of course, to complicate the situation further, the latter may want to disguise themselves as the former)
As to why you see so many posters affirming they don't support Trump - that's because HN readers aren't Trump's target demographics: Trump only got 12% of the vote in San Francisco in 2020. IMHO it's believable that on HN, free speech advocates simply outnumber Trump supporters.
Perhaps they’ll become less integral to the process.
Integral for whom, though? Not a huge number of people are involved in political twitter:
https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/23/just-6-of-u-s-adults-on-tw...
https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/23/just-6-of-u-s-adults-on-tw...
I didn't mean to imply that anything that isn't a utility is unimportant, but only that (unlike the parent) I think there is a clear difference between social media and actual utilities.
As for your question, probably not. And there is an interesting debate as to whether political candidates should be some sort of protected class. Though I don't think the issue is particularly urgent given that political candidates across the political spectrum (including Donald Trump) still have access to all of those things.
For the most part, payment process, web hosts, and mail providers are interchangeable, so I don't think it is a big deal that Trump can't use Stripe specifically.
Social Media is more complicated. I guess we will see how things develop, but my intuition is that Trump will open a parler account, interested parties will follow him there, uninterested parties won't, and his most noteworthy statements will be widely reported in the media. So, the same situation as when Trump was on Twitter.
As for your question, probably not. And there is an interesting debate as to whether political candidates should be some sort of protected class. Though I don't think the issue is particularly urgent given that political candidates across the political spectrum (including Donald Trump) still have access to all of those things.
For the most part, payment process, web hosts, and mail providers are interchangeable, so I don't think it is a big deal that Trump can't use Stripe specifically.
Social Media is more complicated. I guess we will see how things develop, but my intuition is that Trump will open a parler account, interested parties will follow him there, uninterested parties won't, and his most noteworthy statements will be widely reported in the media. So, the same situation as when Trump was on Twitter.
If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if you are not a protected class?
Parler being booted is society's reaction to a movement that has been getting more extreme for the last 5 years.
I'll note the irony that many of the people complaining about companies refusing to deal with Parler are the same people that support bakeries being able to deny the business of people in a protected class.
Parler being booted is society's reaction to a movement that has been getting more extreme for the last 5 years.
I'll note the irony that many of the people complaining about companies refusing to deal with Parler are the same people that support bakeries being able to deny the business of people in a protected class.
> If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if you are not a protected class?
I think this is the issue though, right. Elections represent what society wants. If 5 corporations get to decide you’re toxic and that prevents you from campaigning, what regulation will help insure this authority isn’t abused or misused?
I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service.
I think this is the issue though, right. Elections represent what society wants. If 5 corporations get to decide you’re toxic and that prevents you from campaigning, what regulation will help insure this authority isn’t abused or misused?
I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service.
> I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service.
It's only ironic if you choose to ignore the fact that one of those cases involves discrimination against a protected class and the other does not. If you don't ignore that fact then the irony is only applicable from those who were espousing the "free market, free speech" position in the previous case.
It's only ironic if you choose to ignore the fact that one of those cases involves discrimination against a protected class and the other does not. If you don't ignore that fact then the irony is only applicable from those who were espousing the "free market, free speech" position in the previous case.
Actually neither involves protected classes. At the time of the case, sexual orientation wasn’t protected. Fortunately, it was added as a protected class.
But even if it was a protected class at the time of the suite, I think the opinion was that religious rights (another protected class) come into play.
For me, this seems to expose that some people aren’t arguing from first principles but kind of change their position based on a pre-conceived notion.
So just like people now bringing up that looting isn’t so bad after the capital riot/insurrection were against rioting in situations over the summer.
It seems odd to me, or at least irrational, that someone could be against rioting for BLM purposes but for rioting for conspiracy theories. Or that someone could be against a baker’s ability to not serve a gay couple, but for a hosting company not serving an asshole megaphone company.
So just as people, rightly I think, were arguing that discrimination against sexual orientation should be a protected class and thus illegal; people now are arguing that net neutrality/free speech should have regulation, change in rights.
It’s not “ironic” in either sense.
But even if it was a protected class at the time of the suite, I think the opinion was that religious rights (another protected class) come into play.
For me, this seems to expose that some people aren’t arguing from first principles but kind of change their position based on a pre-conceived notion.
So just like people now bringing up that looting isn’t so bad after the capital riot/insurrection were against rioting in situations over the summer.
It seems odd to me, or at least irrational, that someone could be against rioting for BLM purposes but for rioting for conspiracy theories. Or that someone could be against a baker’s ability to not serve a gay couple, but for a hosting company not serving an asshole megaphone company.
So just as people, rightly I think, were arguing that discrimination against sexual orientation should be a protected class and thus illegal; people now are arguing that net neutrality/free speech should have regulation, change in rights.
It’s not “ironic” in either sense.
Society hasn't decided anything unless you think a self selected group of people now represents the whole society. The Democratic party and its business lackeys decided to remove political in business opposition/competition with impunity and the Republican party being mostly indifferent about it.
> Republican party being mostly indifferent about it.
Well it's hard to argue against it when the people being cut out are trying to pipe-bomb your headquarters as well as the Democrats :/.
Well it's hard to argue against it when the people being cut out are trying to pipe-bomb your headquarters as well as the Democrats :/.
>The Democratic party and its business lackeys
See this is part of the problem.
You are lumping together two different organizations that are nothing alike as somehow part of the same cabal.
Many different people from many different groups and organizations are reaching the same conclusion about Trump and the rise of violent right wing extremism.
Different parts of society are agreeing, and then in each of these parts there are individuals making decisions.
See this is part of the problem.
You are lumping together two different organizations that are nothing alike as somehow part of the same cabal.
Many different people from many different groups and organizations are reaching the same conclusion about Trump and the rise of violent right wing extremism.
Different parts of society are agreeing, and then in each of these parts there are individuals making decisions.
I'm not the one lumping them together, they lumped themselves together the same way unions and the Democratic party did a long time ago. Revolving doors, clientelism, business opportunities, power struggle,...
What? People who agree and have a common interests are not immediately part of a group who move as one.
> People who agree and have a common interests...
> Revolving doors, clientelism, business opportunities, power struggle,...
Add activism, donations, candidate support and cooperating with them on a local and global level.
Seems like a text book definition of a political party.
> Revolving doors, clientelism, business opportunities, power struggle,...
Add activism, donations, candidate support and cooperating with them on a local and global level.
Seems like a text book definition of a political party.
Who is society? The coastal rich liberal tech owners?
Doesn't seem like any other groups are interested in supporting them either or else they wouldn't have any issue paying to self host/finding a willing provider.
So the same dynamics that has happened through history when one group is qualified as "untouchable" and any association with them, even if purely commercial, will bring retaliation.
We have to distinguish between those who are untouchable because of circumstances beyond their control (lineage, birthplace, disabilities) and those who are pariahs because of their behavior (criminals, militant anarchists, that mean old guy who sits on his porch with a shotgun).
I have sympathy for the former, but not the latter. While it would be kind to reach out to the latter group and help them mesh with society, there's no requirement anyone has to nor a guarantee the pariahs would want to mesh.
I have sympathy for the former, but not the latter. While it would be kind to reach out to the latter group and help them mesh with society, there's no requirement anyone has to nor a guarantee the pariahs would want to mesh.
> We have to distinguish between...
No, we dont have to distinguish that. Your weak premise would justify the discrimination of atheists, anarchists, monarchists, pentecostals,marxists, epicureans... among thousands of other groups.
I dont really understand why it is so complicated.
At individual and private level I can decide who will I spend my time with, who I will invite to my place, go to the beach etc, with no coercion and I expect everybody else to have that right too.
At public level I have the expectation to serve all the people the same (ceteris paribus) unless I am forced by current legislation to not do so (like selling alcohol to a minor).
I would not extend that prohibition to a person who can request my services legally , if the person is going to pay and if he is going to behave like any other customer.
If I manage a 7/11 I would not create an ideological purity test to figure out if I will sell you gas or a soda and I think society will be way better if everybody does that too.
No, we dont have to distinguish that. Your weak premise would justify the discrimination of atheists, anarchists, monarchists, pentecostals,marxists, epicureans... among thousands of other groups.
I dont really understand why it is so complicated.
At individual and private level I can decide who will I spend my time with, who I will invite to my place, go to the beach etc, with no coercion and I expect everybody else to have that right too.
At public level I have the expectation to serve all the people the same (ceteris paribus) unless I am forced by current legislation to not do so (like selling alcohol to a minor).
I would not extend that prohibition to a person who can request my services legally , if the person is going to pay and if he is going to behave like any other customer.
If I manage a 7/11 I would not create an ideological purity test to figure out if I will sell you gas or a soda and I think society will be way better if everybody does that too.
Many people make up these companies. It's not like there is a secret cabal of left-leaning tech owners that get together and make decisions like this.
In the case of Facebook and Google, their founders have voting majority shares and literally control the companies. It’s not a secret cabal of left-leaning owners, it is a publicly known set of left-leaning tech owners.
I’m not saying they act evilly, but Facebook is literally controlled by one person who cannot be outvoted by every other owner. And Google is controlled by two as well [0].
[0] https://fortune.com/2019/12/05/page-and-brin-google-control/
I’m not saying they act evilly, but Facebook is literally controlled by one person who cannot be outvoted by every other owner. And Google is controlled by two as well [0].
[0] https://fortune.com/2019/12/05/page-and-brin-google-control/
Ok, that doesn't mean there is a cabal of party operatives and big tech working together...
I agree, that’s why I said “ It’s not a secret cabal of left-leaning owners, it is a publicly known set of left-leaning tech owners.”
Of course the key characteristic of secret cabals is that they are secret.
While I know of no evidence for secret cabals of big tech people, having individual capable of making unaccountable decisions is a different bad thing than secret cabals.
And I responding to someone saying these were big organizations with lots of decision makers. And that’s false for Facebook and google, since they have power concentrated.
Of course the key characteristic of secret cabals is that they are secret.
While I know of no evidence for secret cabals of big tech people, having individual capable of making unaccountable decisions is a different bad thing than secret cabals.
And I responding to someone saying these were big organizations with lots of decision makers. And that’s false for Facebook and google, since they have power concentrated.
That's not what the parent poster suggested nor the one you initially replied to. What's being discussed is big tech acting as one given their homogenous political inclinations, and user Jochim thinking this is representative of "society" at large as a way to normalize and whitewash this chain of political censorship.
Right, but other people in "society" besides big tech, support this decision.
Nobody is thinking society is just big tech people. There are a lot of people who agree with tech's decision to cut off coup enablers.
Nobody is thinking society is just big tech people. There are a lot of people who agree with tech's decision to cut off coup enablers.
It's not an explicit conspiracy but there are incredibly strong political bubbles in the US.
Yes, of course, that's how humans work. But these bubbles are often considered as a singular group moving as one, when in reality they are separate organizations and individuals who agree with each other.
Sure. But my point is that it's not correct to go from "multiple independent organizations think this way" to "basically everyone must think this way", as if those multiple organizations represent a random sample of the population.
There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy, and being unable to actually do politics because of the technocrats and their cronies don’t be dishonest and don’t assume things for which you do not have proof.
Not only that but if society decides that the Earth is flat would you agree with any decisions stemming from that, assuming there is a thing such as “society deciding” of course.
I will note the irony about people saying that we should respect society “decisions” when they didn’t respect Trump becoming president since day one . Come on pal drop the dishonesty.
They're enforcing Civil right violations via lawsuit. It's no different then trying to rent from a racist landlord
Speaking of landlords who discriminate, Trump has never done anything to deserve a shred of respect. Long before day one. If anything they're saving gullible people from sending money to a conman
Speaking of landlords who discriminate, Trump has never done anything to deserve a shred of respect. Long before day one. If anything they're saving gullible people from sending money to a conman
> There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy,There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy.
Look back a few decades and this is exactly the same argument that segregationists were using. You've basically just said: "That shopowner has a right not to deal with blacks, why do they keep harassing that poor man by trying to buy his goods?".
> I will note the irony about people saying that we should respect society “decisions” when they didn’t respect Trump becoming president since day one . Come on pal drop the dishonesty.
Those people didn't leave pipe-bombs at both party headquarters, call for their own Vice President to be hanged, or storm the Capitol building though. It's both transparent and dishonest to try to equate the two. Especially when you consider that Trump was one of the people peddling the birther nonsense about Obama and that pretty much everyone involved with the trump campaign was actually found guilty of some form of corruption. Trump himself has only escaped charges by virtue of being the President.
Look back a few decades and this is exactly the same argument that segregationists were using. You've basically just said: "That shopowner has a right not to deal with blacks, why do they keep harassing that poor man by trying to buy his goods?".
> I will note the irony about people saying that we should respect society “decisions” when they didn’t respect Trump becoming president since day one . Come on pal drop the dishonesty.
Those people didn't leave pipe-bombs at both party headquarters, call for their own Vice President to be hanged, or storm the Capitol building though. It's both transparent and dishonest to try to equate the two. Especially when you consider that Trump was one of the people peddling the birther nonsense about Obama and that pretty much everyone involved with the trump campaign was actually found guilty of some form of corruption. Trump himself has only escaped charges by virtue of being the President.
Except he was not denying them service just not engaging artistically lol stop being dishonest and trying to compare him to racists that denied service when he only denied artistic expression.
From your comments it is quite obvious that you actually know a lot about the case. However you keep conveniently just leaving things out to fit your framing, please just drop the charade and the dishonesty.
The man offered a service where he would produce a cake for your wedding. The man refused to provide that service exclusively to LGBT couples. There's no charade or dishonesty to that at all and it's just as abhorrent as the people that made the same weak argument about potential black customers during segregation. You can try to pretend it's about "artistic expression" but in the end it's about wanting the ability to discriminate against a protected class that you don't like.
Wasn't there a sort-of reverse issue a year or two ago, when the President was blocking people on twitter and a court ruled that he was violating their 1st amendment rights?
Is it exclusively because of his office? Could it be construed the other direction?
Is it exclusively because of his office? Could it be construed the other direction?
> Is it exclusively because of his office?
Because of his office and the manner of use, yes, explicitly, under the limited public forum doctrine.
Because of his office and the manner of use, yes, explicitly, under the limited public forum doctrine.
The First Amendment concerns the government's suppression of speech.
The POTUS is part of the US Government. Twitter is not.
So... no.
The POTUS is part of the US Government. Twitter is not.
So... no.
They only ruled that way because of the way Trump use(ed) his Twitter account - he used it to conduct government business, the white house themselves said his tweets are ‘official statements.’
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-officia...
>Could it be construed the other direction?
No.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/trump-tweets-officia...
>Could it be construed the other direction?
No.
Yes. If he weren’t in office, there would be no obligation
Yes, it's exclusively because of his using his Twitter account as an official outlet for government statements.
Trump has appealed the decision to SCOTUS, which is still considering whether or not hear it [1]. Given that Trump's Twitter account is now banned, I suspect SCOTUS will dismiss the motion as mooted.
[1] See https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-knight-f... for the docket information.
Trump has appealed the decision to SCOTUS, which is still considering whether or not hear it [1]. Given that Trump's Twitter account is now banned, I suspect SCOTUS will dismiss the motion as mooted.
[1] See https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-knight-f... for the docket information.
[deleted]
He was an elected official, and elected officials cannot violate a citizen's first amendment rights.
Twitter is not an elected official.
This is not hard.
Twitter is not an elected official.
This is not hard.
> And we're also at the point where some companies won't provide you with respectable service unless you @ them on social media.
Real-world example: T-Mobile. Their Twitter and Facebook representatives (called T-Force) have better customer service (they are more empowered to help you without supervisor escalation and fix things faster) than calling 611.
Real-world example: T-Mobile. Their Twitter and Facebook representatives (called T-Force) have better customer service (they are more empowered to help you without supervisor escalation and fix things faster) than calling 611.
I think that's essentially saying that "Customers who stand in the town square screaming 'T-Mobile sucks!'" get attention faster than ones that send private letters to T-Mobile.
It's sad, but at least we have a digital public square?
It's sad, but at least we have a digital public square?
You can direct message @tmobilehelp on Twitter and you get access to the same representatives that respond to public complaints, without actually having to publicly complain.
I'm not sure if this is intended behavior (or if it works with other companies), but it solves my problems quickly.
I'm not sure if this is intended behavior (or if it works with other companies), but it solves my problems quickly.
I don't use Twitter; at least I don't have an account with them. I do view some public twitter feeds others publish.
Does hacker news count as social media? This might be one of the only social media accounts I have.
Does hacker news count as social media? This might be one of the only social media accounts I have.
HN is technically a news aggregator with a comment section, but I’d say that qualifies as social media. I’m sure some would disagree with me.
If you want to do this more discreetly and in the old-fashioned manner, probably the fastest thing would be to contact your state's attorney general or equivalent.
> I don't know at what point these cross into "utility" territory
I think there's an obvious midpoint missing in the discussion between private and utility, which is monopoly, which do have additional set of laws and checks in place precisely for their strength against the free market.
preemptive "there are plenty alternatives so they are not monopolies" - if turns out these alternatives are acting in concert, it configures a cartel, which can get regulated in all the same ways.
the economical concepts behind these events aren't so alien as the folk around made them to be, their novelty is in their application to intangible assets (views and online services) but most of the issues are the same as they were decades ago and the same concepts apply, to the same conclusions.
I think there's an obvious midpoint missing in the discussion between private and utility, which is monopoly, which do have additional set of laws and checks in place precisely for their strength against the free market.
preemptive "there are plenty alternatives so they are not monopolies" - if turns out these alternatives are acting in concert, it configures a cartel, which can get regulated in all the same ways.
the economical concepts behind these events aren't so alien as the folk around made them to be, their novelty is in their application to intangible assets (views and online services) but most of the issues are the same as they were decades ago and the same concepts apply, to the same conclusions.
> They might be the latter, but I wouldn't consider it obvious
Stripe and Twitter are not utilities. Some may want them to be. But I don’t think anyone says they currently have utility obligations under the law.
Stripe and Twitter are not utilities. Some may want them to be. But I don’t think anyone says they currently have utility obligations under the law.
Couldn't you have made a similar argument for Twitter not being a public forum (prior to the court case)?
[deleted]
> And we're also at the point where some companies won't provide you with respectable service unless you @ them on social media.
Could you give an example of this? Sounds fascinating.
Could you give an example of this? Sounds fascinating.
I buy this argument as the law currently stands, but this is also such a moral double standard (Colorado bakery for instance).
Also, how far do we go with this reasoning? Stripe and PayPal refuse service so they're supposed to "Go build their own" (it costs billions to create a new service like stripe or PayPal that can compare). AWS shut you down? Build your own data center... (Again, costs millions or billions). What if next Intel or AMD decides to not sell you processors? Go build your own fab and develop your own hardware? What if the silicon miners won't sell you silicon, are you now supposed to go build your own mine?
The issue isn't that companies have a right to do it, it's that there are no viables alternatives to these large duopolies, and that "creating your own" is not an alternative.
What happens if the party in power next decides to attack religious organizations who congregate during that pandemic with the same type of concerted de-platforming? What if it's people who advocate against raising taxes who are next as deemed "morally corrupt"?
It's not hard to imagine this type of anti competitive, semi-concerted effort to de platform a new company being targeted at other things in the future. We need laws to catch up to our modern society and either break up the monopolies or put a lot more protections around the types of discrimination that are illegal, which should include political affiliation (this is law in California for employment discrimination so it's not that far fetched of an idea).
Also, how far do we go with this reasoning? Stripe and PayPal refuse service so they're supposed to "Go build their own" (it costs billions to create a new service like stripe or PayPal that can compare). AWS shut you down? Build your own data center... (Again, costs millions or billions). What if next Intel or AMD decides to not sell you processors? Go build your own fab and develop your own hardware? What if the silicon miners won't sell you silicon, are you now supposed to go build your own mine?
The issue isn't that companies have a right to do it, it's that there are no viables alternatives to these large duopolies, and that "creating your own" is not an alternative.
What happens if the party in power next decides to attack religious organizations who congregate during that pandemic with the same type of concerted de-platforming? What if it's people who advocate against raising taxes who are next as deemed "morally corrupt"?
It's not hard to imagine this type of anti competitive, semi-concerted effort to de platform a new company being targeted at other things in the future. We need laws to catch up to our modern society and either break up the monopolies or put a lot more protections around the types of discrimination that are illegal, which should include political affiliation (this is law in California for employment discrimination so it's not that far fetched of an idea).
>What happens if the party in power next decides to attack religious organizations who congregate during that pandemic with the same type of concerted de-platforming?
I didn't realize that Stripe's actions were due to a government order. Probably because they weren't.
You're conflating a private organization's decisions with government action. If the government were to attempt do as you suggest, the courts would slap them down hard.
I didn't realize that Stripe's actions were due to a government order. Probably because they weren't.
You're conflating a private organization's decisions with government action. If the government were to attempt do as you suggest, the courts would slap them down hard.
But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect nearly the same? Arguably worse, because there’s no legal recourse. I think that’s the point being made here.
Imagine all the airlines were run by Republicans, and they universally prevented anyone who works for Democratic leaning organizations (Eg ActBlue) from flying because some small number of bad actors on their side did some bad things.
We would do well to imagine what it would be like to be prevented access with no legal recourse to an an oligopoly of services that cannot practically be bypassed, and ask ourselves what potential for abuse exists when such impactful decisions can be taken without standard legal due process.
Imagine all the airlines were run by Republicans, and they universally prevented anyone who works for Democratic leaning organizations (Eg ActBlue) from flying because some small number of bad actors on their side did some bad things.
We would do well to imagine what it would be like to be prevented access with no legal recourse to an an oligopoly of services that cannot practically be bypassed, and ask ourselves what potential for abuse exists when such impactful decisions can be taken without standard legal due process.
>But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect nearly the same? Arguably worse, because there’s no legal recourse. I think that’s the point being made here.
What evidence can you provide to support your claim that various corporations are colluding to block folks?
What evidence can you provide that said corporations have a "preferred political party?"
You have no such evidence. What's more, whether or not the nebulous set of entities to which you refer (let's have specific names and specific actions).
I'd further say that "cloud" (read: someone else's servers) services, a few large social networking sites and a small subset of payment processors (I'm guessing that this is the set of corporations to which you were referring since you don't bother to be specific) do not constitute an "oligopoly."
I'd further add that there are hundreds of hosting and co-location providers, dozens of payment processors and a variety of mechanisms to share data, information and messaging.
I find your diatribe to be sorely lacking in evidence, reasoned argument and factual information.
Finally, your analogy concerning airlines is deeply flawed, as that isn't even close to what's going on.
Please provide some evidence for your claims.
Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.
What evidence can you provide to support your claim that various corporations are colluding to block folks?
What evidence can you provide that said corporations have a "preferred political party?"
You have no such evidence. What's more, whether or not the nebulous set of entities to which you refer (let's have specific names and specific actions).
I'd further say that "cloud" (read: someone else's servers) services, a few large social networking sites and a small subset of payment processors (I'm guessing that this is the set of corporations to which you were referring since you don't bother to be specific) do not constitute an "oligopoly."
I'd further add that there are hundreds of hosting and co-location providers, dozens of payment processors and a variety of mechanisms to share data, information and messaging.
I find your diatribe to be sorely lacking in evidence, reasoned argument and factual information.
Finally, your analogy concerning airlines is deeply flawed, as that isn't even close to what's going on.
Please provide some evidence for your claims.
Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.
It has happened before and recently too, so it wouldn't be exactly be shocking. Sneaked in with other stuff, they told the banks to fuck with sellers of Tobacco, Porn and Drug paraphernalia.
> Operation Choke Point was a 2013 initiative of the United States Department of Justice[1] which investigated banks in the United States and the business they did with firearm dealers, payday lenders, and other companies believed to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering.
> This operation, disclosed in an August 2013 Wall Street Journal story,[2] was officially ended in August 2017,[3] and the FDIC settled multiple lawsuits by promising to Congress additional training for its examiners and to cease issuing "informal" and "unwritten suggestions" to banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
> Operation Choke Point was a 2013 initiative of the United States Department of Justice[1] which investigated banks in the United States and the business they did with firearm dealers, payday lenders, and other companies believed to be at a high risk for fraud and money laundering.
> This operation, disclosed in an August 2013 Wall Street Journal story,[2] was officially ended in August 2017,[3] and the FDIC settled multiple lawsuits by promising to Congress additional training for its examiners and to cease issuing "informal" and "unwritten suggestions" to banks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
I said:
>If the government were to attempt do as you suggest, the courts would slap them down hard.
The issues around Operation Choke Point[0] that you linked to were investigated by Congress and the Department of Justice and, as I said, smacked down hard.
The above isn't analogous to the current situation, but the result was exactly as I said it would be.
Thanks for making my point for me.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
>If the government were to attempt do as you suggest, the courts would slap them down hard.
The issues around Operation Choke Point[0] that you linked to were investigated by Congress and the Department of Justice and, as I said, smacked down hard.
The above isn't analogous to the current situation, but the result was exactly as I said it would be.
Thanks for making my point for me.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Some elements of Operation Choke point were shut down hard, others never even got enough due process to see their day in court. We recently made the prime actors of one of these initiatives the vice president.
( https://reason.com/2019/08/26/secret-memos-show-the-governme... )
( https://reason.com/2019/08/26/secret-memos-show-the-governme... )
So what?
How is that relevant to Stripe? They aren't the government. They're not even one of the top ten biggest payment processors.
I can only conclude that you're not arguing in good faith. More's the pity.
How is that relevant to Stripe? They aren't the government. They're not even one of the top ten biggest payment processors.
I can only conclude that you're not arguing in good faith. More's the pity.
Actually I think you might have the Colorado case misrepresented here. The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs. Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith. [1]
If the baker had altogether refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, it would have been discrimination on a protected class.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado...
If the baker had altogether refused to bake a cake for the gay couple, it would have been discrimination on a protected class.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado...
> The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs.
No, he was ruled in favor of because the US Supreme Court found anti-religious animus in the enforcement process leading to the State ruling against him.
> Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith.
No, it wasn't. The decision specifically notes that he objected to being required to make cakes for same sex weddings entirely, on both free speech and free exercise of religion grounds [0], not that he was willing to do so dependent on messaging, so any such willingness he might have had was not a basis of the decision.
Instead, the Court found animus toward Phillips’ religious views by the state commission that found against him, both expressed in the process and evidenced through difference in how Phillips was treated vs. other bakers in similar cases before the same Commission, which mean that whether or not the law could otherwise have been enforced against him, the specific government act had an impermissible purpose, requiring it to be struck down. [1]
Note: All quotes from Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
[0] “Phillips raised two constitutional claims before the ALJ. He first asserted that applying CADA in a way that would require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his First Amendment right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed. [...] Phillips also contended that requiring him to create cakes for same-sex weddings would violate his right to the free exercise of religion, also protected by the First Amendment.”
[1] “The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires. The Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. For these reasons, the order must be set aside.”
No, he was ruled in favor of because the US Supreme Court found anti-religious animus in the enforcement process leading to the State ruling against him.
> Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith.
No, it wasn't. The decision specifically notes that he objected to being required to make cakes for same sex weddings entirely, on both free speech and free exercise of religion grounds [0], not that he was willing to do so dependent on messaging, so any such willingness he might have had was not a basis of the decision.
Instead, the Court found animus toward Phillips’ religious views by the state commission that found against him, both expressed in the process and evidenced through difference in how Phillips was treated vs. other bakers in similar cases before the same Commission, which mean that whether or not the law could otherwise have been enforced against him, the specific government act had an impermissible purpose, requiring it to be struck down. [1]
Note: All quotes from Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
[0] “Phillips raised two constitutional claims before the ALJ. He first asserted that applying CADA in a way that would require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his First Amendment right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed. [...] Phillips also contended that requiring him to create cakes for same-sex weddings would violate his right to the free exercise of religion, also protected by the First Amendment.”
[1] “The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments—comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order—were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires. The Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. For these reasons, the order must be set aside.”
Not to mention they are intentionally sending more LGBTQ customers his way to have him politely say no and refer them to another business, just so they can sue him again, and again, and again...
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/masterpiece-cakeshop...
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/masterpiece-cakeshop...
Absolutely nothing wrong with that
That's how you enforce civil rights laws
It's no different then trying to rent an apartment from a racist to make a case
That's how you enforce civil rights laws
It's no different then trying to rent an apartment from a racist to make a case
>they are intentionally sending
Who are they and why do you think they send people?
Who are they and why do you think they send people?
Indeed he offered the couple any other cake than a custom wedding cake with two men figures on top.
His custom cakes are small works of art. If he'd be forced to create one against his beliefs, why not force a far left painter to paint a favorable portrait of Trump?
And indeed this situation has little to do with Silicon Valley corporations offering generic services to millions of people. They are like supermarkets, who should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.
His custom cakes are small works of art. If he'd be forced to create one against his beliefs, why not force a far left painter to paint a favorable portrait of Trump?
And indeed this situation has little to do with Silicon Valley corporations offering generic services to millions of people. They are like supermarkets, who should not be allowed to refuse service to anyone.
AWS isn't like a supermarket. Depending on the context it's better analogised to something like a car rental chain or a large shopping centre. They're providing ongoing, rented, commodity infrastructure that is subject to acceptable use policies.
I think that’s the issue people mix up. He isn’t refusing to do business with anyone because of who they are. He’s refusing to create certain expressions which I should think he has every right to do.
I would expect a Christian cake maker would not agree to accept my money to design a cake that worships satan for example. Likewise I wouldn’t expect a satanic cake maker to make a cake celebrating Jesus.
Would it be right to force an Islamic cake maker to make a cake featuring Muhammad’s likeness?
I would expect a Christian cake maker would not agree to accept my money to design a cake that worships satan for example. Likewise I wouldn’t expect a satanic cake maker to make a cake celebrating Jesus.
Would it be right to force an Islamic cake maker to make a cake featuring Muhammad’s likeness?
No he is refusing to make a cake for a gay couple
If he refused to provide groom&groom wedding toppers I'd fully support him but this is food not speech
Likewise I wouldn't expect him to write messages or make decorations he disagreed with
But in this case it's a simple case of discrimination
If he refused to provide groom&groom wedding toppers I'd fully support him but this is food not speech
Likewise I wouldn't expect him to write messages or make decorations he disagreed with
But in this case it's a simple case of discrimination
Literally in the article it says he offered to make them other items... https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado...
And literally the Supreme Court decisions stated that he objected to making cakes for gay couples on two separate grounds. To the extent that he may have offered them to make other items, it wasn't part of the basis for the decision, which was entirely about religious animus shown by the Colorado State commission that enforced the law in his case, and not at all about him not actually discriminating because he was willing to do business with gay couples, just not to make the specific cake they wanted.
The fact that something is mentioned in a news article about a court case doesn't mean that (even if it is true) it is part of the basis for the decision. If you want to understand the basis for a court decision, it's best to read the decision itself.
The fact that something is mentioned in a news article about a court case doesn't mean that (even if it is true) it is part of the basis for the decision. If you want to understand the basis for a court decision, it's best to read the decision itself.
His cakes are food
This seems like a giant loophole to negate anti-discrimination laws.
Are subway "sandwich artists" able to discriminate in their art?
This seems like a giant loophole to negate anti-discrimination laws.
Are subway "sandwich artists" able to discriminate in their art?
This is inaccurate
The baker discriminated against the couple but the supreme court punted on ruling on the laws and just said the goverment hadn't acted correctly in that case so threw it out. The law is still on record and baker has to abide by it and stop discriminating against gay couples unless the court someday rules otherwise
The baker discriminated against the couple but the supreme court punted on ruling on the laws and just said the goverment hadn't acted correctly in that case so threw it out. The law is still on record and baker has to abide by it and stop discriminating against gay couples unless the court someday rules otherwise
I don't see how it's anti competetive. The free market advocates on HN would say that other people will create other companies and gain the market share current companies have turned down. Or that existing niche companies will find an expanded market serving them.
It's also important to note that companies aren't cutting ties with Trump because of his political ideology, they're cutting ties with him because there's a strong argument he broke the law, and they don't want to be in the awkward position of facilitating that, especially as it could open them to their own legal liability.
It's also important to note that companies aren't cutting ties with Trump because of his political ideology, they're cutting ties with him because there's a strong argument he broke the law, and they don't want to be in the awkward position of facilitating that, especially as it could open them to their own legal liability.
That's exactly my stance as a free market advocate. I heavily think it's the wrong move to grant some special status to these existing companies.
We could say there is a strong argument Joe Biden and his family broke the law, and indeed there's a criminal investigation into Hunter and associates.
However not only did all the big tech companies not withdraw support for Biden or prevent his campaign from using their apps, they doubled down and censored the story so most voters would not hear of it before the elections.
Again, big double standards at play here from a moral sense.
The larger issue here is that the internet really isn't so decentralized as it used to be.
There's like 10-20 major companies that control the majority of services people use, or the underlying infrastructure that powers the whole internet. This goes against the original design of the internet which meant it to be fully decentralized so no single entity or small set of entities could prevent the flow of information.
We should try to go back in that direction, either through competition and free markets or by enforcing it via existing or new regulations to prevent situations like this from ever happening again.
However not only did all the big tech companies not withdraw support for Biden or prevent his campaign from using their apps, they doubled down and censored the story so most voters would not hear of it before the elections.
Again, big double standards at play here from a moral sense.
The larger issue here is that the internet really isn't so decentralized as it used to be.
There's like 10-20 major companies that control the majority of services people use, or the underlying infrastructure that powers the whole internet. This goes against the original design of the internet which meant it to be fully decentralized so no single entity or small set of entities could prevent the flow of information.
We should try to go back in that direction, either through competition and free markets or by enforcing it via existing or new regulations to prevent situations like this from ever happening again.
The Hunter Biden conspiracy has been debunked dozens of times over. That’s why the companies haven’t withdrawn support for his family. Trump, OTOH, has pushed the boundaries of acceptable his entire presidency, and has almost certainly broken the law in the process many time.
Do you happen to have a link or other source to this debunking?
I can do a quick google and find so many journalists in twitter saying the story is debunked! What do you want twitter to do in the face of such overwhelming evidence coming from twitter?
It has NOT been debunked. What you have is the media constantly repeating that it has been debunked.
For what is Hunter being investigated for? According to several articles, its for tax and money laundering which is not at all what everyone was making a fuss about a few months ago (the laptop/emails, which reminds me of Hillary and "Her Emails!").
Given that there's uncertainty around it, can we really conclude that "they broke the law" and that it's unfair that big tech did not withdraw their support?
Given that there's uncertainty around it, can we really conclude that "they broke the law" and that it's unfair that big tech did not withdraw their support?
Biden wasn't using Twitter as one of the tools to commit the crime.
kayodelycaon(2)
> But political affiliation is not a protected class.
Classes that are protected now, were not protected at some point.
I think the discussion revolves not around whether political affiliation is a protected class, but whether it should be, in a sense- whether what is going on is good or bad for society, not whether or not it is illegal.
You are entitled to believe that it is good, of course.
Classes that are protected now, were not protected at some point.
I think the discussion revolves not around whether political affiliation is a protected class, but whether it should be, in a sense- whether what is going on is good or bad for society, not whether or not it is illegal.
You are entitled to believe that it is good, of course.
It wouldn't make any difference in this case, as it clearly has nothing to do with political affiliation anyway.
Quite. This is not a political debate. This is about enforcing TOS which explicitly ban use for criminal acts.
The fact that the criminal is the President of the United States and his enablers is incidental to the principle.
No one wants to ban any reasonable political views. But when a political party organises public mass violence, subversion, insurrection, murder, intimidation of public officers, the attempted overthrow of a legitimate election, among other crimes, that party - and especially its leaders - loses all claims on the patience of the public and on the tolerance of private sector service providers.
Attempts to turn this into a debate about political censorship are not being made in good faith. The reality is that criminal acts took place on a scale that was truly shocking.
Anyone who provides goods and services of any kind to the individuals and organisations responsible has a moral and legal duty to stop doing so - immediately.
The fact that the criminal is the President of the United States and his enablers is incidental to the principle.
No one wants to ban any reasonable political views. But when a political party organises public mass violence, subversion, insurrection, murder, intimidation of public officers, the attempted overthrow of a legitimate election, among other crimes, that party - and especially its leaders - loses all claims on the patience of the public and on the tolerance of private sector service providers.
Attempts to turn this into a debate about political censorship are not being made in good faith. The reality is that criminal acts took place on a scale that was truly shocking.
Anyone who provides goods and services of any kind to the individuals and organisations responsible has a moral and legal duty to stop doing so - immediately.
> Attempts to turn this into a debate about political censorship are not being made in good faith
But it is political. This summer saw widespread political violence, including attacks on government institutions, not to mention billions in property damage, but the mainstream reaction to that was "Show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"[1] with massive support for the riots from Silicon Valley companies. Kaepernick praised the violence and Dorsey gave him $3m.[2] The double standard is just sickening.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-zb58uiFjU [2] https://i.imgur.com/uM1iQ5R.jpg
But it is political. This summer saw widespread political violence, including attacks on government institutions, not to mention billions in property damage, but the mainstream reaction to that was "Show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"[1] with massive support for the riots from Silicon Valley companies. Kaepernick praised the violence and Dorsey gave him $3m.[2] The double standard is just sickening.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-zb58uiFjU [2] https://i.imgur.com/uM1iQ5R.jpg
It is funny that you quoted that the arguments are not being made in good faith and then proceeded to make a bad faith argument.
Lets go through some quick fire bullet points, 93% of the summer protests where peaceful, most of the damage was on insured property with no loss of life, the cause of the riots was the unashamed and unlawful treatment of minorities in America. It was a grassroots movement.
Now lets compare that to, a mob that straight away turned to violence, caused loss of life (and bashed the head of a police man with a fire extinguisher), mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president, pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene, and it all started from a conspiracy theory that 51 different judges have considered meritless, our congress has considered meritless and the vice president of his own administration considered debunked.
I wonder who is the one with a double standard here?
Lets go through some quick fire bullet points, 93% of the summer protests where peaceful, most of the damage was on insured property with no loss of life, the cause of the riots was the unashamed and unlawful treatment of minorities in America. It was a grassroots movement.
Now lets compare that to, a mob that straight away turned to violence, caused loss of life (and bashed the head of a police man with a fire extinguisher), mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president, pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene, and it all started from a conspiracy theory that 51 different judges have considered meritless, our congress has considered meritless and the vice president of his own administration considered debunked.
I wonder who is the one with a double standard here?
>no loss of life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...
>most of the damage was on insured property
Government property is insured by taxpayers
>93% of the summer protests where peaceful
I'm not sure how to confirm/disprove that statement. I'd posit that most protestors at the capitol were peaceful, but I'm not sure how to confirm/deny that either.
>mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president
Where I live "ACAB" is a trendy chant used to devil-ify police
EDIT: Also, is this not the same thing? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3217754/Black-Lives... - not sure how trustworthy this is
> molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene,
I have seen molotovs used at BLM protest
All this to say - it's not black and white; I also feel there clearly is some double standard going on here. I disagree with (what i think is) the premise of the capitol protests, but it does not strike me as that much worse than what people were supporting a few months ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...
>most of the damage was on insured property
Government property is insured by taxpayers
>93% of the summer protests where peaceful
I'm not sure how to confirm/disprove that statement. I'd posit that most protestors at the capitol were peaceful, but I'm not sure how to confirm/deny that either.
>mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president
Where I live "ACAB" is a trendy chant used to devil-ify police
EDIT: Also, is this not the same thing? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3217754/Black-Lives... - not sure how trustworthy this is
> molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene,
I have seen molotovs used at BLM protest
All this to say - it's not black and white; I also feel there clearly is some double standard going on here. I disagree with (what i think is) the premise of the capitol protests, but it does not strike me as that much worse than what people were supporting a few months ago.
None of these companies severing ties with Parler or other far-right presences are making political decisions. These are all business decisions, because they are businesses. I've explained this elsewhere, but what if a boycott were to start because the company refused to cut ties with Parler? They should just eat the loss? No, in any market, people vote with their dollars, and the vast majority of tech customers just happen to also be politically liberal. This is what we signed up for when we decided to operate in a free market system.
Everything a company does is a business decision. But it can also be a political decision.
> No one wants to ban any reasonable political views.
No one (including the US Supreme Court) has a definition for "reasonable."
That's what has some of us alarmed.
For Trump and his cronies? Sure, there are more than enough actual laws they've broken. But let's justify action against them on actual laws, as opposed to because-SV-doesn't-like-them and has public support at the moment. Or even use the moment to pass new laws, covering the type of behavior we want to make illegal.
Instead, this feels a lot like 9/12, in that people are post-hoc justifying popular actions on a moral basis, to the detriment of legal foundations.
And as we found then, as soon as you decide "terrorists can't be reasoned with and don't deserve rights," then being able to label someone a terrorist becomes a powerful tool...
No one (including the US Supreme Court) has a definition for "reasonable."
That's what has some of us alarmed.
For Trump and his cronies? Sure, there are more than enough actual laws they've broken. But let's justify action against them on actual laws, as opposed to because-SV-doesn't-like-them and has public support at the moment. Or even use the moment to pass new laws, covering the type of behavior we want to make illegal.
Instead, this feels a lot like 9/12, in that people are post-hoc justifying popular actions on a moral basis, to the detriment of legal foundations.
And as we found then, as soon as you decide "terrorists can't be reasoned with and don't deserve rights," then being able to label someone a terrorist becomes a powerful tool...
Most people will insist that their politics is an ostensibly intellectual exercise—thereby refuting the argument for it being a protected class.
> Classes that are protected now, were not protected at some point
Creating protected classes significantly curtails neighbouring freedoms while increasing the government’s role in day to day interactions.
One hallmark of existing protected classes is they are somewhat objective (counterfactual: race). Political affiliation is totally subjective. If someone believes in violent death for Blacks, Jews and gays, should a Holocaust memorial group be forced to accept them? If no, then you need someone deciding which groups do and don’t merit protection. And who is and isn’t actually a member of that group.
It’s not impossible. But it has unintended consequences. More than re-delineating the private company / utility boundary. More than expanding antitrust enforcement.
Creating protected classes significantly curtails neighbouring freedoms while increasing the government’s role in day to day interactions.
One hallmark of existing protected classes is they are somewhat objective (counterfactual: race). Political affiliation is totally subjective. If someone believes in violent death for Blacks, Jews and gays, should a Holocaust memorial group be forced to accept them? If no, then you need someone deciding which groups do and don’t merit protection. And who is and isn’t actually a member of that group.
It’s not impossible. But it has unintended consequences. More than re-delineating the private company / utility boundary. More than expanding antitrust enforcement.
> One hallmark of the existing protected classes is they are somewhat objective
Another hallmark is they tend to be mostly immutable, or unchangeable voluntarily. Society generally doesn’t accept that it’s reasonable for a person to change their gender, sexual orientation, race, age etc in order to participate in all facets of society.
I don’t think political affiliation meets that standard. Although I imagine that some might consider their political affiliation to be as core their identity as religion.
Another hallmark is they tend to be mostly immutable, or unchangeable voluntarily. Society generally doesn’t accept that it’s reasonable for a person to change their gender, sexual orientation, race, age etc in order to participate in all facets of society.
I don’t think political affiliation meets that standard. Although I imagine that some might consider their political affiliation to be as core their identity as religion.
Protected class should. be reserved to things you cannot change. People don't choose to be black, gay, trans etc. They choose their political affiliation and even their religion.
But religion usually isn’t something you choose statistically speaking please inform yourself instead of promoting hate against religions
I wasn’t necessarily advocating for that but more to illustrate a hierarchy. I understand it came across differently though.
I feel that right now, there's a lot of people conflating the status quo with the way they think things ought to be.
I've seen a lot of comments that act authoritative about the legal consequences, but heavily editorialized to say "the government shouldn't".
I'm not going to state my personal stance, because it's complicated and frankly, I haven't put enough thought into it to be comfortable presenting it. But, you (the reader) should be willing to forgo your kneejerk reaction (if you have one) and think about the consequences of what you're proposing when discussing changing the status quo and desired legislature to "solve" these issues.
I've seen a lot of comments that act authoritative about the legal consequences, but heavily editorialized to say "the government shouldn't".
I'm not going to state my personal stance, because it's complicated and frankly, I haven't put enough thought into it to be comfortable presenting it. But, you (the reader) should be willing to forgo your kneejerk reaction (if you have one) and think about the consequences of what you're proposing when discussing changing the status quo and desired legislature to "solve" these issues.
Freedom of speech was created when there were many distributed newspapers. If one newspaper decided not to publish your piece, you could go to another. There was not a cabal of newspapers that controlled 99% of information distribution, like do Twitter, Facebook, and Google. This is not something the founders ever could have foreseen.
For all intents and purposes, freedom of speech has flatlined in America. What will bring it back?
For all intents and purposes, freedom of speech has flatlined in America. What will bring it back?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with newspapers or news, and never has done.
It only protects you from government, nothing else.
There are legitimate concerns regarding monopolistic behaviour of large digital gatekeepers. But we don’t solve that by deciding to restrict their speech (which is what forced speech would be). You solve it by either making them utilities or breaking them up to create more competition.
It only protects you from government, nothing else.
There are legitimate concerns regarding monopolistic behaviour of large digital gatekeepers. But we don’t solve that by deciding to restrict their speech (which is what forced speech would be). You solve it by either making them utilities or breaking them up to create more competition.
You’re talking about the first amendment, a legal structure, not freedom of speech, a philosophical concept.
According to an article posted on hn yesterday, even this is not quite correct (the first amendment can be interpreted to affect state laws, not just federal, and even civil litigation, apparently)
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred...
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred...
I don’t think there’s much difference. If you argue that companies like Stripe and Twitter should “uphold freedom of speech”, then you’re restricting their freedom of speech.
My right to speak doesn’t override you’re right to ignore me, or refuse to transmit my message.
Now there’s a knotty issue with entities like Facebook and Twitter becoming the primary ways people communicate with large audiences, but people managed before Facebook and Twitter, so they can manage again.
Or the alternative is that we say Facebook and Twitter don’t deserve to have their own speech protected. At which point someone is picking a choosing who deserves free speech.
You can’t have it both ways.
My right to speak doesn’t override you’re right to ignore me, or refuse to transmit my message.
Now there’s a knotty issue with entities like Facebook and Twitter becoming the primary ways people communicate with large audiences, but people managed before Facebook and Twitter, so they can manage again.
Or the alternative is that we say Facebook and Twitter don’t deserve to have their own speech protected. At which point someone is picking a choosing who deserves free speech.
You can’t have it both ways.
> Freedom of speech has nothing to do with newspapers or news, and never has done.
If somebody speaks in the woods, and there's nobody there to hear it, do they make a sound?
Yes, they technically have free speech, but in reality not really.
The purpose of speech is that you might persuade somebody else. If there's nobody to talk to, you might as well not speak at all.
If somebody speaks in the woods, and there's nobody there to hear it, do they make a sound?
Yes, they technically have free speech, but in reality not really.
The purpose of speech is that you might persuade somebody else. If there's nobody to talk to, you might as well not speak at all.
Freedom of speech does not entitle to you an audience or distribution network. It never has.
Freedom of speech as laid out in the 1st amendment protects individuals from being arrested or censored by the government for speech. It does not protect individuals who violate the TOS of a private company, nor does it provide blanket protection in all cases of speech. Inciting violence and making false statements of fact are not protected forms of speech under US law[0]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
You don't have an inherent right to a megaphone. Freedom of speech means you don't get in trouble from the government for saying things, not that you have the right to broadcast your message.
If you can't broadcast, what good is your message?
If you can't broadcast, how good is your message?
If you can't convince enough people that your message is worth propagating, maybe it isn't. If you can, you will have the means.
If you can't convince enough people that your message is worth propagating, maybe it isn't. If you can, you will have the means.
If you can you will have the means?
Lmao sounds like you believe popular support is an indicator of correctness and that is very very wrong you should read about Galileo pal
Lmao, pal to you too. Galileo succeeded, we heard his theory and eventually found it more correct than the previous one. And he managed that without Twitter, Youtube or Parler.
Yeah but the suffering that had to take place in order for that to happen was erroneous we should strive to avoid that and not licking Bezzos and ZUckerberg boots is part of a society where Galileos have to avoid trials
Facebook, Twitter, et al are not public squares.
You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit.
But Facebook, Twitter, Google, HN or any other private organization is under no obligation to host or amplify your speech.
The government can't censor you and you may speak your mind in public spaces. You may also do so in private spaces, with the permission of the owners of those spaces.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that certain private actors are required to allow your speech. That's not true. They are responsible only to their shareholders and to a lesser extent, their customers -- and in this case their customers are advertisers and not you. You are the product being sold.
If you don't think that's right or fair, then don't interact with those private actors. If enough people chose not to deal with them, they would lose their power and influence.
I voted with my feet years ago. If you haven't, then you're part of the problem and not the solution.
You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit.
But Facebook, Twitter, Google, HN or any other private organization is under no obligation to host or amplify your speech.
The government can't censor you and you may speak your mind in public spaces. You may also do so in private spaces, with the permission of the owners of those spaces.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that certain private actors are required to allow your speech. That's not true. They are responsible only to their shareholders and to a lesser extent, their customers -- and in this case their customers are advertisers and not you. You are the product being sold.
If you don't think that's right or fair, then don't interact with those private actors. If enough people chose not to deal with them, they would lose their power and influence.
I voted with my feet years ago. If you haven't, then you're part of the problem and not the solution.
> Facebook, Twitter, et al are not public squares.
You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit.
I can't find it at the moment but there was recently a court case where a judge ruled that the constitutional right to Assembly was not infringed by pandemic restrictions (It is illegal in several US jurisdictions to assemble with more than N people in a private space) because people could freely assemble on online platforms like Facebook and Twitter. If the digital public square does not allow for free assembly, and the government forbids you from assembling in a physical public space, then it seems plausible to me that we have constructively eliminated certain constitutional rights.
I can't find it at the moment but there was recently a court case where a judge ruled that the constitutional right to Assembly was not infringed by pandemic restrictions (It is illegal in several US jurisdictions to assemble with more than N people in a private space) because people could freely assemble on online platforms like Facebook and Twitter. If the digital public square does not allow for free assembly, and the government forbids you from assembling in a physical public space, then it seems plausible to me that we have constructively eliminated certain constitutional rights.
Claiming they are not public squares is correct and says very little.
When capitalism revealed its ability to create abusive monopolies, we created new laws to mitigate those harms.
When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena.
When capitalism revealed its ability to create abusive monopolies, we created new laws to mitigate those harms.
When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena.
>When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena.
Where did I say that wasn't appropriate?
I strongly believe that those big social media companies not only have too much power and influence, but that their business models are exploitative and morally repugnant.
Which is why I don't use them. At all.
In fact, I detailed[0] how I thought this issue should be dealt with the other day.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688032
Where did I say that wasn't appropriate?
I strongly believe that those big social media companies not only have too much power and influence, but that their business models are exploitative and morally repugnant.
Which is why I don't use them. At all.
In fact, I detailed[0] how I thought this issue should be dealt with the other day.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688032
We are in 100% agreement. I apologize for misunderstanding your comment.
> It only protects you from government, nothing else.
As I had mentioned in another comment a few days ago, it stands to reason that were the government to outsource the censorship to private entities (like Orban is now doing in Hungary, where almost all the media is in his pockets) than everything would be technically legal, even though it would definitely be against the spirit of the law.
As a matter of the fact the US right does seem to say that the same thing is happening right now, i.e. that the US mainstream media is "in the pockets of the left" hence the censorship.
As I had mentioned in another comment a few days ago, it stands to reason that were the government to outsource the censorship to private entities (like Orban is now doing in Hungary, where almost all the media is in his pockets) than everything would be technically legal, even though it would definitely be against the spirit of the law.
As a matter of the fact the US right does seem to say that the same thing is happening right now, i.e. that the US mainstream media is "in the pockets of the left" hence the censorship.
"For all intents and purposes, freedom of speech has flatlined in America."
No - 'Freedom of Speech' is at an all time high.
The internet gives every single person a giant soap box to stand on.
You can communicate, in public, with anyone in the world.
25 years ago, you had no voice.
Now, everyone can be a 'journalist' or 'agitator' or whatever.
The level of open communication possible today was unthinkable 25 years ago.
25 years ago most people didn't have access to 'most news'. The NYT maybe was accessible by the elite in most towns, but the LA times was not. Now it's all available to everyone.
No - 'Freedom of Speech' is at an all time high.
The internet gives every single person a giant soap box to stand on.
You can communicate, in public, with anyone in the world.
25 years ago, you had no voice.
Now, everyone can be a 'journalist' or 'agitator' or whatever.
The level of open communication possible today was unthinkable 25 years ago.
25 years ago most people didn't have access to 'most news'. The NYT maybe was accessible by the elite in most towns, but the LA times was not. Now it's all available to everyone.
Yeah but ten years ahorita you used to have a lot more freedom in the same platforms as you know that please don’t be dishonest
That's really not the case.
These platforms haven't changed that much in terms of their policies.
If you called someone the n-word or tried to coordinate murder of some public official you would be banned.
Bannon was calling for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded a few days ago. That's what got him banned from Twitter.
Gen. Flynn was calling for public officials to be executed. He was banned.
Get it?
Twitter has not really changed that much - the public, and their expectations of 'freedom of expression' in the face of politics has changed.
These platforms haven't changed that much in terms of their policies.
If you called someone the n-word or tried to coordinate murder of some public official you would be banned.
Bannon was calling for Dr. Fauci to be beheaded a few days ago. That's what got him banned from Twitter.
Gen. Flynn was calling for public officials to be executed. He was banned.
Get it?
Twitter has not really changed that much - the public, and their expectations of 'freedom of expression' in the face of politics has changed.
That is very much the case and the policies of facebook and twitter have changed a lot, evne google removed the "dont be evil" from their ethics. People did much worse int he early days of facebook and twitter and facebook and twitter couldnt do anything because their guidelines werent made to censor things like that, let alone to particularly target a party as they do now.
> But political affiliation is not a protected class.
This is a distraction. Political speech enjoys the highest level of protection in the US, political speech is one of the primary motivators behind the existence of constitutionally protected speech in the US.
This is a distraction. Political speech enjoys the highest level of protection in the US, political speech is one of the primary motivators behind the existence of constitutionally protected speech in the US.
Non-US-citizen here: Isn't the first amendment protecting private people and entities (e.g. newspapers) from government influence into free speech?
Private companies deciding not to service the head of the executive seems to be nearly the opposite of that, unless I understood this wrongly (which is entirely possible). Think of a newspaper (=private entity) decides to boycott a president and not write anything about him. Wouldn't it be the polar opposite of free speech if the president then had the power to force them to write about him?
I get that a payment service is not the same as a newspaper, but it is still a private entity.
Private companies deciding not to service the head of the executive seems to be nearly the opposite of that, unless I understood this wrongly (which is entirely possible). Think of a newspaper (=private entity) decides to boycott a president and not write anything about him. Wouldn't it be the polar opposite of free speech if the president then had the power to force them to write about him?
I get that a payment service is not the same as a newspaper, but it is still a private entity.
"We are re-evaluating" - I imagine for many people it's not re-evaluation but learning for the first time, people who haven't critically thought through any of this - of what freedom of speech means and its boundaries or how the relative sovereignty of private businesses is a feature, and it's not you being persecuted if they remove unwanted users; the private companies aren't preventing free speech, these people can still speak freely in America and on the internet - just not on the platforms that don't want the incitement of violence, etc. on their platform.
> AWS and Visa feel like the former, though they are legally the latter.
Back in the day, you had to rack your own servers in your own data centers and manage them yourself. Had any of these 'free speech' services spent any time considering how reliant they were on 3rd party services, they should never have engaged those companies in the first place.
There was a day when you had to build your own servers to host your own websites. Not that long ago, imo.
Back in the day, you had to rack your own servers in your own data centers and manage them yourself. Had any of these 'free speech' services spent any time considering how reliant they were on 3rd party services, they should never have engaged those companies in the first place.
There was a day when you had to build your own servers to host your own websites. Not that long ago, imo.
Gab does this- they run their own servers and payment processing. For better or for worse, they have remained online and seen a huge uptick in traffic [0] while Parler has been kicked off every cloud vendor. I suspect Gab will displace Parler as the QAnon crowd's platform of choice.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/gab-reports-growth-in-the-mi...
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/gab-reports-growth-in-the-mi...
[deleted]
> But political affiliation is not a protected class.
Just FYI, some countries have made it a protected class, e.g.: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/... (see 21(1)(j))
Just FYI, some countries have made it a protected class, e.g.: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/... (see 21(1)(j))
Same for some parts of the US
It is incredible that people on HN can be against Visa/Mastercard banning payments to Wikileaks or Pornhub, against PayPal making arbitrary decisions about their customers, but somehow in support of Stripe banning Trump. All of these companies are providing utility services, and they should all be regulated as if they were public agencies. They should have to uphold the freedom of speech and other principles enshrined in our system of laws, because these organizations are so powerful and influential that they might as well be government agencies. The services they provide are completely fundamental and necessary today, and the fact that they are operated by private entities does not mean that we cannot require them to do what is right by implementing our nation's founding principles. If we can regulate power utilities or force all businesses to shutdown during a pandemic, we can absolutely update our laws to regulate these companies, require them to uphold the first amendment, and provide due process. We should also definitely revamp our anti-trust laws and break them up where possible, so that there is real competition and choice.
it's not incredible. It's pretty much an open double standard at this point, because political leftism is seen as the only true ideology a rational person can have. The rhetoric about conservatism is increasingly casting conservatives as vulnerable to irrational forces like fake news or algorithims that can override their will and make them believe patently absurd things.
If you are conservative or lean to it, its incredibly disheartening. You have to consistently justify to these people you aren't brainwashed, because their default idea is that you are. Sort of the same way about serious religious belief if you have one; people default assume you are nuts and at best you can work your way up to "he's nuts but he is our nut."
It's scary to me, and to be honest my political views are starting to move towards "limit the power other people can affect you as much as possible" because its now evident how people will happily deplatform any unpopular person beyond the real justification. I can buy removing Trump's speech due to incitement, but it keeps going and going-like we literally see fox news next, and what then?
If you are conservative or lean to it, its incredibly disheartening. You have to consistently justify to these people you aren't brainwashed, because their default idea is that you are. Sort of the same way about serious religious belief if you have one; people default assume you are nuts and at best you can work your way up to "he's nuts but he is our nut."
It's scary to me, and to be honest my political views are starting to move towards "limit the power other people can affect you as much as possible" because its now evident how people will happily deplatform any unpopular person beyond the real justification. I can buy removing Trump's speech due to incitement, but it keeps going and going-like we literally see fox news next, and what then?
Pretty much agreed and I am probably more to the left than almost everyone here. I have seen way too often people who normally want to regulate corprotions (just like I want) suddenly become corporate fanboys in support for unregulated capitalism as soon as some big corporation shut down a voice they did not like. Personally I hate the hypocrisy and also think that the cure might end up to be worse than the disease.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
I'm so sad today. I came from a very left-wing background, becoming conservative gradually over decades. I've learned to self-censor and keep my ideas to myself along the way to keep the peace, hoping the many left-wing people in my life would eventually see how intolerant they were becoming.
Looks like my choices are to stuff everything I believe down deep inside and hope I can participate in society, keep a job, support my family, etc. OR to speak up and risk losing everything. This is the true mob to fear. Everything is being torn down to get the "bad guys". Everything.
Looks like my choices are to stuff everything I believe down deep inside and hope I can participate in society, keep a job, support my family, etc. OR to speak up and risk losing everything. This is the true mob to fear. Everything is being torn down to get the "bad guys". Everything.
[deleted]
> You can’t refuse to do business with protected classes. But political affiliation is not a protected class.
FYI, political affiliation is protected from discrimination in CA, NY, and DC.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
FYI, political affiliation is protected from discrimination in CA, NY, and DC.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri...
> political affiliation is protected from discrimination in CA, NY, and DC
Lawful political activity is protected from workplace discrimination. That’s a far stretch from making it a general protected class, and wouldn’t prevent Stripe from refusing to work with the Trump campaign.
Lawful political activity is protected from workplace discrimination. That’s a far stretch from making it a general protected class, and wouldn’t prevent Stripe from refusing to work with the Trump campaign.
> That’s a far stretch from making it a general protected class,
There's no such thing as a “general protected class”; there are different lists (and different effects of the status) of protected classes in various categories of law (public accommodations, employment, housing, etc.)
There's no such thing as a “general protected class”; there are different lists (and different effects of the status) of protected classes in various categories of law (public accommodations, employment, housing, etc.)
Ok. Seems like the same spirit of the law to me, but you are explicitly right.
When we're talking tech giants, like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and so forth, it strains credulity to think that there isn't some connection between what they do and currying political favor. Politicians are holding a big hammer over the heads of these giants, in terms of laws, regulations, and even tax and trade policy. On paper, they are private enterprises making decisions that are within their right, as opposed to governments censoring speech and prohibiting association. The reality is almost certainly more complicated, and involves nuanced levels of political pull, "understandings," and backroom deals.
These tech giants have made themselves into a lattice on which modern society attaches itself, and their pervasiveness will only continue to grow in 21st century America. We risk them being in bed with government. And when nominally private, major industry is aligned with government to effect political ends, there's a word for that, and we've seen that before.
These tech giants have made themselves into a lattice on which modern society attaches itself, and their pervasiveness will only continue to grow in 21st century America. We risk them being in bed with government. And when nominally private, major industry is aligned with government to effect political ends, there's a word for that, and we've seen that before.
[deleted]
To be honest, I firmly evaluate this behavior as negative irrespectable of the legal issues. It might look clear in the case of Trump. Freedom of speech is something civil society defines and the refusal to let people speak is something I regard very negatively. Never would have thought to say something like this in 2015, but the opposition to Trump looks inept as does this behavior from Stripe. They just didn't have an answer, so they just needed to ban him.
It’s not a legal issue. People and companies have the freedom to put what they want on their websites or not.
Trump just stood up and asked for his people to go to the capitol - one of his former campaign managers called for beheading members of government.
Calling out his lies - a la politifact and many others - hasn’t worked to deradicalize. Fact check verifications next to the content haven’t. So - just shutting off the calls for violence and lies are the next step.
“Opposition to Trump looks inept”(?) The opposition just swept congress and the presidency, crushed the popular vote, and even members of his party are strongly against his actions. Ineptitude is the Trump’s legal challenges against the election and the “4 Seasons Total Landscaping” fiasco.
Trump can raise funds in many ways. He can get checks. No one is required to allow someone to raise funds on their site - let freedom ring!
Trump just stood up and asked for his people to go to the capitol - one of his former campaign managers called for beheading members of government.
Calling out his lies - a la politifact and many others - hasn’t worked to deradicalize. Fact check verifications next to the content haven’t. So - just shutting off the calls for violence and lies are the next step.
“Opposition to Trump looks inept”(?) The opposition just swept congress and the presidency, crushed the popular vote, and even members of his party are strongly against his actions. Ineptitude is the Trump’s legal challenges against the election and the “4 Seasons Total Landscaping” fiasco.
Trump can raise funds in many ways. He can get checks. No one is required to allow someone to raise funds on their site - let freedom ring!
I didn't work because you didn't understand the nature of the opposition. It is true that it the freedom of companies to ban people like they want to, as it is for any other side.
I don't think even the last election was a success for democrats to be honest, it was a pretty close call. But that is another metric. Trump became president and had his full term. I don't think past you would call even the current situation a success, you just reduced your expectations.
The supposed fact checkers had a clear bias and couldn't establish trust. That will take some time to get back and I doubt democrats will have success with programs that require any form of solidarity because you still define yourself as opposition to Trump. There is still a huge and solidified division. Hard to govern, but we will see.
I don't think even the last election was a success for democrats to be honest, it was a pretty close call. But that is another metric. Trump became president and had his full term. I don't think past you would call even the current situation a success, you just reduced your expectations.
The supposed fact checkers had a clear bias and couldn't establish trust. That will take some time to get back and I doubt democrats will have success with programs that require any form of solidarity because you still define yourself as opposition to Trump. There is still a huge and solidified division. Hard to govern, but we will see.
The spectrum is authoritarianism and anarchy. Anarchists can still be tyrannical.
How is AWS anything like an “utility”? There are hundreds of viable hosting options for large sites.
some previous names for cloud compute entities were "grid compute" and "utility computing". some veneer of old-school small fries still exist thank the stars but absolutely, more & more of the internet is powered by the hyperscalers. absolutely terrifying seeing the scales keep tilting heavier & heavier towards fewer & fewer options.
> absolutely terrifying seeing the scales keep tilting heavier & heavier towards fewer & fewer options
This is just not happening. Except apparently in the minds of many HNers who live in some bizarre alternate reality.
This is just not happening. Except apparently in the minds of many HNers who live in some bizarre alternate reality.
They are free to buy hardware and self host their website. It's not rocket science.
[deleted]
Very well said. The critical point is that society is constantly balancing different factors. Sometimes, the balance has been good enough for long enough that we don't even see it. We were in that situation until Trump arrived. During that time, we grew accustomed to talking about our liberties in a way that lacks any depth or nuance.
If Visa is a "utility," why are we clutching pearls when Trump is banned by them, but not Pornhub?
There are plenty of comments on HN in opposition to Visa and MasterCard stopping to work with Pornhub. Volume might not be the same, but that's hardly surprising.
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25381920
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25379213
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25381920
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25379213
The volume is the point.
The volume indicates the popularity of the opinion. You can debate the opinions as long as you do it civilly.
That's exactly my point. People are up in arms over Trump being booted off the platform, but not Pornhub. This is not consistent with arguing that Visa is a "utility."
> If Visa is a "utility," why are we clutching pearls when Trump is banned by them, but not Pornhub?
Visa is not a utility. I would be open to debating whether they should be one.
The flip side of such a designation is it would likely require the government indemnify Visa against fraud losses. The line between deplatforming for fraud risk (the ostensible reason for Visa’s aversion to porn) and for objectionable content is difficult to draw.
Visa is not a utility. I would be open to debating whether they should be one.
The flip side of such a designation is it would likely require the government indemnify Visa against fraud losses. The line between deplatforming for fraud risk (the ostensible reason for Visa’s aversion to porn) and for objectionable content is difficult to draw.
That's what I'm saying. Where was the outrage when Pornhub was banned? If they're not a utility when they kick off Pornhub, how can they possibly be a utility when they kick off Trump? You don't get to have it both ways.
Stripe isn't preventing the Trump campaign from fundraising. You can feel free to withdraw cash from your bank account and mail it to the Trump campaign. Stripe also isn't prohibiting all Republicans from using Stripe. It seems that the people claiming that this the end of free speech are unaware that demonstrating that freedom of speech can have consequences. In this case, that free speech was arguably inciting an insurrection.
> But political affiliation is not a protected class.
Perhaps these bans are happening not because of political affiliation but due to the messages these particular people (e.g., Trump) are espousing.
Parler go banned because it's full of message calling for (e.g.) Mike Pence to be hanged and other such things, and Parler isn't / can't do much about it, and its infrastructure providers (AWS, app stores) do not want any part of it per their ToS.
No one has cut off Mitch McConnell because he hasn't been calling forth angry mobs to storm Congress (or the White House).
Perhaps these bans are happening not because of political affiliation but due to the messages these particular people (e.g., Trump) are espousing.
Parler go banned because it's full of message calling for (e.g.) Mike Pence to be hanged and other such things, and Parler isn't / can't do much about it, and its infrastructure providers (AWS, app stores) do not want any part of it per their ToS.
No one has cut off Mitch McConnell because he hasn't been calling forth angry mobs to storm Congress (or the White House).
Maxine Waters called for her supporters to harass government officials. She’s still on Twitter. A Bernie Sanders supporter ambushed and shot a US Congressman and yet no penalties to various Sanders organizations. Supporters of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard are on Twitter. Mumia Abu-Jamal, a convicted murderer of cops is even on Twitter! AOC stormed and occupied Pelosi’s office in a climate protest in the Capitol and she’s on Twitter.
Notice a pattern? Left wing heroes can say anything they want and Twitter doesn’t ban them.
Notice a pattern? Left wing heroes can say anything they want and Twitter doesn’t ban them.
Your rather terse language is doing a lot of heavy lifting for those false equivalences. Applying the rationale behind Twitter's recent decision to these other cases is an exercise I shall leave to others.
Twitter is flooded with calls for violence 24/7. Exclusively left wing celebrities openly call for violence all the time on there, nobody does anything about it. That has been going on for the past four years non-stop.
Actor Peter Fonda called for violently assaulting Trump's underage child on Twitter in 2018 (his account was not permanently banned), and that's very typical posting from leftist celebrities on Twitter these past four years.
Thousands of violent posts were in the "Hang Mike Pence" Twitter trend that was going on the other day. People have been openly calling for executions for treason and similar on Twitter in relation to the Capitol riots. There was widespread cheering and celebrating when that woman got shot in the neck by Capitol Police, I read thousands of Tweets that were literally cheering for her death, all on Twitter, and nobody gives a fuck.
The double standard by Twitter is beyond disgusting. It's psychopath behavior.
Actor Peter Fonda called for violently assaulting Trump's underage child on Twitter in 2018 (his account was not permanently banned), and that's very typical posting from leftist celebrities on Twitter these past four years.
Thousands of violent posts were in the "Hang Mike Pence" Twitter trend that was going on the other day. People have been openly calling for executions for treason and similar on Twitter in relation to the Capitol riots. There was widespread cheering and celebrating when that woman got shot in the neck by Capitol Police, I read thousands of Tweets that were literally cheering for her death, all on Twitter, and nobody gives a fuck.
The double standard by Twitter is beyond disgusting. It's psychopath behavior.
> Thousands of violent posts were in the "Hang Mike Pence" Twitter trend that was going on the other day.
That trended because Trump supporters built a gallows and chanted “Hang Mike Pence” at the Capitol on Wednesday.
That trended because Trump supporters built a gallows and chanted “Hang Mike Pence” at the Capitol on Wednesday.
Twitter still allowed the hashtag.
Twitter halted the hash tag:
* https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-stops-hang-mike-pence-trend...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25704588
* https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-stops-hang-mike-pence-trend...
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25704588
>>But political affiliation is not a protected class.
Pretty sure it is in California.
Pretty sure it is in California.
The assumption that a government model would cause a loss of innovation seems dismissive of what the government model has brought us in the past (DARPA, Space Program, nuclear energy, etc., etc.)
> The assumption that a government model would cause a loss of innovation seems dismissive of what the government model has brought us in the past
Government program != utility designation. DARPA, NASA and the Manhattan Project were not utilities. PG&E is a utility. It requires political consent to make significant changes.
I’m not saying utilities can’t be innovative. Amtrak and the Post Office are utilities, and they experiment. But they have obligations private businesses don’t, and that slows things down.
Government program != utility designation. DARPA, NASA and the Manhattan Project were not utilities. PG&E is a utility. It requires political consent to make significant changes.
I’m not saying utilities can’t be innovative. Amtrak and the Post Office are utilities, and they experiment. But they have obligations private businesses don’t, and that slows things down.
> But political affiliation is not a protected class.
The ongoing purge -- would it not be seen as treason, as an act to in fact subvert/weaken a position of POTUS and therefore directly destabilize the US government?
The ongoing purge -- would it not be seen as treason, as an act to in fact subvert/weaken a position of POTUS and therefore directly destabilize the US government?
> Then there are private persons and private businesses. Stripe and Twitter are clearly the latter. AWS and Visa feel like the former, though they are legally the latter.
Twitter and Stripe are acting in coordination - literally conspiring - with every other big tech company to take a specific action. When they do that they're acting as an illegal cartel and must be prosecuted accordingly. This is the kind of coordinated cartel behavior that banana republics and third world countries have that behave exactly like these companies are and do so out in the open (and always with the political support of the group with the most power, to target their foes). We're supposed to have anti-trust laws to deal with conspiring mega corporations.
Twitter and Stripe are acting in coordination - literally conspiring - with every other big tech company to take a specific action. When they do that they're acting as an illegal cartel and must be prosecuted accordingly. This is the kind of coordinated cartel behavior that banana republics and third world countries have that behave exactly like these companies are and do so out in the open (and always with the political support of the group with the most power, to target their foes). We're supposed to have anti-trust laws to deal with conspiring mega corporations.
I was on the fence about this, but reading the comments convinced me it was the absolute right decision.
The fact that all these institutions just allowed this horrible hateful speech for four years, in the name of free speech etc, despite all the harassment, harm (mental and otherwise) it caused to so many people in America actually emboldened so many to the extent that now that they crossed this invisible line, they can't even really understand the ramifications of what happened. That what gets me.
To be hyperfocused on the free speech or "big brother" aspect of these bans, not the fact that a small group of rioters were just a few feet away from irreversibly staining American history with the blood of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the chain of command of the United states of America, as well as overrunning the seat of power of the most powerful nation in the world, on national TV ... just tells me that things really went too far and should have been shut down much sooner.
I'm sure a lot of the people at the capitol that day have the narrative running in their minds that they are the heroes of America democracy, but the reality is that there is simply no justification for any of this, that can be told. A smarter group of individuals would take all this on the chin, make penance in some way while staying under the radar to regroup and reconfigure their message/approach instead of citing private business overreach as some sort of justification for what happened
The fact that all these institutions just allowed this horrible hateful speech for four years, in the name of free speech etc, despite all the harassment, harm (mental and otherwise) it caused to so many people in America actually emboldened so many to the extent that now that they crossed this invisible line, they can't even really understand the ramifications of what happened. That what gets me.
To be hyperfocused on the free speech or "big brother" aspect of these bans, not the fact that a small group of rioters were just a few feet away from irreversibly staining American history with the blood of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the chain of command of the United states of America, as well as overrunning the seat of power of the most powerful nation in the world, on national TV ... just tells me that things really went too far and should have been shut down much sooner.
I'm sure a lot of the people at the capitol that day have the narrative running in their minds that they are the heroes of America democracy, but the reality is that there is simply no justification for any of this, that can be told. A smarter group of individuals would take all this on the chin, make penance in some way while staying under the radar to regroup and reconfigure their message/approach instead of citing private business overreach as some sort of justification for what happened
Your point about the 'invisible line' is astute. We're in a crisis of perception and reality right now, and this has caused many to lose sight of the very real lines that we have agreed upon to preserve society and democracy.
I think the other important factor here is we are in a very vulnerable moment right now because we are in the midst of a transition of power. It takes time to transfer the apparatus and operations of state, and during this time there is a power vacuum that can be taken advantage of by adversaries foreign and domestic. Every state throughout history has struggled in these times.
The failure to secure the Capitol was in no small part due to how the President has run the state in the waning months of his term. His cabinet and administration are running a skeleton crew, he's acting erratically, and he's making false claims about election results and inciting crowds in a bid to stay in power. Whether one supports his policies or not, it should be abundantly clear right now that his actions and rhetoric put the country in further danger during this vulnerable time, and that perhaps he need not have access to platforms that make this easier and more convenient. It should be hard to dismantle the state, to whip people into a frenzy, to cause the damage that has been caused.
I think the other important factor here is we are in a very vulnerable moment right now because we are in the midst of a transition of power. It takes time to transfer the apparatus and operations of state, and during this time there is a power vacuum that can be taken advantage of by adversaries foreign and domestic. Every state throughout history has struggled in these times.
The failure to secure the Capitol was in no small part due to how the President has run the state in the waning months of his term. His cabinet and administration are running a skeleton crew, he's acting erratically, and he's making false claims about election results and inciting crowds in a bid to stay in power. Whether one supports his policies or not, it should be abundantly clear right now that his actions and rhetoric put the country in further danger during this vulnerable time, and that perhaps he need not have access to platforms that make this easier and more convenient. It should be hard to dismantle the state, to whip people into a frenzy, to cause the damage that has been caused.
I am also worried. It feels like Big Tech flourished in last 4 years with advertisement revenue while staying hush about these issues, but all of a sudden they have an epiphany now.
Big Tech leaders are selfish, cowards, clueless and just as vulnerable as the government leaders. They were interested in milking billions in Ads from these hate speech, particularly Twitter.
If I were employees at these big companies, I would raise internal questions - why wasn't this done earlier? What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up?
These are rhetorical questions. All big tech leaders appeared in front of Congress in last 4 years, and weasled and squeeked instead of prowl and roar. Spineless and immoral, speaking double speak to appease the board of directors and the shareholders. At some point, the world would be destroyed but we've created a lot of value for our shareholders. Reminds me of this [1]. Pardon my cynicism, open for your comments.
[1] https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/549339156854214656/photo/...
Big Tech leaders are selfish, cowards, clueless and just as vulnerable as the government leaders. They were interested in milking billions in Ads from these hate speech, particularly Twitter.
If I were employees at these big companies, I would raise internal questions - why wasn't this done earlier? What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up?
These are rhetorical questions. All big tech leaders appeared in front of Congress in last 4 years, and weasled and squeeked instead of prowl and roar. Spineless and immoral, speaking double speak to appease the board of directors and the shareholders. At some point, the world would be destroyed but we've created a lot of value for our shareholders. Reminds me of this [1]. Pardon my cynicism, open for your comments.
[1] https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/549339156854214656/photo/...
I think their hesitation was less from missing out on the trump supporter ad traffic and more from fear of retribution of the trump administration and its congressional allies. That faction has now all but lost their political power for the foreseeable future, making it much less risky to undertake the censorship measures.
Remember, two things happened at once: the riots, but also the result of the Georgia runoff which indicated a complete shift in governmental control. One cleared the runway for the reaction to the other.
Remember, two things happened at once: the riots, but also the result of the Georgia runoff which indicated a complete shift in governmental control. One cleared the runway for the reaction to the other.
You're right, all very good points that contrast my cynicism. I am even more worried that if an authoritarian government takes hold of power, corporations would go into survival mode. Look at AliBaba/Jack-Ma situation in extreme case, not sure if that's a fair example.
Look at how the same corporations are operating in China today, as the CCP runs an authoritarian and arguably fascist (in the original sense, regardless of the commie branding) dictatorship. Are any of them denouncing Chairman Xi or taking a stand against the CCP's brutal crackdowns and internment camps bordering on ethnic cleansing? How many of them would still put Taiwan on a map?
But I'm sure they have your best interests at heart.
But I'm sure they have your best interests at heart.
Self-preservation was certainly a part of why there was inaction, as was financial motive. I also think they were rather naïve about their roles & responsibilities and the real world consequence of their own platforms, as well as lacking in a sophisticated understanding of how to do content moderation or even politics. These topics are both very old (social organizing, radicalization, usenet), and very new (primary medium for global discussion, recommendation algorithms, etc).
This is definitely a moment that will define social media specifically and tech more broadly. Before Wednesday, social media was one thing, and after, it will be another. This is also a bit of a backlog being flushed; many of these decisions were likely made months or years ago, and only accelerated by Wednesday's events.
I see this a little like safety regulations - every regulation is written in blood. Perhaps soon so will every major shift in the tech landscape.
This is definitely a moment that will define social media specifically and tech more broadly. Before Wednesday, social media was one thing, and after, it will be another. This is also a bit of a backlog being flushed; many of these decisions were likely made months or years ago, and only accelerated by Wednesday's events.
I see this a little like safety regulations - every regulation is written in blood. Perhaps soon so will every major shift in the tech landscape.
In their defense, I agree with you that this is a first time when global internet connectivity + social media + hatespeech cocktail has become poisonous to our societal health.
We need to deeply think about all this - allowing peaceful, objective, conservative opinions and policy (such as the Lincoln Project) while condemning hate speech, violence, white supremacy and other racist behavior.
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee. " - Nietzsche.
We need to deeply think about all this - allowing peaceful, objective, conservative opinions and policy (such as the Lincoln Project) while condemning hate speech, violence, white supremacy and other racist behavior.
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee. " - Nietzsche.
100%. I’m worried we have a sort of Patriot Act overreach response to this event, rather than a recognition and diagnosis of broad institutional failure that led to this and a set of reforms of those institutions, be they private or public.
> We need to deeply think about all this - allowing peaceful, objective, conservative opinions and policy (such as the Lincoln Project) while condemning hate speech, violence, white supremacy and other racist behavior.
But that’s the problem. Nobody trusts people in Silicon Valley or New York City to decide what those things are. These are people who have internalized ideas like “you can’t be racist against white people” which the vast majority of the country doesn’t share. And they certainly will not apply the same standards to people on the left glorifying violent radicals like Angela Davis. We just saw this happen this summer where the center-left media pretended for months that American cities weren’t on fire.
Your example proves the point. The Lincoln Project are basically fiscally conservative Democrats at this point. They’re not meaningfully conservative on any of the issues that matter to conservatives today: religious liberty, preservation of history, immigration, etc. And it’s not just an American thing. These issues are actually where the US right is increasingly aligned with the European center-right. Censors in NYC and SF would have censored a bunch of stuff people like France’s Macron have been saying lately.
But that’s the problem. Nobody trusts people in Silicon Valley or New York City to decide what those things are. These are people who have internalized ideas like “you can’t be racist against white people” which the vast majority of the country doesn’t share. And they certainly will not apply the same standards to people on the left glorifying violent radicals like Angela Davis. We just saw this happen this summer where the center-left media pretended for months that American cities weren’t on fire.
Your example proves the point. The Lincoln Project are basically fiscally conservative Democrats at this point. They’re not meaningfully conservative on any of the issues that matter to conservatives today: religious liberty, preservation of history, immigration, etc. And it’s not just an American thing. These issues are actually where the US right is increasingly aligned with the European center-right. Censors in NYC and SF would have censored a bunch of stuff people like France’s Macron have been saying lately.
There shouldn't be any problem with these discussions when they're posed without hate. Immigration for example should be discussed in terms of cost/benefit and immigration of talent, policies, etc., not "Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" or outright banning people based on religion (remember Muslim ban?).
The problem is that these are not conservative principles. This is just hate spewing, plain and straight.
The problem is that these are not conservative principles. This is just hate spewing, plain and straight.
> This is just hate spewing, plain and straight.
Hate is an emotion, it is subjective. You might feel hate when you see or hear something, but it is not an intrinsic, objective quality of other people's words.
Without using these emotional trigger words, do you think the citizens of a country should be able to decide who visits them in their country?
Hate is an emotion, it is subjective. You might feel hate when you see or hear something, but it is not an intrinsic, objective quality of other people's words.
Without using these emotional trigger words, do you think the citizens of a country should be able to decide who visits them in their country?
The point wasn't per se about immigration. The point was to have a respectful, intellectual discourse in public. Pick your favorite public policy topic. My point stands, even if we're discussing soy bean pricing laws. Discussing the details of immigration is a massive topic for another day.
To really drive this home:
1) Don't spread hate - there are obvious limits to this. Calling for assassination of public officials counts as hate speech. Saying something offensive is fine as far as it doesn't incite violence.
2) Have an intelligent, evidence based discussion, be respectful and we're trying to move the country forward. Not divide and turn to our own echo chambers. Come to a resolution through debate and concession.
To really drive this home:
1) Don't spread hate - there are obvious limits to this. Calling for assassination of public officials counts as hate speech. Saying something offensive is fine as far as it doesn't incite violence.
2) Have an intelligent, evidence based discussion, be respectful and we're trying to move the country forward. Not divide and turn to our own echo chambers. Come to a resolution through debate and concession.
You can't have an intelligent and non-emotional argument about certain topics in full (e.g. racism, sexuality, politics, immigration, religion), nor can you do so without certain sides invoking some "hate" aura because like it or not, there is a prevailing (and left-leaning) definition that is semi-agreed and pushed by official institutions, and you can't go against it without your argument being labelled "hate".
And no wonder the right feels persecuted, because their beliefs are not necessarily hateful yet they are labelled as such by default. It's like drawing the line somewhere arbitrary and then asking the side whose beliefs are on the other side "why can't you discuss this without resorting to hate speech", and "stop complaining because your side is hateful" and "it's okay for companies to refuse you service because your ideas are hate speech and X-ist".
Few examples of acceptable "hate-speech" that falls within that acceptable line: Anti-white Racism. ACAB. Punch-A-Nazi.
And no wonder the right feels persecuted, because their beliefs are not necessarily hateful yet they are labelled as such by default. It's like drawing the line somewhere arbitrary and then asking the side whose beliefs are on the other side "why can't you discuss this without resorting to hate speech", and "stop complaining because your side is hateful" and "it's okay for companies to refuse you service because your ideas are hate speech and X-ist".
Few examples of acceptable "hate-speech" that falls within that acceptable line: Anti-white Racism. ACAB. Punch-A-Nazi.
And increasingly more and more things are being brought under that umbrella. The right’s doctrine of Constitutional interpretation? According to a sitting US Senator, “racist,” “misogynistic,” and “homophobic.” https://twitter.com/SenMarkey/status/1320808025393868800?s=2...
Immigration is a good example. Cultural relativism has become broadly accepted among the progressive left. As a result, they increasingly can only see immigration as an economic issue. Preserving the country’s existing culture to them isn’t a valid reason, so they deem it “racist.” This is internally consistent to them. If culture doesn’t make a difference, the only reason not to have mass immigration is potential economic downsides, or limited infrastructure. Assimilation and the “Melting Pot” is increasingly coming under attack for the same reason.
This is totally incomprehensible to conservatives, who reject cultural relativism. They believe the success of a society is based on deep-seated cultural features and social reinforcement thereof. (I once had a Japanese person go through hundreds of years of Japanese history to explain to me why the country has less problems with corruption than many other Asian countries.) Within that framework, “we don’t want our community to change” is a completely valid position. At the very least, assimilation is indispensable.
Immigration is a good example. Cultural relativism has become broadly accepted among the progressive left. As a result, they increasingly can only see immigration as an economic issue. Preserving the country’s existing culture to them isn’t a valid reason, so they deem it “racist.” This is internally consistent to them. If culture doesn’t make a difference, the only reason not to have mass immigration is potential economic downsides, or limited infrastructure. Assimilation and the “Melting Pot” is increasingly coming under attack for the same reason.
This is totally incomprehensible to conservatives, who reject cultural relativism. They believe the success of a society is based on deep-seated cultural features and social reinforcement thereof. (I once had a Japanese person go through hundreds of years of Japanese history to explain to me why the country has less problems with corruption than many other Asian countries.) Within that framework, “we don’t want our community to change” is a completely valid position. At the very least, assimilation is indispensable.
> There shouldn't be any problem with these discussions when they're posed without hate. Immigration for example should be discussed in terms of cost/benefit and immigration of talent, policies, etc.,
The idea that immigration is solely about “cost/benefit” and “talent, policies, etc.” is an inherently liberal, and indeed quite radically liberal framing of the issue.
The International Convention on Civil and Political rights recognizes that distinct “peoples’” have a human right to self determination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination. That is, distinct identifiable groups have a right right to self-governance.
That is the basis for national borders as we know them today. But if distinct people have a right to self governance, it follows that nations have a right to control immigration for whatever reason they want, including the characteristics that make them distinct.
It’s wholly legitimate for a country not to take immigrants who they think might change the culture of the country, or not fit in, or simply because they don’t want to. It doesn’t have to be justified with some sort of economic analysis. It’s not “hate spewing” when the Japanese refuse to accept immigrants for no reason other than large scale immigration would change Japan’s culture. It’s likewise not “hate spewing” for someone in Boise Idaho to say “I like my society the way it is, and I don’t want people here who have a different history, political tradition, etc., especially when they’ll be voting on the laws that govern me.”
My family is from Bangladesh. My parents are fairly Americanized, but they really don’t understand some of the subtler things about American culture, like our anti-elitism and love of guns. In Bangladesh, the elite govern and there is no “glorification of the common man.” It was also disarmed by the British, so there is no gun culture. This results in hilarious arguments between my dad and my wife, whose family populated the Oregon coast on the wagon trails, who still hunt for food and hate the government for taking their homestead to build the pacific coast highway. Immigration inherently changes the culture and people are fully entitled to support it or oppose it, or support slowing it or increasing it on that basis.
But liberals usually can’t even see that dimension of the issue because they’ve internalized cultural relativism.
The idea that immigration is solely about “cost/benefit” and “talent, policies, etc.” is an inherently liberal, and indeed quite radically liberal framing of the issue.
The International Convention on Civil and Political rights recognizes that distinct “peoples’” have a human right to self determination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination. That is, distinct identifiable groups have a right right to self-governance.
That is the basis for national borders as we know them today. But if distinct people have a right to self governance, it follows that nations have a right to control immigration for whatever reason they want, including the characteristics that make them distinct.
It’s wholly legitimate for a country not to take immigrants who they think might change the culture of the country, or not fit in, or simply because they don’t want to. It doesn’t have to be justified with some sort of economic analysis. It’s not “hate spewing” when the Japanese refuse to accept immigrants for no reason other than large scale immigration would change Japan’s culture. It’s likewise not “hate spewing” for someone in Boise Idaho to say “I like my society the way it is, and I don’t want people here who have a different history, political tradition, etc., especially when they’ll be voting on the laws that govern me.”
My family is from Bangladesh. My parents are fairly Americanized, but they really don’t understand some of the subtler things about American culture, like our anti-elitism and love of guns. In Bangladesh, the elite govern and there is no “glorification of the common man.” It was also disarmed by the British, so there is no gun culture. This results in hilarious arguments between my dad and my wife, whose family populated the Oregon coast on the wagon trails, who still hunt for food and hate the government for taking their homestead to build the pacific coast highway. Immigration inherently changes the culture and people are fully entitled to support it or oppose it, or support slowing it or increasing it on that basis.
But liberals usually can’t even see that dimension of the issue because they’ve internalized cultural relativism.
America has embodied immigration since the Naturalization Act of 1790, albeit for white persons only. Perhaps you're mistaking a country such as Japan? America is far more liberal than what you indicate. Immigration in the US has always been a major centrist point of view since the dawn of this nation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
The fact that the US long favored immigration under different circumstances doesn’t mean that it’s an impermissible view to oppose it right now. There was a strong period of immigration restriction starting in 1920 where the foreign born population dropped to 5% while the country became culturally much more homogenous due to mass media. The foreign born population started rising again due to the 1965 INA and is now triple what it was in 1970. Also, the country is much more interconnected today since everything was federalized starting in the 1930s. Mass immigration to the coasts—where people coming from different political cultures back home would eventually start voting here-didn’t affect folks in the rest of the country as much during the mass immigration at the turn of the 20th century.
Also, you’re again painting the issue with a liberal brush by talking about “white persons.” That’s a viewpoint rooted cultural relativism—it overlooks that immigrants don’t differ only by race, but culture, political tradition, etc. It’s also incorrect: for example under the 1921 immigration act there was no restriction at all on immigration from Latin America, while it was restricted from every European country to an annual 3% of the existing population of people from that country. (Of course there was a racist element to it as well with the 1924 Asian exclusion act. But that confirms that there are two separate issue.)
I’m not trying to convince you of this point, I’m explaining why we can’t have folks in NYC and SF deciding what political ideas can be expressed online. American liberals have increasingly fully embraced cultural relativism, while American conservatives (and most ordinary people around the world) still believe that “culture matters.” Conservatives assume that culture drives societal differences, and, especially combined with a natural pessimism, are terrified of changes in culture. They also tend to live in the vast swaths of the country that have a low foreign-born population and fairly homogenous cultures. Ironically, as an immigrant myself it’s easy for me to understand someone in Idaho who is afraid of the culture of his community changing. Bangladeshis would feel the same way. Asians, in general, are not cultural relativists.
Also, you’re again painting the issue with a liberal brush by talking about “white persons.” That’s a viewpoint rooted cultural relativism—it overlooks that immigrants don’t differ only by race, but culture, political tradition, etc. It’s also incorrect: for example under the 1921 immigration act there was no restriction at all on immigration from Latin America, while it was restricted from every European country to an annual 3% of the existing population of people from that country. (Of course there was a racist element to it as well with the 1924 Asian exclusion act. But that confirms that there are two separate issue.)
I’m not trying to convince you of this point, I’m explaining why we can’t have folks in NYC and SF deciding what political ideas can be expressed online. American liberals have increasingly fully embraced cultural relativism, while American conservatives (and most ordinary people around the world) still believe that “culture matters.” Conservatives assume that culture drives societal differences, and, especially combined with a natural pessimism, are terrified of changes in culture. They also tend to live in the vast swaths of the country that have a low foreign-born population and fairly homogenous cultures. Ironically, as an immigrant myself it’s easy for me to understand someone in Idaho who is afraid of the culture of his community changing. Bangladeshis would feel the same way. Asians, in general, are not cultural relativists.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Black people getting lynched and yet the violent radical is Angela Davis. Right.
Well, two wrongs don’t make a right. :/
I’m an outsider, have no clue about the fine details, just watching the quarrel degenerate from across the Atlantic.
Usually this is when adults come in to break the fight, drag the screaming parties apart and ground all parties for a week...
I’m an outsider, have no clue about the fine details, just watching the quarrel degenerate from across the Atlantic.
Usually this is when adults come in to break the fight, drag the screaming parties apart and ground all parties for a week...
I don’t even judge her for the 1970 courthouse shooting, but the New York Times is publishing flattering pieces on her even as she continues to support terrorism against Israel.
> even as she continues to support terrorism against Israel.
Which terrorism does she support? Wikipedia only says that she supports BDS.
Which terrorism does she support? Wikipedia only says that she supports BDS.
https://medium.com/@shasta_willson/the-birmingham-civil-righ...
> She has supported confessed terrorist Rasmea Odeh, and called for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a leader of the internationally designated terror group al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In addition to killing many dozens of Israeli civilians, the Brigade did enormous damage to Israeli support for negotiations with Palestinian groups. They were granted amnesty through a Palestinian Authority deal in which they agree to renounce terrorism. Then when Hamas took control of Gaza, they renounced the agreement and resumed attacks on Israeli civilians as Gazan fighters. Angela Davis considers them “freedom fighters” and called for Barghouti’s release, referring to him as a political prisoner. She maintains Odeh’s innocence, and claims her trial was unfair despite International Red Cross observation of the trial and a subsequent confession.
> She has supported confessed terrorist Rasmea Odeh, and called for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a leader of the internationally designated terror group al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In addition to killing many dozens of Israeli civilians, the Brigade did enormous damage to Israeli support for negotiations with Palestinian groups. They were granted amnesty through a Palestinian Authority deal in which they agree to renounce terrorism. Then when Hamas took control of Gaza, they renounced the agreement and resumed attacks on Israeli civilians as Gazan fighters. Angela Davis considers them “freedom fighters” and called for Barghouti’s release, referring to him as a political prisoner. She maintains Odeh’s innocence, and claims her trial was unfair despite International Red Cross observation of the trial and a subsequent confession.
> She has supported confessed terrorist Rasmea Odeh, and called for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a leader of the internationally designated terror group al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In addition to killing many dozens of Israeli civilians, the Brigade did enormous damage to Israeli support for negotiations with Palestinian groups. They were granted amnesty through a Palestinian Authority deal in which they agree to renounce terrorism. Then when Hamas took control of Gaza, they renounced the agreement and resumed attacks on Israeli civilians as Gazan fighters. Angela Davis considers them “freedom fighters” and called for Barghouti’s release, referring to him as a political prisoner. She maintains Odeh’s innocence, and claims her trial was unfair despite International Red Cross observation of the trial and a subsequent confession.
> She has supported confessed terrorist Rasmea Odeh, and called for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a leader of the internationally designated terror group al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In addition to killing many dozens of Israeli civilians, the Brigade did enormous damage to Israeli support for negotiations with Palestinian groups. They were granted amnesty through a Palestinian Authority deal in which they agree to renounce terrorism. Then when Hamas took control of Gaza, they renounced the agreement and resumed attacks on Israeli civilians as Gazan fighters. Angela Davis considers them “freedom fighters” and called for Barghouti’s release, referring to him as a political prisoner. She maintains Odeh’s innocence, and claims her trial was unfair despite International Red Cross observation of the trial and a subsequent confession.
The Lincoln Project is a distinctively bad example; their entire rationale is coded appeals to Democrats. The idea of a political equilibrium consisting of Democrats and Lincoln Project Republicans is wishcasting.
But it's easy to provide real examples of conservative speakers who are experiencing no meaningful interference. So, replace The Lincoln Project with The Federalist.
But it's easy to provide real examples of conservative speakers who are experiencing no meaningful interference. So, replace The Lincoln Project with The Federalist.
I think if you look into the history of hate speech, the internet and social media (defined broadly to include BBS systems and internet forums), you'll see this has been a constant problem.
One that groups like the NAACP and others have been warning about for years if not decades.
One that groups like the NAACP and others have been warning about for years if not decades.
> allowing peaceful, objective, conservative opinions and policy (such as the Lincoln Project
Lol the same lincoln project that said on Twitter they are now building a database of all republicans to chastise them forever? Thats peaceful all right.
Lol the same lincoln project that said on Twitter they are now building a database of all republicans to chastise them forever? Thats peaceful all right.
I've seen some of their hateful ads. Not cool.
There is more to it though: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/opinion/lincoln-project.h...
There is more to it though: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/opinion/lincoln-project.h...
Holding people accountable to their actions? I fail to see the dark path we're walking down unless you think they're suggesting public lynching.
> In their defense, I agree with you that this is a first time when global internet connectivity + social media + hatespeech cocktail has become poisonous to our societal health.
The exact same thing happened when radio was first invented, Nazism rose to power in tandem with mass media that allowed for direct manipulation of people's emotions on a scale that was impossible prior to that.
The exact same thing happened when radio was first invented, Nazism rose to power in tandem with mass media that allowed for direct manipulation of people's emotions on a scale that was impossible prior to that.
We really do because our discourse is being dominated by crazy voices.
What do you think about this?
Minority, Women-Owned Businesses Get First Bid on New PPP Loans - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/minority-...
What about voices like James Lindsay and Christopher Rufo?
We are doubling down on this new era where we are experimenting with the thesis that Discrimination can and will create (long-lasting) Equity. With policies in place for decades like Affirmative Action in the US and BEE in South Africa I'm not convinced in the thesis. Corporations in the US have now went further with more Corporate Affirmative Action programs like Microsofts commitment to hire more Black employees which is being looked into by the Department of Labor as Discrimination (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/department-labor-investigati...). Microsoft is 4.5% Black employees so they are underrepresented as it is.
How do we have discussions on Race? Can Discrimination create Equity?
“The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.” ― Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist
What do you think about this?
Minority, Women-Owned Businesses Get First Bid on New PPP Loans - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/minority-...
What about voices like James Lindsay and Christopher Rufo?
We are doubling down on this new era where we are experimenting with the thesis that Discrimination can and will create (long-lasting) Equity. With policies in place for decades like Affirmative Action in the US and BEE in South Africa I'm not convinced in the thesis. Corporations in the US have now went further with more Corporate Affirmative Action programs like Microsofts commitment to hire more Black employees which is being looked into by the Department of Labor as Discrimination (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/department-labor-investigati...). Microsoft is 4.5% Black employees so they are underrepresented as it is.
How do we have discussions on Race? Can Discrimination create Equity?
“The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.” ― Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist
I respectfully disagree. For better or for worse, Trump was the President of the United States. Yes, Biden won the election, but nearly 47% of the vote went to Trump. How do you think the conservative (and even not-so conservative) part of the electorate would have reacted if Trump was kicked off Twitter before the election?
While Trump is technically still POTUS, he is now seen as trying to undermine the rightful, peaceful transition of power to the next president, and what's important is that viewpoint is not only believed by the left, but now huge swaths of politicians and the electorate who at least gave Trump tacit support.
While Trump is technically still POTUS, he is now seen as trying to undermine the rightful, peaceful transition of power to the next president, and what's important is that viewpoint is not only believed by the left, but now huge swaths of politicians and the electorate who at least gave Trump tacit support.
> What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up?
Why shouldn't it be?
For 4 years they said "we won't suspend a sitting president because we recognize our role in society but once Trump's not sitting he's fair game for bans"
I mean POTUS threatened nuclear war on their _social media platform_ and they let it go...
-
It's quite simple, allowing sitting POTUS special privileges was a means to avoid limiting the reach of the American leadership to its people.
Well now Trump's a lame duck, and he was abusing the sitting president loophole to turn social media into a lightning rod for groups like the one that stormed the Capitol...
The math must have been very simple for them: give him 12? more days of increasing unhinged antics when he's already supposed to have started transitioning power... or don't.
tl;dr: It's no conspiracy that he was deplatformed right before the end of his term, the combination of the Capitol attack being triggered by him and the fact he was already on his way out was all it took.
You ascribe the timing part to greed, but it's even more easily easily ascribed to not wanting to censor the POTUS if possible while they're in power...
Donald Trump didn't suddenly become less profitable to Twitter after the Capitol attack, if anything he would have been more profitable. Note his "usual" account isn't even the POTUS handle, so it wouldn't have been affected by Biden's take over.
Why shouldn't it be?
For 4 years they said "we won't suspend a sitting president because we recognize our role in society but once Trump's not sitting he's fair game for bans"
I mean POTUS threatened nuclear war on their _social media platform_ and they let it go...
-
It's quite simple, allowing sitting POTUS special privileges was a means to avoid limiting the reach of the American leadership to its people.
Well now Trump's a lame duck, and he was abusing the sitting president loophole to turn social media into a lightning rod for groups like the one that stormed the Capitol...
The math must have been very simple for them: give him 12? more days of increasing unhinged antics when he's already supposed to have started transitioning power... or don't.
tl;dr: It's no conspiracy that he was deplatformed right before the end of his term, the combination of the Capitol attack being triggered by him and the fact he was already on his way out was all it took.
You ascribe the timing part to greed, but it's even more easily easily ascribed to not wanting to censor the POTUS if possible while they're in power...
Donald Trump didn't suddenly become less profitable to Twitter after the Capitol attack, if anything he would have been more profitable. Note his "usual" account isn't even the POTUS handle, so it wouldn't have been affected by Biden's take over.
Note that Erdogan, an actual dictator, with military offensives on record (Syria, Karabash, Libya) and war-like operations (radar illumination against French warship, violations of Greece territorial waters) is not restricted at all on Twitter while the only US president in recent times that didn’t send troops abroad or start a new war is censored. It clearly shows that it’s not dangerousity of speech or personality that is censored.
The difference is Erdogan's Twitter account is simply used for press releases. He does not personally post messages that violate their community standards. Regardless of what he does or says elsewhere, it's harder for Twitter to justify closing his account.
> why wasn't this done earlier? What changed? The US Capitol riots is the specific moment that made them all wake up?
Um... yes? Isn't that the most obvious hypothesis? Occam's razor is a good rule for a reason. Abstract concerns about propriety and truthfulness are one thing. An actual assault on the seat of government is very much another.
Um... yes? Isn't that the most obvious hypothesis? Occam's razor is a good rule for a reason. Abstract concerns about propriety and truthfulness are one thing. An actual assault on the seat of government is very much another.
Yeah, they’re cowards - a bit - but let’s be honest they’re in the business of making money, not political activism (besides boilerplate corporate facade.)
Had they acted earlier they would have been punished heavily by the Trump clique, and most likely ousted by their own shareholders, to be replaced by executives that would have done precisely what they have done
Had they acted earlier they would have been punished heavily by the Trump clique, and most likely ousted by their own shareholders, to be replaced by executives that would have done precisely what they have done
They got into the business of political activism when they plastered Black Lives Matter on their websites, app stores, and products this summer. Twitter and Facebook did the same when they censored a NY Post story about a politician this fall. Big Tech is very much about political activism.
That’a what I meant with “besides boilerplate corporate facade”.
Listen, civil rights and social justice are something to be discussed and struggled in the public sphere, which is not corporate life.
You US folks have this Corporatism so deeply ingrained that you are going to drag public discourse into an authoritarian organization where everything is ultimately determined by the Board and not by you. The Board will play along, as long as their interests align and it means free advertisement and good will. But you’re still asking “daddy, can I?”
You want to be political? Unions and party activism out of office hours.
Listen, civil rights and social justice are something to be discussed and struggled in the public sphere, which is not corporate life.
You US folks have this Corporatism so deeply ingrained that you are going to drag public discourse into an authoritarian organization where everything is ultimately determined by the Board and not by you. The Board will play along, as long as their interests align and it means free advertisement and good will. But you’re still asking “daddy, can I?”
You want to be political? Unions and party activism out of office hours.
Stripe profited by the sensationalism and hate Trump generated over the last four years and now, at the end of his presidency, they finally pull the plug? I see nothing laudable here.
Trump doesn't generate that much revenue for Stripe to really care that way.
I don't think anyone does.
I don't think anyone does.
It doesn’t seem so hard to understand. The election and riot provided a big, obvious Schelling point, so everyone who isn’t a Trumpist knows that the time to act is now, because everyone else is moving now.
> no small part due to how the President has run the state in the waning months of his term.
From an outside-the-US perspective, the waning 47 and a half months of his term...
From an outside-the-US perspective, the waning 47 and a half months of his term...
Thing is you can dress it up with ideas of vulnerable moments and apparatus and operations and a uniquely challenging time and all this. But this isn't about Trump, this isn't about now, this is about precedents. If something new and extreme is being done, almost always some extenuating factor will be found to try to justify it.
Trump is an unfortunate edge case and has set bad precedents that can hopefully be wisely washed away in time.
We need clearer and consistent norms in the digital space that are seen to embody the fundamental civic aspects of the nation from which this digital space arose. Such as equal access to certain things, the "dumb-pipes" model for the certain baseline trappings of modern society. Whether or not that means stripe here, I'm talking about the broader moment.
We don't want an escalating tit for tat of one bad thing leading to another. If the violence this summer had been dealt with more soundly, voices of leadership tamping it down instead of egging it on, it seems a good bet the recent activity at the capitol would have been more tame.
Similarly, we don't want to respond to a grasping, ineffectual, quasi-autocrat in the executive branch, with more effective autocratic tendencies in the techno-social sphere.
Trump is an unfortunate edge case and has set bad precedents that can hopefully be wisely washed away in time.
We need clearer and consistent norms in the digital space that are seen to embody the fundamental civic aspects of the nation from which this digital space arose. Such as equal access to certain things, the "dumb-pipes" model for the certain baseline trappings of modern society. Whether or not that means stripe here, I'm talking about the broader moment.
We don't want an escalating tit for tat of one bad thing leading to another. If the violence this summer had been dealt with more soundly, voices of leadership tamping it down instead of egging it on, it seems a good bet the recent activity at the capitol would have been more tame.
Similarly, we don't want to respond to a grasping, ineffectual, quasi-autocrat in the executive branch, with more effective autocratic tendencies in the techno-social sphere.
Precedents set by private companies mean absolutely nothing. Precedents set by a court of law have legal bearing, but they may also be challenged or changed (as long as they’re not judged to be unconstitutional, at least in the US). Worrying about precedent setting by private corporations is like premature optimization: there are bigger problems to focus on.
I feel like your analysis misses the forest for the trees.
Even if Facebook, Twitter, etc, had banned all these platforms and politicians, I'm confident people still would have come out for the protest. Taking away people's ability to organize on mainstream platforms didn't stop the HK protestors from organizing against the CCP. The lack of online platforms didn't stop the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe. Even the Arab Spring, while often attributed to Twitter, happened in the face of mass censorship and Internet shutdowns.
IMHO the decisions to de-platform these groups will do nothing to put a dent in their political ideology, and will only serve to throw gasoline on the fire at a contentious period where many millions of people feel like they don't have a voice. And it's likely that peaceful discourse and political thought will be wiped out as collateral damage as a result of the decisions these companies are making.
Even if Facebook, Twitter, etc, had banned all these platforms and politicians, I'm confident people still would have come out for the protest. Taking away people's ability to organize on mainstream platforms didn't stop the HK protestors from organizing against the CCP. The lack of online platforms didn't stop the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe. Even the Arab Spring, while often attributed to Twitter, happened in the face of mass censorship and Internet shutdowns.
IMHO the decisions to de-platform these groups will do nothing to put a dent in their political ideology, and will only serve to throw gasoline on the fire at a contentious period where many millions of people feel like they don't have a voice. And it's likely that peaceful discourse and political thought will be wiped out as collateral damage as a result of the decisions these companies are making.
Deplatforming has been shown to have worked to reduce the influence of extremists, specifically those that incite violence https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-....
It doesn’t need to work perfectly for it to be useful.
Btw do you know what doesn’t work? Appeasement. That only lets bad actors know that they can go even further. Resisting taking reasonable action for fear of violence is plain old appeasement.
It doesn’t need to work perfectly for it to be useful.
Btw do you know what doesn’t work? Appeasement. That only lets bad actors know that they can go even further. Resisting taking reasonable action for fear of violence is plain old appeasement.
Trying to engage with the MAGA crowd has been an exercise in futility. Despite no evidence of election fraud on the scale that would overturn the result and every institution in the country asserting the election was free and fair, they refuse to accept it. When they do not act in good faith, incite violence and commit terrorist activity - I think these actions, which were the last resort, is the only sane thing to do.
Far from merely lacking evidence, there is plenty of evidence that Trump was planning to play this hand before the election had even taken place. The accusation effectively pre-dates the supposed evidence for it.
Free speech is about protecting the tolerant from an abusive and intolerant state, not to allow the intolerant to insult and attack the tolerant. A much smarter thinker called Popper came up with an eponymous paradox about this
What counts as “horrible hateful speech?” The media has been publishing articles recently with outright racist slurs against white people (using phrases like “unbearable whiteness”). Is that hateful speech? (I think so but then again I’m an elder Millennial.) And does the fact that it’s the President saying something warrant giving him more or less latitude?
The right and moral thing to do was to give the duly elected President latitude until it was massive in scope and objectively false. In my mind, that didn’t happen until last month when he continued to claim the election was stolen after the rejection of his lawsuits.
The right and moral thing to do was to give the duly elected President latitude until it was massive in scope and objectively false. In my mind, that didn’t happen until last month when he continued to claim the election was stolen after the rejection of his lawsuits.
I'm surprised you keep bringing this up, because you know the counterargument here. "Whiteness" is in fact a problematic term. Italians, Jewish people, and the Irish have all been excluded from "whiteness" at times. The term expands as needed to provide solidarity against Black people. "Black", on the other hand, is an actual ethnicity --- the one we created when we kidnapped millions of people in Africa and stripped them of their original culture.
Anti-whiteness crusaders can and frequently do go too far, but I object, strenuously, to the idea that mainstream articles about problematic whiteness are somehow comparable to anti-Black racism. That isn't true, and I think you know that.
Anti-whiteness crusaders can and frequently do go too far, but I object, strenuously, to the idea that mainstream articles about problematic whiteness are somehow comparable to anti-Black racism. That isn't true, and I think you know that.
I agree with your comment for the most part. But this line is pretty misleading:
> the one we created when we kidnapped millions of people in Africa and stripped them of their original culture
Nobody was kidnapped. Individuals were bought from already-existing African slave trade markets(markets which had been run by and for Africans (and Arabs), preceding any European commercial relationship.)
Although you may have used the term kidnapping liberally (& with some artistic license), it is fundamentally not true & very misleading.
In Africa, buying and selling slaves was widespread at the time.
I think the treatment of African slaves(& their descendants) in America is bad enough without having to exaggerate the origin.
> the one we created when we kidnapped millions of people in Africa and stripped them of their original culture
Nobody was kidnapped. Individuals were bought from already-existing African slave trade markets(markets which had been run by and for Africans (and Arabs), preceding any European commercial relationship.)
Although you may have used the term kidnapping liberally (& with some artistic license), it is fundamentally not true & very misleading.
In Africa, buying and selling slaves was widespread at the time.
I think the treatment of African slaves(& their descendants) in America is bad enough without having to exaggerate the origin.
So I guess I don’t understand the counter-argument. I assumed you agreed using “whiteness” as a pejorative is a problem.
I agree anti-Black racism is far more destructive. But I’m not trying to establish a hierarchy of the kinds of racism. I think anti-Black racism is far more destructive than anti-Asian racism, but as an Asian I’m pretty happy to see both kinds be deemed taboo in polite society.
We can’t have someone’s skin color being used in pejorative terms, and insofar as there are many people who think it’s acceptable, that only underscores why I’m tremendously skeptical of private sector censorship, where those people will disproportionately be in charge of shaping debate.
I agree anti-Black racism is far more destructive. But I’m not trying to establish a hierarchy of the kinds of racism. I think anti-Black racism is far more destructive than anti-Asian racism, but as an Asian I’m pretty happy to see both kinds be deemed taboo in polite society.
We can’t have someone’s skin color being used in pejorative terms, and insofar as there are many people who think it’s acceptable, that only underscores why I’m tremendously skeptical of private sector censorship, where those people will disproportionately be in charge of shaping debate.
Thanks for the response. We are probably closer than I thought we were one RTT ago.
I think pejorative anti-whiteness is problematic as a communication strategy; it's counterproductive and you have to be steeped in a national conversation that only a couple hundred thousand people are having to understand how to take it (and I do not think that's true of anti-Black racism).
I also think that a lot of people selling anti-whiteness as an important doctrine are grifters.
But I also think it would be better for everyone if the term died out. I know it won't; Irish/Czech/Spanish people intermarry with German/Scottish people and their kids have no better term, I guess? But there's a notion that "if Black pride is positive, it should be positive to have White pride as well" which I think is deeply wrong. Maybe it was growing up along the South Side Irish parade route in Chicago that programmed me this way, but I see no evidence of European ethnic heritage being suppressed in the US.
I do not trust Twitter, Facebook, or Amazon to censor appropriately in the least. But that doesn't make it hard for me to evaluate these most recent decisions to cut off violent extremists! I'm fine with them booting Parler and DJT even though I'm less than fine with the idea of them evaluating all speech --- of course, that's one of the reasons 1A advocates so strongly support CDA S230.
I think pejorative anti-whiteness is problematic as a communication strategy; it's counterproductive and you have to be steeped in a national conversation that only a couple hundred thousand people are having to understand how to take it (and I do not think that's true of anti-Black racism).
I also think that a lot of people selling anti-whiteness as an important doctrine are grifters.
But I also think it would be better for everyone if the term died out. I know it won't; Irish/Czech/Spanish people intermarry with German/Scottish people and their kids have no better term, I guess? But there's a notion that "if Black pride is positive, it should be positive to have White pride as well" which I think is deeply wrong. Maybe it was growing up along the South Side Irish parade route in Chicago that programmed me this way, but I see no evidence of European ethnic heritage being suppressed in the US.
I do not trust Twitter, Facebook, or Amazon to censor appropriately in the least. But that doesn't make it hard for me to evaluate these most recent decisions to cut off violent extremists! I'm fine with them booting Parler and DJT even though I'm less than fine with the idea of them evaluating all speech --- of course, that's one of the reasons 1A advocates so strongly support CDA S230.
It was massive in scope and objectively false when he claimed Covid-19 was completely under control, compared favorably to the flu, was just misdiagnosed sniffles/flu, that it was going to miraculously disappear, etc
Falsely imprisoned man is angry and lashes out, which proves he wasn't falsely imprisoned in the first place.
The world is backward... my friends that are poor vote republicans and the companies that benefit from the republicans shit on them.
That is by design. The Republican party only serves the wealthy who want government to serve them exclusively. Their numbers are too small to vote themselves into power so they cook up ways to convince disenfranchised groups to glom on. By not enacting policies that satisfy these people, the GOP elites maintain an agitated base that keeps voting for them because they believe all the party propaganda. It's 1984 as an operators manual.
This scheme was almost too successful when the tea partiers got elected and weren't fully on board with the real game plan. They were either assimilated or fell out of favor. Boehner's inability to contol them is why he was reduced to tears.
This scheme was almost too successful when the tea partiers got elected and weren't fully on board with the real game plan. They were either assimilated or fell out of favor. Boehner's inability to contol them is why he was reduced to tears.
I have been having ongoing arguments on this forum with people who just refuse to accept the reality of what is happening.
I think there is a serious mental health crisis in the US right now, and that the majority of Trump supporters are mentally incapable of acknowledging that they have been lied too, taken advantage of, and as a result are on the wrong side of history.
I have been having meaningful conversations with my family about this, and I feel like I am starting to break through.
Unfortunately I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to coddle the bullshit I see people posting these days in defence of this attempted coup and the resulting murders.
Perhaps a better person than me can be civil with these people, but I just don't give a fuck anymore.
I think there is a serious mental health crisis in the US right now, and that the majority of Trump supporters are mentally incapable of acknowledging that they have been lied too, taken advantage of, and as a result are on the wrong side of history.
I have been having meaningful conversations with my family about this, and I feel like I am starting to break through.
Unfortunately I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to coddle the bullshit I see people posting these days in defence of this attempted coup and the resulting murders.
Perhaps a better person than me can be civil with these people, but I just don't give a fuck anymore.
[deleted]
One of the more concerning tactics I've witnessed over the past few years that Trump and other parts of the GOP rhetoric machine were using in service of lying to people.. Convincing people who don't understand very well their rights, democracy, civics, and etc that their RIGHTS were being infringed; by others exercising their rights.
"Stop The Steal" is just another flavor of conflating 1st amendment "freedom of speech" protections with a "RIGHT" to be on some platform or another, or to talk at some venue or another.
"Stop The Steal" is just another flavor of conflating 1st amendment "freedom of speech" protections with a "RIGHT" to be on some platform or another, or to talk at some venue or another.
> Convincing people who don't understand very well their rights, democracy, civics, and etc that their RIGHTS were being infringed; by others exercising their rights.
I dont think we need to infantilize Trump supporters. They are capable of evaluating claims made by the GOP.
I dont think we need to infantilize Trump supporters. They are capable of evaluating claims made by the GOP.
Unfortunately I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that a large percentage of people across the political spectrum lack basic civics knowledge.
We make people take a test to drive.
People should have to take a Civics based test to vote. If someone wants to vote but fails the civics test, they should then immediately qualify for a minimum living wage job to go back to public education and get paid for getting at least an 80% grade at whatever grade level they're working at (obviously with either enrollment at lower grade levels, classification as disability if unable to learn or medically impaired, and similar options also on the table).
The goal would be to make sure that an EDUCATED and Civically Informed public, able to use Critical Thinking skills is the baseline expectation for a functional society in which the general people have the civic duty to be involved in the processes of self government and representative selection for representative democracies.
People should have to take a Civics based test to vote. If someone wants to vote but fails the civics test, they should then immediately qualify for a minimum living wage job to go back to public education and get paid for getting at least an 80% grade at whatever grade level they're working at (obviously with either enrollment at lower grade levels, classification as disability if unable to learn or medically impaired, and similar options also on the table).
The goal would be to make sure that an EDUCATED and Civically Informed public, able to use Critical Thinking skills is the baseline expectation for a functional society in which the general people have the civic duty to be involved in the processes of self government and representative selection for representative democracies.
Ironically you're failing my civics test here, because you seem unaware that tests as a precondition of voting are unconstitutional because they were used for a century to deny black people the right to vote. You real don't want to go down this road: It leads to wide scale targeted voter suppression.
I am aware of that, which is why I expressly stated a related condition of restoring those person's rights as citizens by linking the temporary suspension of those rights to continued education (remediation of the citizen being failed by the state).
You're still failing the civics test, as you don't seem to be aware that the entire point of the poll tests was never to actually test anything, but rather to serve as a pretext to deny people their constitutionally guaranteed voting rights. You can't "fix" this problem by offering remediation measures that would be immediately coopted by exactly the same actors to exactly the same goal. All the continuing education would be is a waste of time and money for the targeted people going through it, as some excuse would still be found to deny their voting rights at the end of it. Do not underestimate the lengths that people will go to for voter suppression. You can't design a program that won't be intentionally warped and abused to serve this ulterior motive, especially considering that you won't be running it; they will be.
We have hundreds of historic examples here of how allowing the denial of voting rights for any reason is an incredibly slippery slope, and it is rightfully banned except in a tiny number of instances (felons) that still need to be rectified. And yes, the war on drugs is itself a successful voter suppression effort -- make enough things illegal, and convict enough people of felonies, and you can meaningfully alter the make-up of the electorate. This has actually happened.
We have hundreds of historic examples here of how allowing the denial of voting rights for any reason is an incredibly slippery slope, and it is rightfully banned except in a tiny number of instances (felons) that still need to be rectified. And yes, the war on drugs is itself a successful voter suppression effort -- make enough things illegal, and convict enough people of felonies, and you can meaningfully alter the make-up of the electorate. This has actually happened.
I agree the War on Drugs is really a voter and general population suppression effort. However while __historically__ what you say did happen, and I do NOT deny it happened, I DISAGREE that it forever bans a properly implemented system that includes true empowerment of an informed and well educated voting population. For what I want to see, again, refer to my original post.
We don't have tests because they were specifically used to disenfranchise large classes of people in the past.
> People should have to take a Civics based test to vote
The problem is what grade level?
1st grade: What country do you live in?
3rd grade: Name all 3 branches of government
6th grade: How is a bill made into a law?
9th grade: Who are your elected representatives and what are their positions on issues A, B & C?
...
PhD: Compare and contrast Hamilton and Jefferson's viewpoints on the Constitutional convention, banking and personal liberties and how they shaped and influenced US policy in the last 40 years (20 pages or less)
Countries have tried an aristocratic, ruling class and it doesn't work because it disenfranchises the masses and leads to a populist revolt.
These tests were also used in the US to disenfranchise minorities who couldn't read or afford to go to school.
Plus, I had a friend in college who was one of the 537 deciding votes in Broward county in 2000 who voted for Bush because "Gore was boring". He was smart and would have easily passed any civics test you gave him, but he voted based on personality rather than any specific issue.
The problem is what grade level?
1st grade: What country do you live in?
3rd grade: Name all 3 branches of government
6th grade: How is a bill made into a law?
9th grade: Who are your elected representatives and what are their positions on issues A, B & C?
...
PhD: Compare and contrast Hamilton and Jefferson's viewpoints on the Constitutional convention, banking and personal liberties and how they shaped and influenced US policy in the last 40 years (20 pages or less)
Countries have tried an aristocratic, ruling class and it doesn't work because it disenfranchises the masses and leads to a populist revolt.
These tests were also used in the US to disenfranchise minorities who couldn't read or afford to go to school.
Plus, I had a friend in college who was one of the 537 deciding votes in Broward county in 2000 who voted for Bush because "Gore was boring". He was smart and would have easily passed any civics test you gave him, but he voted based on personality rather than any specific issue.
This is implicit in the continued public education (as a job) requirement of suspending the voting rights; whatever a current public education consists of. Thus they might have to train up to, at least during the initial test, currently, what a high-school civics test final would be. During the time in (comprehensive) public education that would also be a job they are paid a living wage for. I view (non-broken-window) investment in civel infrastructure as a net good; this includes the education of the people and each individual person.
> what a high-school civics test final would be
Maybe that's the level you feel comfortable with? That's great until someone smarter than you comes along and thinks that the test is too easy and too many "uneducated" people are voting. I love history and politics, but I don't know everything and I know that there are tests that can be drafted that I can't pass. Are you willing to be on the outside looking in, willing to be presented with a test so hard you can't pass it and can't vote? Willing to be represented by officials that you can never peacefully vote out of office? How long until a narcissist decides that they're the only one smart enough to vote? That's unfortunately the fate of every country that's fallen into a dictatorship.
I see that you want an educated electorate but voting tests have been tried before and tons of innocent, smart, well-intentioned people get cut off in the process. Democracy is the only form of government we know of where we can meaningfully and non-violently express our collective opinion as a group. When you take a vote away from someone, they're left with a choice between compliance or violence, neither of which are good.
Maybe, the paid public education you mention would still be a good idea, just without the voting rights test.
Maybe that's the level you feel comfortable with? That's great until someone smarter than you comes along and thinks that the test is too easy and too many "uneducated" people are voting. I love history and politics, but I don't know everything and I know that there are tests that can be drafted that I can't pass. Are you willing to be on the outside looking in, willing to be presented with a test so hard you can't pass it and can't vote? Willing to be represented by officials that you can never peacefully vote out of office? How long until a narcissist decides that they're the only one smart enough to vote? That's unfortunately the fate of every country that's fallen into a dictatorship.
I see that you want an educated electorate but voting tests have been tried before and tons of innocent, smart, well-intentioned people get cut off in the process. Democracy is the only form of government we know of where we can meaningfully and non-violently express our collective opinion as a group. When you take a vote away from someone, they're left with a choice between compliance or violence, neither of which are good.
Maybe, the paid public education you mention would still be a good idea, just without the voting rights test.
Why don't you try ensuring that everybody votes? Seems to work for Australia. You end up with politicians who are interested in appealing to the broadest range of voters rather than trying to make it difficult for the people who would vote against them to vote.
If you think people are too stupid to vote, then you're not trying hard enough to ensure that they have the issues explained to them.
How easy is it to go from "you don't understand civics" so you can't vote, to "you have the wrong religion" or "you have the wrong skin colour" you can't vote.
If you think people are too stupid to vote, then you're not trying hard enough to ensure that they have the issues explained to them.
How easy is it to go from "you don't understand civics" so you can't vote, to "you have the wrong religion" or "you have the wrong skin colour" you can't vote.
> People should have to take a Civics based test to vote.
This has been tried in the US before, many times; some were Federal, but most were state and county level. You should probably read up on it before pitching this idea anymore, because it has never been a good thing.
Also, it's Unconstitutional.
This has been tried in the US before, many times; some were Federal, but most were state and county level. You should probably read up on it before pitching this idea anymore, because it has never been a good thing.
Also, it's Unconstitutional.
[deleted]
The Honda Civics test.
Wouldn't that first requiring proof of voter identification? I'm sure plenty of Trump supporters would be down with this plan.
The thing about voter ID is that it isn't inherently a bad idea, as long as you make it really cheap (ideally free) and convenient to get one. If republicans were actually interested in election integrity and civic participation, they wouldn't keep accidentally forgetting that part. But they're not, so in practice it ends up acting as a tool for discrimination and disenfranchisement.
If Democrats agreed to a universal free voterID for all US citizens that people can get at any post office, the Republicans would 100% go for it. All they truly want is a fair and trusted election. Any claim against this is based purely in conjecture and could easily be proven by simply pushing for some form of voter ID that is not discriminatory.
It’s the Democrats that say an ID to vote is racist, while saying an ID is not racist for things like driving, flying, buying alcohol, working, getting a firearm, welfare checks, and so much more.
It’s the Democrats that literally removed the signature requirement on ballots? (PA) What possible reason is there for this, if not to open the door for fraudulent voting, multiple votes per person etc...
Not a rhetorical question. Someone please help me understand the other side of this?
It’s the Democrats that say an ID to vote is racist, while saying an ID is not racist for things like driving, flying, buying alcohol, working, getting a firearm, welfare checks, and so much more.
It’s the Democrats that literally removed the signature requirement on ballots? (PA) What possible reason is there for this, if not to open the door for fraudulent voting, multiple votes per person etc...
Not a rhetorical question. Someone please help me understand the other side of this?
Many more eloquent words have been written on this topic if you want more depth, but here's are some quick highlights:
- Voting is a right, driving/flying/etc are not. Getting a driver's license is more about certifying your ability to drive than your identity.
- Signature requirements are tricky because they are very subjective. You're counting on the unbiased assessment of thousands of volunteers to determine if signatures match. That doesn't make it racist, but it's easy to imagine a poll worker intentionally or unintentionally disenfranchising valid voters. So the key question is, does it actually reduce voter fraud by more than the false negative rate?
Everywhere I've lived, the voter rolls and the voting process are designed in such a way that adding a free voter ID to the process would change very little. It's already very difficult to orchestrate fraud without detection.
The ACLU put out a fact sheet with some more details on voter ID: https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
- Voting is a right, driving/flying/etc are not. Getting a driver's license is more about certifying your ability to drive than your identity.
- Signature requirements are tricky because they are very subjective. You're counting on the unbiased assessment of thousands of volunteers to determine if signatures match. That doesn't make it racist, but it's easy to imagine a poll worker intentionally or unintentionally disenfranchising valid voters. So the key question is, does it actually reduce voter fraud by more than the false negative rate?
Everywhere I've lived, the voter rolls and the voting process are designed in such a way that adding a free voter ID to the process would change very little. It's already very difficult to orchestrate fraud without detection.
The ACLU put out a fact sheet with some more details on voter ID: https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
> Voting is a right, driving/flying/etc are not. Getting a driver's license is more about certifying your ability to drive than your identity.
Bearing arms is also a right, and yet there are all sorts of restrictions on the exercise of that right.
Bearing arms is also a right, and yet there are all sorts of restrictions on the exercise of that right.
The defining characteristic of "Democracy" is that everyone gets to vote.
In the case of voting it doesn’t matter the identity of the voter. It just matters that they are in fact eligible to vote in that district and are indeed only voting once.
Without some form of ID or some one-time-use voucher that can only be obtained by eligible voters, how could anyone trust the veracity of the system? Honor system? Seems weak.
Without some form of ID or some one-time-use voucher that can only be obtained by eligible voters, how could anyone trust the veracity of the system? Honor system? Seems weak.
> The thing about voter ID is that it isn't inherently a bad idea, as long as you make it really cheap (ideally free) and convenient to get one.
That would be lovely.
> If republicans were actually interested in election integrity and civic participation
I have no hope in this will come to pass.
That would be lovely.
> If republicans were actually interested in election integrity and civic participation
I have no hope in this will come to pass.
>The thing about voter ID is that it isn't inherently a bad idea...
This is very true. The same people who often argue loudly for privacy, security, are willing to have a hole in the election system, probably the more important of any of those things.
Up to now, it's been "well, there's very little fraud going on", as if that makes it fine to ignore. Showing ID to vote in our most fundamental democratic process is NOT a stupid or crazy idea. And it has become the rallying cry of the paranoid and conspiracy believers.
Fault the Democrats for letting themselves be accused of voter fraud in the name of not making it hard to vote (solution: give everyone the IDs they need, easily, as suggested), and fault the Republicans for using voter ID as a way to make it harder to vote (solution: stop being underhanded jerks).
And lastly, I have to fault the people who can't get their shit together enough once per 5 or 10 years (ID expiration timescale) for such an important piece of identification and key to so many other things. How do they get through life every day if they can't even do this one thing that infrequently? And sadly, how bad a situation is it that your party has to rely on these people to get you over the majority line?
This is very true. The same people who often argue loudly for privacy, security, are willing to have a hole in the election system, probably the more important of any of those things.
Up to now, it's been "well, there's very little fraud going on", as if that makes it fine to ignore. Showing ID to vote in our most fundamental democratic process is NOT a stupid or crazy idea. And it has become the rallying cry of the paranoid and conspiracy believers.
Fault the Democrats for letting themselves be accused of voter fraud in the name of not making it hard to vote (solution: give everyone the IDs they need, easily, as suggested), and fault the Republicans for using voter ID as a way to make it harder to vote (solution: stop being underhanded jerks).
And lastly, I have to fault the people who can't get their shit together enough once per 5 or 10 years (ID expiration timescale) for such an important piece of identification and key to so many other things. How do they get through life every day if they can't even do this one thing that infrequently? And sadly, how bad a situation is it that your party has to rely on these people to get you over the majority line?
There really is something seriously fishy with how "Voter ID" is being fought against and dismissed. Here you have a nearly 100% effective method of silencing the complaints of the "not accepting the fair election result" Republicans, and yet no one wants to explore it. Not only that, but it might even serve to promote participation and ease of voting, yet still... we get nebulous and down-right dismissive reasons why it can't be put in place.
In reality, 35 states had voter identification laws in place in the 2020 elections[1], including Georgia which has a strict photo ID law.
So apparently it's not 100% effective at silencing complaints about voting fraud.
[1] https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-...
So apparently it's not 100% effective at silencing complaints about voting fraud.
[1] https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-...
Here's an example of a question on a real poll test:
Spell backwards, forwards.
The answer is "backwards"... except I told you to spell it "forwards". You fail. You can't vote.
Oh, and, yes: One wrong answer means you can't vote.
I got a whole test worth right here:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
One more question:
Draw five circles that one common inter-locking part.
No matter how you interpret that, it's wrong, and you can't say otherwise without being lynched.
Spell backwards, forwards.
The answer is "backwards"... except I told you to spell it "forwards". You fail. You can't vote.
Oh, and, yes: One wrong answer means you can't vote.
I got a whole test worth right here:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/voting-literacy-test
One more question:
Draw five circles that one common inter-locking part.
No matter how you interpret that, it's wrong, and you can't say otherwise without being lynched.
And yet they believe outright lies, lies repeated by GOP leaders, journalists etc, who at the same time denigrated the main stream media and scientists, eroding trust in neutral institutions.
Evaluations are hard to make when all the sources you trust are lying to you.
Evaluations are hard to make when all the sources you trust are lying to you.
In 1861 the Senate expelled 10 senators for being involved in a conspiracy against the United States. And 7 years later, the 14th amendment was passed.
The lies for profit charlatans basically get away with it. But I do not think members of Congress should. Every single one of those who voted on false pretenses to overturn an election last week, should be expelled. That is the fraud that has happened in this election.
The lies for profit charlatans basically get away with it. But I do not think members of Congress should. Every single one of those who voted on false pretenses to overturn an election last week, should be expelled. That is the fraud that has happened in this election.
Democrats have challenged electors for dumb reasons before. It's their right. Get a grip.
They didn't tell millions of people that the election had been outright stolen. Not even in 2016 when it pretty much was.
It’s weird that you say no one said the the election has been stolen, yet you also say it pretty much was. Did you just wake up one morning and think maybe there was something askew with the election and go and do tons of investigative work on your own? Or did someone tell you that?
There’s lots to criticize Trump about, but what you wrote is wrong and not in a minor way.
There’s lots to criticize Trump about, but what you wrote is wrong and not in a minor way.
2016 was stolen? by whom, the Russians?
Here's the thing: How can you expect any one to believe on the one hand that for four years we have had an illegitimate president who is simultaneously a Russian agent and Orange Hitler...
and yet tell me that 2020 was a perfectly run election?
Are you telling me that patriotic Americans across the country would not due their duty to remove an illegitimate President by any means necessary (including fraud)?
I'm not even saying 2020 was stolen, but the cognitive dissonance in saying 2020 was legit but 2016 was not is massive.
Here's the thing: How can you expect any one to believe on the one hand that for four years we have had an illegitimate president who is simultaneously a Russian agent and Orange Hitler...
and yet tell me that 2020 was a perfectly run election?
Are you telling me that patriotic Americans across the country would not due their duty to remove an illegitimate President by any means necessary (including fraud)?
I'm not even saying 2020 was stolen, but the cognitive dissonance in saying 2020 was legit but 2016 was not is massive.
I don't think Russia hacked servers or anything like that. But the fact is that Russia made a very large and active effort to interfere in the US election, as laid out very clearly in the Senate report. It's not something we consider stealing in the ordinary sense, but that's only because it's significantly more sophisticated than what the MAGA mob is currently trying to do.
(The US has interfered in other countries' elections before, of course.)
(The US has interfered in other countries' elections before, of course.)
> But the fact is that Russia made a very large and active effort to interfere in the US election, as laid out very clearly in the Senate report.
Yes, they engaged social media campaigns, although I don't think it was enough to influence the outcome of 2016.
But many people are convinced it was, and that believe that Trump has never been a legitimate president. Do you not think people would take steps to prevent an illegitimate president from winning re-election?
Yes, they engaged social media campaigns, although I don't think it was enough to influence the outcome of 2016.
But many people are convinced it was, and that believe that Trump has never been a legitimate president. Do you not think people would take steps to prevent an illegitimate president from winning re-election?
Those challenges weren't based on lies and charlatanry. Voter suppression is real and significant.
Are you prepared to offer the level of evidence to support your position that you expect of Trump supporters in proving their claims of voter fraud?
We've seen poll after poll for a couple decades showing that Fox News viewers have a weaker grip on the facts than other news consumers. And we've seen that the conservative movement in the US will cling to ideas that aren't embraced by any other major parties in the Western world. And that most Republicans will accept a lie like "the steal" with no evidence, and even despite ample evidence to the contrary.
I don't want to infantilize anyone, but I'm not going to pretend that most Trump supporters are fully understanding the facts but simply coming to different conclusions. They are clearly and proudly ignoring the facts.
I don't want to infantilize anyone, but I'm not going to pretend that most Trump supporters are fully understanding the facts but simply coming to different conclusions. They are clearly and proudly ignoring the facts.
> We've seen poll after poll for a couple decades showing that Fox News viewers have a weaker grip on the facts than other news consumers
It's even worse than that: At least one analysis has shown that Fox News viewers were worse informed than people who don't consume any news at all.
IOW, Fox (and to a lesser extent, MSNBC) has negative information value.
It's even worse than that: At least one analysis has shown that Fox News viewers were worse informed than people who don't consume any news at all.
IOW, Fox (and to a lesser extent, MSNBC) has negative information value.
Ah, yes, the famous polls which predicted a 99/1 landslide win for Hillary
A dice has an 83% chance of not landing on 6. It still, at times, lands on 6.
>They are capable of evaluating claims made by the GOP.
Do you really believe that?
Do you really believe that?
The events at the capitol were very bad yes.
But I get the sense people are talking past each other to a degree because there are levels to this.
It goes beyond trying to figure out what the hell happened at the capitol and figuring out how best to prevent it in the future, while maintaining a healthy non-repressive society.
One issue is that these private businesses have become something close to, if not de facto public utilities/infrastructure.
If you ask around you can learn that this "private business overreach" of "big brother" drawing the bounds of "permissible free speech" has actually been going on for some time.
The "private business overreach" part of the story is getting more attention because it has been directed at the most visible person on the planet. Or, was the most visible until Twitter et al, performed "private business overreach" reducing his visibility considerably and simultaneously getting people's attention and raising questions about the nature of power, communication, etc. in the current age.
Another issue is that the "rules" for who and what gets booted and censored from these realms by an always shifting, opaque, and selectively enforced set of rules is to a statistically significant degree clearly bunched in certain areas of the ideological matrix. Are the actors in these areas of the matrix just more prone to breaking the rules or are "the rules" whatever they are today, selectively and over-zealously enforced in order to repress certain ideas and perspectives?
Is there some objective standard against high level US politicians doing things that could be interpreted as inciting, instigating, or glorifying violence?
How about Kamala Harriss posting a bail fund for violent rioters and criminals this past summer, wouldn't that fall squarely over the line of inciting, or instigating, or glorifying violence?
Curiously, crickets around that one...
> just tells me that things really went too far and should have been shut down much sooner.
So is this advocating for enforcement of "pre-crime?" We should keep an eye out for people saying things we don't like then repress their ability to act in the digital age, to prevent them from committing a future crime we have projected onto them?
> The fact that all these institutions just allowed this horrible hateful speech for four years, in the name of free speech etc, despite all the harassment, harm (mental and otherwise) it caused to so many people in America actually emboldened so many to the extent that now that they crossed this invisible line, they can't even really understand the ramifications of what happened. That what gets me.
Hate is an emotion, emotions are subjective. There is no clear objective measure of what is "hateful speech." "Speech" is a noun, an objective thing. Free speech, as in, as little restrictions on speech as are feasible was a great insight by America's founding fathers as to what would contribute to a healthy, dynamic, non-repressive society. Turns out they were right about a lot of things.
Americans today have to be adults and understand that content of speech and someone's actions are different things. The speech of someone like Trump is actually much closer to being an action. But you can't just start repressing speech no matter how "hateful" unfortunately. How about contributing with Love wherever you see hate?
> a few feet away from irreversibly staining American history
Sometimes I think back to another time in the recent past when there was an even more clear and present danger to members of the highest level of the federal govt. I think back in a shocked disbelief of "Holy cow... what if some large fraction of the Congress was murdered in one day?"
Does anybody even remember that?! It was just a couple years ago, multiple shots were fired at Congressmen at a baseball game. It's shocking to think what could have been then.
But it just seems to have dropped off the radar. I wonder why there wasn't a crackdown then on speech about things like Rachel Maddow/NYT/Media Establishment type conspiracies, or even any interest in a public airing of the attacker's motivations.
But I get the sense people are talking past each other to a degree because there are levels to this.
It goes beyond trying to figure out what the hell happened at the capitol and figuring out how best to prevent it in the future, while maintaining a healthy non-repressive society.
One issue is that these private businesses have become something close to, if not de facto public utilities/infrastructure.
If you ask around you can learn that this "private business overreach" of "big brother" drawing the bounds of "permissible free speech" has actually been going on for some time.
The "private business overreach" part of the story is getting more attention because it has been directed at the most visible person on the planet. Or, was the most visible until Twitter et al, performed "private business overreach" reducing his visibility considerably and simultaneously getting people's attention and raising questions about the nature of power, communication, etc. in the current age.
Another issue is that the "rules" for who and what gets booted and censored from these realms by an always shifting, opaque, and selectively enforced set of rules is to a statistically significant degree clearly bunched in certain areas of the ideological matrix. Are the actors in these areas of the matrix just more prone to breaking the rules or are "the rules" whatever they are today, selectively and over-zealously enforced in order to repress certain ideas and perspectives?
Is there some objective standard against high level US politicians doing things that could be interpreted as inciting, instigating, or glorifying violence?
How about Kamala Harriss posting a bail fund for violent rioters and criminals this past summer, wouldn't that fall squarely over the line of inciting, or instigating, or glorifying violence?
Curiously, crickets around that one...
> just tells me that things really went too far and should have been shut down much sooner.
So is this advocating for enforcement of "pre-crime?" We should keep an eye out for people saying things we don't like then repress their ability to act in the digital age, to prevent them from committing a future crime we have projected onto them?
> The fact that all these institutions just allowed this horrible hateful speech for four years, in the name of free speech etc, despite all the harassment, harm (mental and otherwise) it caused to so many people in America actually emboldened so many to the extent that now that they crossed this invisible line, they can't even really understand the ramifications of what happened. That what gets me.
Hate is an emotion, emotions are subjective. There is no clear objective measure of what is "hateful speech." "Speech" is a noun, an objective thing. Free speech, as in, as little restrictions on speech as are feasible was a great insight by America's founding fathers as to what would contribute to a healthy, dynamic, non-repressive society. Turns out they were right about a lot of things.
Americans today have to be adults and understand that content of speech and someone's actions are different things. The speech of someone like Trump is actually much closer to being an action. But you can't just start repressing speech no matter how "hateful" unfortunately. How about contributing with Love wherever you see hate?
> a few feet away from irreversibly staining American history
Sometimes I think back to another time in the recent past when there was an even more clear and present danger to members of the highest level of the federal govt. I think back in a shocked disbelief of "Holy cow... what if some large fraction of the Congress was murdered in one day?"
Does anybody even remember that?! It was just a couple years ago, multiple shots were fired at Congressmen at a baseball game. It's shocking to think what could have been then.
But it just seems to have dropped off the radar. I wonder why there wasn't a crackdown then on speech about things like Rachel Maddow/NYT/Media Establishment type conspiracies, or even any interest in a public airing of the attacker's motivations.
What did Trump say/do that called for violence? Why could rioters just go to the capitol?
Seeing a dozen news articles the best argument seems to be that the mention of not attending the inauguration was a call for violence. I don't buy it.
Seeing a dozen news articles the best argument seems to be that the mention of not attending the inauguration was a call for violence. I don't buy it.
> ...not attending the inauguration was a call for violence. I don't buy it.
It's a soft signal, one that really you should be looking at the wider context of the last 4 years and especially the last few months, rather than just in isolation.
And to the mind of someone willing to use violence (such as say, those involved in the capitol riot), it becomes "hey guys, I still believe the election was stolen by those dirty libs and I won't be at this location, so if anything bad happens there, I won't be hurt. Wink Wink, nudge nudge."
We have seen what his base will do. There is no longer a time to discuss hypotheticals, they will storm a goverment office with weapons, they will kill people, they will use IEDs, and they will put the Trump cult ahead of America; because that is what they did, in a Western capital of all places.
It's a soft signal, one that really you should be looking at the wider context of the last 4 years and especially the last few months, rather than just in isolation.
And to the mind of someone willing to use violence (such as say, those involved in the capitol riot), it becomes "hey guys, I still believe the election was stolen by those dirty libs and I won't be at this location, so if anything bad happens there, I won't be hurt. Wink Wink, nudge nudge."
We have seen what his base will do. There is no longer a time to discuss hypotheticals, they will storm a goverment office with weapons, they will kill people, they will use IEDs, and they will put the Trump cult ahead of America; because that is what they did, in a Western capital of all places.
wnevets(2)
The left (including prominent politicians and media figures) are more than willing to provide cover or excuse political violence conducted for their side, and left-wing extremists used FB, Twitter, etc. to coordinate their actions over the past summer.
This is not about removing "hate". This is about removing political opposition.
The WalkAway campaign's FB page was removed, despite no violent content.
The Articles of Unity project has been deplatformed from Twitter (and I believe FB) for a while with no justification and absolutely no hateful content whatsoever.
Yes, there are many high-profile targets that seem easy to justify, but a much larger swath of those affected are completely unjustifiable.
This is not about removing "hate". This is about removing political opposition.
The WalkAway campaign's FB page was removed, despite no violent content.
The Articles of Unity project has been deplatformed from Twitter (and I believe FB) for a while with no justification and absolutely no hateful content whatsoever.
Yes, there are many high-profile targets that seem easy to justify, but a much larger swath of those affected are completely unjustifiable.
I'm one of those people who has always loathed both liberals and conservatives, but the attack on the capitol went way too far. You guys want to march around and yell in the streets, I actually don't have a problem with it. I find it annoying, but as long as you're not killing anyone, I don't care. However, you want to go into congress and subvert the Constitutional order? Yeah, that's a whole different issue.
I'm sorry if the conservatives can't understand the difference between BLM people yelling in the streets, and Trump people searching the capitol for senators and representatives to stop a Constitutionally mandated vote count. (Actually that was a lie, I'm not sorry. I don't give a mosquito's dick about either of you. I was just trying to be nice.) I'm done trying to explain the difference to these people, and I think these terrorists have pushed a lot of people off the fence with me. People are fed up. You don't understand the difference? You think too much of it's unjustified? Too bad. This is the way it's gotta be. We're not going to live in anarchy because conservatives and liberals want to play out crips and bloods on our republic.
End rant.
Edit: Man I'm getting old. That reads like I just told some kids to get off my lawn. But that's how I feel.
I'm sorry if the conservatives can't understand the difference between BLM people yelling in the streets, and Trump people searching the capitol for senators and representatives to stop a Constitutionally mandated vote count. (Actually that was a lie, I'm not sorry. I don't give a mosquito's dick about either of you. I was just trying to be nice.) I'm done trying to explain the difference to these people, and I think these terrorists have pushed a lot of people off the fence with me. People are fed up. You don't understand the difference? You think too much of it's unjustified? Too bad. This is the way it's gotta be. We're not going to live in anarchy because conservatives and liberals want to play out crips and bloods on our republic.
End rant.
Edit: Man I'm getting old. That reads like I just told some kids to get off my lawn. But that's how I feel.
> I'm sorry if the conservatives can't understand the difference between BLM people yelling in the streets, and Trump people searching the capitol for senators and representatives to stop a Constitutionally mandated vote count.
That is manifestly not the comparison being made. Antifa and BLM rioters burned down apartment buildings with people still inside in Kenosha. Over the summer, dozens of people were killed and there was billions of property damage (that's peoples homes and livelihoods, not just "stuff"). And Democratic politicians - including the VP-elect - provided bail for these criminals. Many democratic DAs in cities like Portland simply refused to press charges.
That being said, I abhor that Capitol police were attacked and that there were people who breached the Capitol with violent intent. But the deplatformings have gone well beyond the fringe few who actually engaged or promoted violence.
That is manifestly not the comparison being made. Antifa and BLM rioters burned down apartment buildings with people still inside in Kenosha. Over the summer, dozens of people were killed and there was billions of property damage (that's peoples homes and livelihoods, not just "stuff"). And Democratic politicians - including the VP-elect - provided bail for these criminals. Many democratic DAs in cities like Portland simply refused to press charges.
That being said, I abhor that Capitol police were attacked and that there were people who breached the Capitol with violent intent. But the deplatformings have gone well beyond the fringe few who actually engaged or promoted violence.
I don't think you're hearing me. I said I don't give a mosquito's dick about either of you. If you want to burn down your neighborhoods, go right ahead. You go to the Capitol to commit violence, it's an entirely different story. A coup is orders of magnitude more serious than street violence. You act as though thugs beating each other up in the streets is the same as thugs coming to the capitol to beat up our senators in an attempt to thwart the Constitution. It's not. I don't care whether or not you understand that it's not. It's gone way too far, and it's time to bring things back in hand. Be mad if it brings you comfort, but keep your thugs in the streets and away from our capitol and political leaders.
You seem pretty bothered by the street violence, I would advise you to stay away from the Capitol and instead report the street violence to your local constabulary. That's the best I can do for you.
You seem pretty bothered by the street violence, I would advise you to stay away from the Capitol and instead report the street violence to your local constabulary. That's the best I can do for you.
I don't know why you are talking to me as if I have any influence, but the contrast of your concern for the well-being of politicians with your apparent disregard for the well-being of innocent civilians is disquieting.
Again, I think you're still not hearing me. Politicians are, for the most part, liberals and conservatives. I don't give a mosquito's dick about any of them as people. As Constitutionally elected representatives of the people of the US, however, they mean everything. Especially while they are implementing the transfer of power mandated by the Constitutional order.
If you have trouble understanding this distinction, that's OK. No one really needs you to understand it. Just stay away from them, and we shouldn't have any problems.
If you have trouble understanding this distinction, that's OK. No one really needs you to understand it. Just stay away from them, and we shouldn't have any problems.
> As Constitutionally elected representatives of the people of the US, however, they mean everything.
Ah, I see what you are saying now.
I don't think I agree.
> Just stay away from them, and we shouldn't have any problems.
Again, why are you talking like I have anything to do with that?
Ah, I see what you are saying now.
I don't think I agree.
> Just stay away from them, and we shouldn't have any problems.
Again, why are you talking like I have anything to do with that?
> To be hyperfocused on the free speech or "big brother" aspect of these bans, not the fact that a small group of rioters were just a few feet away from irreversibly staining American history
This. Violence, intimidation and death are the ultimate forms of censorship. Much more so than having to switch your digital payment processor or having to self-host your blog or social media app.
Germany decided after WWII that it was better to mass-censor Naziism than it was to let Nazis freely organize or spread their ideas again. It's not that Germany doesn't like free speech, it's that Naziism and free speech are diametrically opposed and forced to make a choice, they choose free speech.
It seems like a contradiction where censorship promotes free speech, but it all depends on your timeline. In the short term banning Nazis limits free speech, in the long run banning Nazis increases free speech.
When we give violent groups space to grow and organize, we're more anti-free speech than we realize because the capital riots are the inevitable arc (and only the opening act) for very small groups to violently oppress large numbers of peaceful citizens who love democracy.
This. Violence, intimidation and death are the ultimate forms of censorship. Much more so than having to switch your digital payment processor or having to self-host your blog or social media app.
Germany decided after WWII that it was better to mass-censor Naziism than it was to let Nazis freely organize or spread their ideas again. It's not that Germany doesn't like free speech, it's that Naziism and free speech are diametrically opposed and forced to make a choice, they choose free speech.
It seems like a contradiction where censorship promotes free speech, but it all depends on your timeline. In the short term banning Nazis limits free speech, in the long run banning Nazis increases free speech.
When we give violent groups space to grow and organize, we're more anti-free speech than we realize because the capital riots are the inevitable arc (and only the opening act) for very small groups to violently oppress large numbers of peaceful citizens who love democracy.
A few issues:
1) The most radicalized are by Q. Which itself is a disinformation campaign, contributed to by government entities.
2) Bernie sanders brags about occupying government buildings. Would he be held to the same standard? OAC praised BLM protesters marching on the White House a few months ago, with Antifa trying to breach police lines and storm the White House. Should we throw her in jail for sedition. How about Pelosi that asked the army to ignore orders from Trump.
The US might be a democracy. But just because you can vote, does not mean you have any meaningful amount of power. The powerful cabal of corrupt politicians, and their rich backers, they have power. And they have been there for a very long time. They are almost impossible to displace. This breach shook them, because it was common, everyday people that did this. The same people that have had their livelihood destroyed, and have been hurt by all the COVID rules, rioting, trade deals with foreign countries, and so on.
Trump is great for democracy. At every turn he exposes the hypocrisy of the current system. He needles them, and each time they over react. Exposing all their flaws. The amount of backstabbing he gets just from the Republican party, is waking up millions of people.
Thanks to him, we found out how convoluted and non transparent the election process is. How biased the media is. How the Supreme court cowers to political pressure. And now how big tech is working in collusion.
All things that a democratic movement can help to fix.
1) The most radicalized are by Q. Which itself is a disinformation campaign, contributed to by government entities.
2) Bernie sanders brags about occupying government buildings. Would he be held to the same standard? OAC praised BLM protesters marching on the White House a few months ago, with Antifa trying to breach police lines and storm the White House. Should we throw her in jail for sedition. How about Pelosi that asked the army to ignore orders from Trump.
The US might be a democracy. But just because you can vote, does not mean you have any meaningful amount of power. The powerful cabal of corrupt politicians, and their rich backers, they have power. And they have been there for a very long time. They are almost impossible to displace. This breach shook them, because it was common, everyday people that did this. The same people that have had their livelihood destroyed, and have been hurt by all the COVID rules, rioting, trade deals with foreign countries, and so on.
Trump is great for democracy. At every turn he exposes the hypocrisy of the current system. He needles them, and each time they over react. Exposing all their flaws. The amount of backstabbing he gets just from the Republican party, is waking up millions of people.
Thanks to him, we found out how convoluted and non transparent the election process is. How biased the media is. How the Supreme court cowers to political pressure. And now how big tech is working in collusion.
All things that a democratic movement can help to fix.
> Bernie sanders brags about occupying government buildings.
Your whataboutism fails when I ask you how many police officers Bernie Sanders bludgeoned to death.
Your whataboutism fails when I ask you how many police officers Bernie Sanders bludgeoned to death.
How many police have you seen Trump bludgeon to death?
Manson was convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his life even though he wasn't at the Tate-LaBianca murders.
> Bernie sanders brags about occupying government buildings. Would he be held to the same standard? OAC praised BLM protesters marching on the White House a few months ago, with Antifa trying to breach police lines and storm the White House.
This is "what about"-ism. It deflects responsibility and puts the focus on other's behavior. In this philosophy for one side to accept that what they did was bad, it requires every single other person in the world to be perfect, which is obviously impossible and therefor insulates the person from criticism.
But, I'll indulge anyway.
Occupying a building is a form of civil disobedience, which in the US is a respected form of protest. I don't know what incident you're talking about with Bernie, but the results matter. Did he schedule the occupation of a government building that threatened the lives of elected officials and killed a police officer? Or was it a peaceful protest?
For AOC, was she praising the mass of peaceful protestors and what they stood for or was she praising an attempt to breach the White House? There's a big difference, so I want to be clear. If it was the later, then that is definitely dangerous.
But praising or bragging is a far cry from planning, persuading and instigating. Plus, Bernie and AOC aren't the leader of the free world. The President has a responsibility to serve the entire US, all 330M, regardless of who voted for him or against him. Bernie has a responsibility to Vermont and AOC to the Bronx. It's apples and oranges. If you want the highest public office in the country, you need to be held to the highest standards and not complain about how those with far less power might have acted.
This is "what about"-ism. It deflects responsibility and puts the focus on other's behavior. In this philosophy for one side to accept that what they did was bad, it requires every single other person in the world to be perfect, which is obviously impossible and therefor insulates the person from criticism.
But, I'll indulge anyway.
Occupying a building is a form of civil disobedience, which in the US is a respected form of protest. I don't know what incident you're talking about with Bernie, but the results matter. Did he schedule the occupation of a government building that threatened the lives of elected officials and killed a police officer? Or was it a peaceful protest?
For AOC, was she praising the mass of peaceful protestors and what they stood for or was she praising an attempt to breach the White House? There's a big difference, so I want to be clear. If it was the later, then that is definitely dangerous.
But praising or bragging is a far cry from planning, persuading and instigating. Plus, Bernie and AOC aren't the leader of the free world. The President has a responsibility to serve the entire US, all 330M, regardless of who voted for him or against him. Bernie has a responsibility to Vermont and AOC to the Bronx. It's apples and oranges. If you want the highest public office in the country, you need to be held to the highest standards and not complain about how those with far less power might have acted.
> Occupying a building is a form of civil disobedience, which in the US is a respected form of protest.
Assuming the owners of said building do not want you there, occupying a building is at best trespassing and at worst breaking and entering.
Civil disobedience is explicitly breaking a law because you believe it to be unjust, with the full expectation that you will be arrested and possibly punished for your actions.
When most people talk about "protesting", I don't think that's what they're talking about.
Assuming the owners of said building do not want you there, occupying a building is at best trespassing and at worst breaking and entering.
Civil disobedience is explicitly breaking a law because you believe it to be unjust, with the full expectation that you will be arrested and possibly punished for your actions.
When most people talk about "protesting", I don't think that's what they're talking about.
i mean aoc’s referenced sit in was in a federal building open to the public, it’s just being passively noncompliant in a public space. like i’m sitting on the floor in the office and it’s sort of obnoxious but i certainly did not break a law getting here. okay, so now someone asks me to leave and i say no, i am making thus and such a point. then the police come and take me away, typically without incident.
i imagine the person relating this kind of action, practiced en masse since the 60s across civil rights, nuclear nonproliferation, environmental, LGBT movements with storming barricades, dragging police from windows and beating them to death, and literally threatening the seat of government did not actually intend to conflate the two sorts of events.
i imagine the person relating this kind of action, practiced en masse since the 60s across civil rights, nuclear nonproliferation, environmental, LGBT movements with storming barricades, dragging police from windows and beating them to death, and literally threatening the seat of government did not actually intend to conflate the two sorts of events.
OC was talking about government buildings which are typically open to the public.
I think you're talking about privately owned buildings.
I think you're talking about privately owned buildings.
> leader of the free world
Always a rather arrogant phrase, but especially absurd now.
Always a rather arrogant phrase, but especially absurd now.
As a member of the "Free World", not a citizen of the US, can I please be exempt from being lead by the US and any of its leaders.
There was a point in time when the US was seen as having some degree of leadership, mostly because it's military power. These days I think it's seen by many as being a bit of a bully boy only useful in keeping some degree of balance with the other bully boys.
There was a point in time when the US was seen as having some degree of leadership, mostly because it's military power. These days I think it's seen by many as being a bit of a bully boy only useful in keeping some degree of balance with the other bully boys.
> ...the fact that a small group of rioters were just a few feet away from irreversibly staining American history with the blood of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the chain of command of the United states of America...
Let me ask for a quick accounting here - what is the evidence for this? My understanding is 100% of the gun deaths were from guns in the hands of law enforcement officers who were perfectly capable of defending themselves when pushed. There are a bunch of instantly iconic photos [0] with basically no weapons in the hands of protestors. They clearly didn't plan on breaching the Capitol or they'd have realised that they were all about to go to jail forever.
This is a not a mob out for literal blood.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/capitol-mob-deaths/ind...
Let me ask for a quick accounting here - what is the evidence for this? My understanding is 100% of the gun deaths were from guns in the hands of law enforcement officers who were perfectly capable of defending themselves when pushed. There are a bunch of instantly iconic photos [0] with basically no weapons in the hands of protestors. They clearly didn't plan on breaching the Capitol or they'd have realised that they were all about to go to jail forever.
This is a not a mob out for literal blood.
[0] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/capitol-mob-deaths/ind...
There were gallows, bombs, armour, zip ties and guns brought to the protest. On many of the videos you can hear the trump supporters shouting cries to kill certain members of the government, calling them traitors. Oh and they beat a police officer to death.
If they had found a senior official I don’t think they would have been safe.
If they had found a senior official I don’t think they would have been safe.
> There were gallows, bombs, armour, zip ties and guns brought to the protest.
How many guns, bombs and zip ties? Was it even enough protestors to be called a minority who bought bombs? The press would love a few photos of people with guns storming the capital, because those that I've seen look like very poorly behaved tourists with souvenirs and selfies. Gallows happen to be a traditional prop at protests (eg, [0]).
> If they had found a senior official I don’t think they would have been safe.
Nobody feels safe when a protest gets out of hand, but that doesn't make it a fact that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the chain of command of the United states of America were about to be injured. It is entirely plausible that the mob would have screamed at them then been broken up. That is the most likely scenario.
[0] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tommy-robinson-leads-...
How many guns, bombs and zip ties? Was it even enough protestors to be called a minority who bought bombs? The press would love a few photos of people with guns storming the capital, because those that I've seen look like very poorly behaved tourists with souvenirs and selfies. Gallows happen to be a traditional prop at protests (eg, [0]).
> If they had found a senior official I don’t think they would have been safe.
Nobody feels safe when a protest gets out of hand, but that doesn't make it a fact that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the chain of command of the United states of America were about to be injured. It is entirely plausible that the mob would have screamed at them then been broken up. That is the most likely scenario.
[0] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tommy-robinson-leads-...
>How many guns, bombs and zip ties? Was it even enough protestors to be called a minority who bought bombs?
Stop and take a second to listen to yourself. Is there an acceptable numbers of guns, bombs, and zip ties that are intended to be used on the leaders of this country?
Stop and take a second to listen to yourself. Is there an acceptable numbers of guns, bombs, and zip ties that are intended to be used on the leaders of this country?
I doubt you are going to convince the parent poster with facts. The comment suggests either the poster is not asking questions in good faith or letting opinions cloud the judgement.
As one other comment mentioned - you are bringing facts to an emotional fight.
If all the facts and evidence over past few years cannot convince them, nothing will.
No, there isn't. But there is also no reason to assume that a protestor with no gun, bomb or ziptie is equivalent to one that has one.
Lone wolves and troublemakers out to get Congresspeople exist. There might be a few in the mob. But the mob itself isn't made up of people like that. This is the same logic that was being applied to protestors all through 2020. It is hard to get away from the BLM protests being peaceful even with burning buildings in the background.
Lone wolves and troublemakers out to get Congresspeople exist. There might be a few in the mob. But the mob itself isn't made up of people like that. This is the same logic that was being applied to protestors all through 2020. It is hard to get away from the BLM protests being peaceful even with burning buildings in the background.
How many "lone wolves" do you see in this clip[1]?
No one is saying that every member of that mob had intentions to kill. There is no doubt that some people in the mob did and they got shockingly close to having the opportunity to do it.
[1] - https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1348334770103660553
No one is saying that every member of that mob had intentions to kill. There is no doubt that some people in the mob did and they got shockingly close to having the opportunity to do it.
[1] - https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1348334770103660553
0. That looks like a mob fighting police. If there were a few more yellow vests it could be France. A few more chants of "All cops are bad" and it could be footage from 2020.
There are no pipe bombs. No guns. They do not deploy zip ties.
There are no pipe bombs. No guns. They do not deploy zip ties.
They are beating a police officer who is on the ground. Another officer was literally beaten to death. How many videos can you find of that happening during the BLM protests?
It is difficult to find good videos of the BLM protests, for an event that went global for a week or few YouTube is rather light on videos.
But I found one [0] leaves me comfortable in assuming a similar scene happened at some point over the week in Minneapolis. It would have ben a very scary time to be a police officer, the burning of the vehicles from 2:28 to 4:00 for example looks a lot like a threat of violence. Those protesters wanted to hurt the police.
The US has a pretty high tolerance for violence in its protests. If anything, I'd guess that rather than attitudes of the protestors the lack of police deaths in the BLM protests were because the police knew that they were going to be targeted with violence, and it caught them off guard coming from Trump supporters.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCPzQg3668g
PS. Also your video is a bit indistinct, I'm not sure it does show them beating a police officer who is on the ground
But I found one [0] leaves me comfortable in assuming a similar scene happened at some point over the week in Minneapolis. It would have ben a very scary time to be a police officer, the burning of the vehicles from 2:28 to 4:00 for example looks a lot like a threat of violence. Those protesters wanted to hurt the police.
The US has a pretty high tolerance for violence in its protests. If anything, I'd guess that rather than attitudes of the protestors the lack of police deaths in the BLM protests were because the police knew that they were going to be targeted with violence, and it caught them off guard coming from Trump supporters.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCPzQg3668g
PS. Also your video is a bit indistinct, I'm not sure it does show them beating a police officer who is on the ground
Once again, I will ask you to take a step back and listen to yourself. You are putting the literal beating to death of a police officer on the same level as people taking their frustration out on an empty vehicle. These two are in no way comparable. That was the best you could do out of months of protests attended by millions of people in dozens of cities in which the protest was in direct opposition to police violence. You can't find anything approaching the violence seen on display on Wednesday. Do you not see the difference?
>PS. Also your video is a bit indistinct, I'm not sure it does show them beating a police officer who is on the ground
You can see them drag someone down the stairs in the first few seconds of the video and then you see them beating someone on the ground. One man is literally beating an officer with an American flag if you are one for symbolism. The next tweet in that thread shows a photo from above in which you can see the officer down on the steps and there is a reply that has video from a different angle.
>PS. Also your video is a bit indistinct, I'm not sure it does show them beating a police officer who is on the ground
You can see them drag someone down the stairs in the first few seconds of the video and then you see them beating someone on the ground. One man is literally beating an officer with an American flag if you are one for symbolism. The next tweet in that thread shows a photo from above in which you can see the officer down on the steps and there is a reply that has video from a different angle.
> You can see them drag someone down the stairs in the first few seconds of the video and then you see them beating someone on the ground.
It looks to me more like flag-holding-man throws it away to help someone get up, who then joins the protestors. The police officer in the yellow vest is under the arch on the right on the start, away from where the protestors are doing whatever they are doing. When a bloke in black gets up off the ground he joins the protestors too.
I don't think that is a video of protestors beating a policeman. If they were the video would probably have been more violent. I think the protestors might be helping the bloke in the blue jacket stand up at the start.
The intent of the mob is entirely comparable, at any rate. Protestors hurling stuff at police vs. protestors igniting stuff.
It looks to me more like flag-holding-man throws it away to help someone get up, who then joins the protestors. The police officer in the yellow vest is under the arch on the right on the start, away from where the protestors are doing whatever they are doing. When a bloke in black gets up off the ground he joins the protestors too.
I don't think that is a video of protestors beating a policeman. If they were the video would probably have been more violent. I think the protestors might be helping the bloke in the blue jacket stand up at the start.
The intent of the mob is entirely comparable, at any rate. Protestors hurling stuff at police vs. protestors igniting stuff.
> How many guns, bombs and zip ties?
Good question. We don’t know the answer because federal authorities have not held a press briefing on this incident.
> those that I've seen look like very poorly behaved tourists with souvenirs and selfies
Perhaps you should watch this:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CJxPQcXgq6H/
Good question. We don’t know the answer because federal authorities have not held a press briefing on this incident.
> those that I've seen look like very poorly behaved tourists with souvenirs and selfies
Perhaps you should watch this:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CJxPQcXgq6H/
> what is the evidence for this?
>
> ...this is a not a mob out for literal blood.
There's video of a large crowd of the rioters chanting "hang Mike Pence!" They erected a gallows with a noose outside the Capitol. There's video of people yelling that they came to get Pence and Pelosi. Squads of milita wore tactical armor and helmets, and carried not just assault rifles and handguns, but also flexcuffs. You don't get that stuff in the spur of the moment. They came prepared. Other rioters were carrying lead pipes and wooden rods. There was even one rioter caught on video carrying a literal pitchfork.
They beat one police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and injured more than 50 others. That is clearly a mob out for blood.
As for more evidence, for months in advance, Trump supporters filled Parler, Gab, Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, Facebook, and many other social media outlets with detailed detailed discussions of plans to commit violence and in many cases murder at this event. NYPD and the FBI received a ton of reports from concerned citizens who saw this social media chatter. The insurrectionists talked about what weapons to bring, which politicians to target in order of priority, and so much more. It was reported that they had maps with them of the tunnels under the Capitol building so that they could cut off escape routes.
Freshman lawmaker Lauren Boebert tweeted Speaker Pelosi's whereabouts multiple times during the riot. She did not tweet anything which indicated any degree of surprise that the riot was occurring.
Jim Clyburn has two offices in the Capitol, one right next to the front doors and one way up on the third floor. It was reported that the rioters ignored Clyburn's obvious office next to the doors and instead made a beeline for the more secluded office on the third floor.
> No, this was 100% a mob out for literal blood. There is a STAGGERING amount of evidence.
100%? Literally all of them? Every one?
I'm not looking for a metaphorical response here. Which parts of your response are backed actual evidence and which parts are assumptions based on your instincts and filling in blanks?
100%? Literally all of them? Every one?
I'm not looking for a metaphorical response here. Which parts of your response are backed actual evidence and which parts are assumptions based on your instincts and filling in blanks?
Not everyone in the mob was out for blood, but the mob as a collective group was. The mob killed a police officer. Anyone who was part of the mob is partly to blame for that.
No one can take part in a group action and then claim they're not responsible for what the group has done. When people act as a group they have to accept responsibility for the group's actions.
No one can take part in a group action and then claim they're not responsible for what the group has done. When people act as a group they have to accept responsibility for the group's actions.
oceanplexian(2)
(Pretty sure 100% in that sentence means “certainly.”)
A mob is a singular. When you think with your brain is every single neuron involved?
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
— George Orwell, Animal Farm
I understand the moves by Stripe, Twitter, and co. However, I would argue that the long term implications set by this precedent are much worse. When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide, and I trust our President. Three short years later, who took the office? Would you have every imagined that? The same goes for this. Think five minutes into the future if you will.
If the leader of the free world can be banned from all social media and co, who are based in the very same nation, and who are monopolies, then what hope is there for the rest of us?
— George Orwell, Animal Farm
I understand the moves by Stripe, Twitter, and co. However, I would argue that the long term implications set by this precedent are much worse. When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide, and I trust our President. Three short years later, who took the office? Would you have every imagined that? The same goes for this. Think five minutes into the future if you will.
If the leader of the free world can be banned from all social media and co, who are based in the very same nation, and who are monopolies, then what hope is there for the rest of us?
> If the leader of the free world can be banned from all social media and co, who are based in the very same nation, and who are monopolies, then what hope is there for the rest of us?
1. "leader of the free world" is an incredibly arrogant statement.
2. He can be banned for the same reason that the rest of us can: inciting violence. I'd argue that having equal rules for everyone (or even _stricter_ ones for politicians) is good and healthy. The banning of people inciting violence gives me hope.
1. "leader of the free world" is an incredibly arrogant statement.
2. He can be banned for the same reason that the rest of us can: inciting violence. I'd argue that having equal rules for everyone (or even _stricter_ ones for politicians) is good and healthy. The banning of people inciting violence gives me hope.
It's your opinion that Trump incited violence.
If you ask Trump opposition, they will all say he should go to jail for 1000 years for hundreds of crime that Trump committed.
I'm not close to he situation, but I'd feel much better if a judgement like this actually comes from a trained judge with a proper due process.
If you ask Trump opposition, they will all say he should go to jail for 1000 years for hundreds of crime that Trump committed.
I'm not close to he situation, but I'd feel much better if a judgement like this actually comes from a trained judge with a proper due process.
Trump called for a March on the Capitol building. This is a very common thing for politicians to do. This does not constitute inciting violence.
You may read his statements so, but his followers treated them as marching orders.
https://twitter.com/LiteraryMouse/status/1347873498925064194
https://twitter.com/LiteraryMouse/status/1347873498925064194
leokennis(2)
> When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide
Wow, that's some impressive revisionist history, unfortunately for you its possible for us to actually look back in time and see exactly what was said.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5849932
Wow, that's some impressive revisionist history, unfortunately for you its possible for us to actually look back in time and see exactly what was said.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5849932
Can you prove that the same people who said "so what" to Snowden said "this is fine to these tech actions? My personal experience is that the people who opposed to mass surveillance are fully in support of these actions. At least I do.
It's fairly clear where these companies are drawing a line, and for most people like me, it's a perfectly acceptable line. Being the cause of actual violence and death means you get to be banned. Fairly clear?
The more murky question is people who think all cake shops should serve gay weddings but twitter should also be allowed to ban trump. Tough call and nuance involved there, but I doubt there's much ambiguity separating where one stands on Snowden's revalations and these recent bans
It's fairly clear where these companies are drawing a line, and for most people like me, it's a perfectly acceptable line. Being the cause of actual violence and death means you get to be banned. Fairly clear?
The more murky question is people who think all cake shops should serve gay weddings but twitter should also be allowed to ban trump. Tough call and nuance involved there, but I doubt there's much ambiguity separating where one stands on Snowden's revalations and these recent bans
I'm one of those "murky question" people, and here's my take on it.
Discrimination is discrimination, and can and should be prohibited. Free speech was not invented when Twitter and Stripe were created, and thus it cannot be deprived by being banned from these platforms. Fomenting violent revolution is most certainly worth preventing, as is discrimination against people for their immutable traits. Fomenting violence is not an immutable trait.
I see the point people try to make when they equate the two, but I don’t think it’s a good one, because then it equates lgbt discrimination with private company platform bans for fomenting violence, implying that if you have one, you must tolerate the other, but that’s not true. One can ban discrimination while at the same time allowing Twitter or whoever to ban people promoting violence on/with their platforms. The principals are internally logically consistent, even if one disagrees with them.
Discrimination is discrimination, and can and should be prohibited. Free speech was not invented when Twitter and Stripe were created, and thus it cannot be deprived by being banned from these platforms. Fomenting violent revolution is most certainly worth preventing, as is discrimination against people for their immutable traits. Fomenting violence is not an immutable trait.
I see the point people try to make when they equate the two, but I don’t think it’s a good one, because then it equates lgbt discrimination with private company platform bans for fomenting violence, implying that if you have one, you must tolerate the other, but that’s not true. One can ban discrimination while at the same time allowing Twitter or whoever to ban people promoting violence on/with their platforms. The principals are internally logically consistent, even if one disagrees with them.
> When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide, and I trust our President.
Most of the public was pro-Snowden, especially the tech community. Telegram rose like a rocketship as a result of concerns over NSA backdoors.
Most of the public was pro-Snowden, especially the tech community. Telegram rose like a rocketship as a result of concerns over NSA backdoors.
>When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide, and I trust our President.
Wtf? Nobody said anything of the sort, and if they did they would have been downvoted to the maximum. This is just totally absurd revisionist, we were only five years removed from the W Bush administration, which committed legitimate war crimes and left office with a 22% approval rating.
Wtf? Nobody said anything of the sort, and if they did they would have been downvoted to the maximum. This is just totally absurd revisionist, we were only five years removed from the W Bush administration, which committed legitimate war crimes and left office with a 22% approval rating.
> When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide, and I trust our President
This is … not even remotely how I remember that period, more of a sense of outrage and companies rushing to encrypt internal connections and deploy PFS.
> If the leader of the free world can be banned from all social media and co, who are based in the very same nation, and who are monopolies, then what hope is there for the rest of us?
This isn’t a great fit: Trump isn’t being banned for being a conservative or talking policies, but for inciting violence which lead to a deadly mob. If all that happens are companies enforcing their terms of service against violence or hate speech evenly, that bothers me a lot less — especially since in this case it’s treating everyone consistently rather than singling him out for special treatment.
This is … not even remotely how I remember that period, more of a sense of outrage and companies rushing to encrypt internal connections and deploy PFS.
> If the leader of the free world can be banned from all social media and co, who are based in the very same nation, and who are monopolies, then what hope is there for the rest of us?
This isn’t a great fit: Trump isn’t being banned for being a conservative or talking policies, but for inciting violence which lead to a deadly mob. If all that happens are companies enforcing their terms of service against violence or hate speech evenly, that bothers me a lot less — especially since in this case it’s treating everyone consistently rather than singling him out for special treatment.
Strength through adversity? Maybe this will be the fire needed to improve decentralization and alternative currencies that are more censorship resistant?
> “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Actually, the problem is that those with power can get away with this but others can’t.
Think five minutes into the future if you will where there are no consequences if you have enough political power. Some day that might be a socialist or a communist or a white nationalist or a fascist encouraging an armed group to intimidate the legislature. Will we encourage companies to continue to do business with them as well? Or do we specifically grant Republicans and Democrats the privilege to abuse the power of their office?
Imagine Jamal from down the road hammering his neighbors with lies about an election and then organizing a march into the capital that beats a police officer to death with the goal of killing the VP of the US. Jamal had no status, no privilege, no financial resources and no one to pardon him. No one is worried about Jamal or his supporters ever attaining political power and seeking revenge because they have no connections, no wealth and no access to the halls of power. No communities are “healed” by not prosecuting Jamal, so he ends up going to jail for a long time. On the flip side, Stripe has never heard of Jamal so he gets to keep his preferred payment processor after he’s released from prison. Meanwhile Trump who’s been pardoned and is living under Secret Service detail at Mar a Lago is still somehow “not as equal” as Jamal because Trump is only able to make money online through other payment processors but not his preferred Stripe gateway.
Actually, the problem is that those with power can get away with this but others can’t.
Think five minutes into the future if you will where there are no consequences if you have enough political power. Some day that might be a socialist or a communist or a white nationalist or a fascist encouraging an armed group to intimidate the legislature. Will we encourage companies to continue to do business with them as well? Or do we specifically grant Republicans and Democrats the privilege to abuse the power of their office?
Imagine Jamal from down the road hammering his neighbors with lies about an election and then organizing a march into the capital that beats a police officer to death with the goal of killing the VP of the US. Jamal had no status, no privilege, no financial resources and no one to pardon him. No one is worried about Jamal or his supporters ever attaining political power and seeking revenge because they have no connections, no wealth and no access to the halls of power. No communities are “healed” by not prosecuting Jamal, so he ends up going to jail for a long time. On the flip side, Stripe has never heard of Jamal so he gets to keep his preferred payment processor after he’s released from prison. Meanwhile Trump who’s been pardoned and is living under Secret Service detail at Mar a Lago is still somehow “not as equal” as Jamal because Trump is only able to make money online through other payment processors but not his preferred Stripe gateway.
Americans didn’t Weimar-Republic into a fascist regime this time, thankfully.
The prevailing idea on HN is however “let’s have no regulation than bad regulation”... Guys, there’s such thing as good regulation.
The prevailing idea on HN is however “let’s have no regulation than bad regulation”... Guys, there’s such thing as good regulation.
To be fair, it's far from over. If this is analogous to the beer hall putsch it can be evaluated in a decade or two perhaps.
The very most dangerous thing that could be done right now is to say "glad that's over and nothing happened".
The very most dangerous thing that could be done right now is to say "glad that's over and nothing happened".
thrwawy12345(1)
You're pointing out Snowden in 13 and Trump in 16 and implying there's a causal relationship between the two. This is ludicrous, Trump was elected due to numerous factors, it'd be hard to place Snowden in even the top 10. immigration, trade, feckless GOP, crowded primary field, biased dem primary, weak dem candidate, I could make massive list more important than Snowden. All trump's supporters would say about Snowden is that he's a traitor, they'd understand or care little about what he leaked.
Maybe this is a HN bubble, the vast majority of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you what Snowden even specifically leaked...or rather, the journalists leaked on his and our behalf.
Trump is not the leader of the free world any longer. He's clearly on the way out, and he invited violence while the door was closing. Even the weakened GOP must admit he is a wannabe dictator, and his rhetoric led to 5 deaths, nevermind untold thousands to pandemic.
So no, I think there is not much slippery slope implication to deplatforming insane people like Trump, Alex Jones, KKK members, Nazis, terrorists, etc. Why should these people retain the privilege of posting harmful and murderous content on a company's website? Where in the constitution is tweeting an enshrined right?
Maybe this is a HN bubble, the vast majority of Americans wouldn't be able to tell you what Snowden even specifically leaked...or rather, the journalists leaked on his and our behalf.
Trump is not the leader of the free world any longer. He's clearly on the way out, and he invited violence while the door was closing. Even the weakened GOP must admit he is a wannabe dictator, and his rhetoric led to 5 deaths, nevermind untold thousands to pandemic.
So no, I think there is not much slippery slope implication to deplatforming insane people like Trump, Alex Jones, KKK members, Nazis, terrorists, etc. Why should these people retain the privilege of posting harmful and murderous content on a company's website? Where in the constitution is tweeting an enshrined right?
> You're pointing out Snowden in 13 and Trump in 16 and implying there's a causal relationship between the two.
Your are misinterpreting his comment. He says that you can't 100% trust in long term government/administration. There will always be a bad guy somewhere at some moment.
Your are misinterpreting his comment. He says that you can't 100% trust in long term government/administration. There will always be a bad guy somewhere at some moment.
Not to be reductionist but I don’t see this as a totalitarian issue. This is a free market decision. $Company decides to sever ties with another organization. That choice can be good, bad, reactive, overreactive, misguided, etc but it’s still a market participant choice.
Market remains open for other market participants to make other choices.
Market remains open for other market participants to make other choices.
On one hand it feels completely appropriate and even deserved. On the other, yes, this is unfortunately a path to a very serious totalitarian issue. Situations like this one underscore the future importance of cryptocurrencies.
Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.
Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.
> Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.
How is this a good faith argument. You’ve jumped a situation where somewhere is being deplatformed and banned from various services for encouraging violence. To someone will use violence to kick someone off platforms. Coercing payment processors in that manor would be illegal. So, how exactly are we on the path to fascism? This is absolutely wild to me, that a textbook fascist being banned from things is being spun as... fascism.
How is this a good faith argument. You’ve jumped a situation where somewhere is being deplatformed and banned from various services for encouraging violence. To someone will use violence to kick someone off platforms. Coercing payment processors in that manor would be illegal. So, how exactly are we on the path to fascism? This is absolutely wild to me, that a textbook fascist being banned from things is being spun as... fascism.
I'd define fascism as a method of government which enforces some specific morality/actions/market through force. By this definition it's entirely possible for two different brands of fascism to have two opposing goals, and for one to use fascist methods on another fascist.
If your definition of fascism is specifically centered around nationalism or racism then this doesn't really work, but I don't think the word fascism implies this, only that fascism is usually associated with regimes using fascist authoritarianism to enforce racist and nationalist ideologies.
If your definition of fascism is specifically centered around nationalism or racism then this doesn't really work, but I don't think the word fascism implies this, only that fascism is usually associated with regimes using fascist authoritarianism to enforce racist and nationalist ideologies.
That's not the definition of fascism [0]
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
From the page you linked,
[0] https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/e...
There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. [...] For these and other reasons, there is no universally accepted definition of fascism.
By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
[0] https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/e...
I agree, there are different flavors and interpretations, which my article did mention. It gave what I'd label to common or core features of most fascist states. I'm sure there's infinite possibility for variation and different implementation details, including the means of controlling the economy and exercising power over others through economic means.
Russian opposition is tamest of the tame, yet, it is routinely deplatformed and prosecuted, guess for what, calls for extremism and violence! And a large portion of population believes that to be true, because government controls most sources of information.
I think US might look exactly same in a few years. The mighty benevolent Party will care for thankful citizens, with the exception of a few outcasts who can't even create a simple website and are laughed at all over the media and social networks. And of course the Party will win all the subsequent elections for the next 70 years.
I think US might look exactly same in a few years. The mighty benevolent Party will care for thankful citizens, with the exception of a few outcasts who can't even create a simple website and are laughed at all over the media and social networks. And of course the Party will win all the subsequent elections for the next 70 years.
And it's no coincidence that Russian dissident Alexei Navalny spoke out against big tech conspiring together to censor Trump. He sees exactly what they're doing and knows where it leads.
All big tech has to do now is tighten the screws further, and they can use their new standard to wipe out any challenger from the right half of the political spectrum before they ever gain traction (whether in media, with payment processing, social media, news, tech platforms & hosting; it's all controlled by the same political group now).
This approach by big tech would have prevented Trump from ever having a shot at getting elected in the first place, they would have turned down the volume so nobody could hear what he had to say. Which tells you all you need to know about what's coming next.
The US is a unified structural dictatorship of the left now. Tech. Academia. Hollywood & media. Social media. News. Payment processing. Thought police. Speech censorship. Tyranny will obviously follow. I'm non-partisan, I've never voted for a Republican, but it's obvious the left has acquired a dangerous amount of system power over the country.
Here's a prediction for you: in the next few years big tech will use this same conspired approach to begin behavior 'encouragement' for the wider population. Fat shame someone? No more Gmail account for you. Say something hateful? No more PayPal account for you. Already you'd have 1/4+ of the left wing nodding their heads in agreement that this is exactly the kind of social engineering that should happen (a US form of what China does to its population). It's inevitably what big tech is going to do, because it's very hard to legislate behavior control to pursue the politically correct dream they have in mind (safe spaces for all, so long as it's their type of safe space, by their rules, and their ideas), but it can be achieved through aggressive coercive action using the platforms, and now with these moves they're officially on the political playing field. It'll arrive in the guise of wrapping society in bubble wrap meant to keep everyone safe, and it ends in societal death by suffocation, narrowing and revocation of practicable rights as ever increasing numbers of things become wrong-think (and come with punishment).
All big tech has to do now is tighten the screws further, and they can use their new standard to wipe out any challenger from the right half of the political spectrum before they ever gain traction (whether in media, with payment processing, social media, news, tech platforms & hosting; it's all controlled by the same political group now).
This approach by big tech would have prevented Trump from ever having a shot at getting elected in the first place, they would have turned down the volume so nobody could hear what he had to say. Which tells you all you need to know about what's coming next.
The US is a unified structural dictatorship of the left now. Tech. Academia. Hollywood & media. Social media. News. Payment processing. Thought police. Speech censorship. Tyranny will obviously follow. I'm non-partisan, I've never voted for a Republican, but it's obvious the left has acquired a dangerous amount of system power over the country.
Here's a prediction for you: in the next few years big tech will use this same conspired approach to begin behavior 'encouragement' for the wider population. Fat shame someone? No more Gmail account for you. Say something hateful? No more PayPal account for you. Already you'd have 1/4+ of the left wing nodding their heads in agreement that this is exactly the kind of social engineering that should happen (a US form of what China does to its population). It's inevitably what big tech is going to do, because it's very hard to legislate behavior control to pursue the politically correct dream they have in mind (safe spaces for all, so long as it's their type of safe space, by their rules, and their ideas), but it can be achieved through aggressive coercive action using the platforms, and now with these moves they're officially on the political playing field. It'll arrive in the guise of wrapping society in bubble wrap meant to keep everyone safe, and it ends in societal death by suffocation, narrowing and revocation of practicable rights as ever increasing numbers of things become wrong-think (and come with punishment).
Your narrative is so false, it isn't even funny.
The most liked and tweeted content on Twitter and Facebook skews heavily towards the right.
Fox news is the most watched news show in this country.
Your spin on the whole situation is a gross distortion of what is happening.
The most liked and tweeted content on Twitter and Facebook skews heavily towards the right.
Fox news is the most watched news show in this country.
Your spin on the whole situation is a gross distortion of what is happening.
> fox news is the most watched news show in this country.
As a single source yes. But if you consider the total share of voice of the other side across all media Fox News is a distinct minority.
As a single source yes. But if you consider the total share of voice of the other side across all media Fox News is a distinct minority.
No one said the left's agenda is the popular agenda. The fact a single news station can be the most popular by being a slight political outlier is just indication of how controlling the left needs to be to enforce their view of reality.
Fox news, one of the biggest news organisations in the US, is left?
I'll go with Noam's take on this. There is no liberal media in the US.
I'll go with Noam's take on this. There is no liberal media in the US.
Yes, the "left" represented by the Democratic party /s.
Every single thing you've listed is controlled by capital, not by the left. Tech, Hollywood/Media, Social Media, News, and payment processing. Academia is a very partial exception (google "Koch brothers university funding").
Do you think that any of the organizations that constitute these groups are run by social activists? These are overwhelmingly multinational corporations. They care about nothing but profit and the preservation of the status quo. They will appropriate rhetoric about identity politics insofar as it is a good marketing strategy, but they never make a move which is not motivated by their bottom line, which is why none of the tech giants acted against Trump until he threatened the orderly continuation of the system in which they're all invested.
"Left" media is a tiny, powerless fraction of the media. MSNBC and CNN toe the line of the DNC, a right-wing clique that represents only the interests of finance capital, and which, because it has comprehensively rejected any project of improving people's lives in any material way, has been forced into a politics of performative culture war posturing. Any leftist challenge to the status quo can be quelled by capital's complete capture of the media apparatus and government.
When you say "the left", it's very clear you mean social progressives, and nothing else. You're conflating co-opted woke capitalism with leftism, the same way countless liberals do.
You are however, absolutely correct about the coming repression that will be directed against the populace. It will be mostly directed against the left, as has always been the case, but we will definitely begin to see greater brutality in general as the overall immiseration and precarity of the average person continue to ratchet upwards.
In tandem with this, we'll see ever-increasing social policing of culture-war nonsense, as the social unrest continues to play out in a make-believe symbolic realm completely detached from material reality. People will of course continue to believe that it's "the authoritarian left" or "the bigoted right" that is ultimately to blame, depending of which flavour of news media they consume, missing the symbiotic relationship between two parties that both represent nothing but the short-term financial interests of capital.
Every single thing you've listed is controlled by capital, not by the left. Tech, Hollywood/Media, Social Media, News, and payment processing. Academia is a very partial exception (google "Koch brothers university funding").
Do you think that any of the organizations that constitute these groups are run by social activists? These are overwhelmingly multinational corporations. They care about nothing but profit and the preservation of the status quo. They will appropriate rhetoric about identity politics insofar as it is a good marketing strategy, but they never make a move which is not motivated by their bottom line, which is why none of the tech giants acted against Trump until he threatened the orderly continuation of the system in which they're all invested.
"Left" media is a tiny, powerless fraction of the media. MSNBC and CNN toe the line of the DNC, a right-wing clique that represents only the interests of finance capital, and which, because it has comprehensively rejected any project of improving people's lives in any material way, has been forced into a politics of performative culture war posturing. Any leftist challenge to the status quo can be quelled by capital's complete capture of the media apparatus and government.
When you say "the left", it's very clear you mean social progressives, and nothing else. You're conflating co-opted woke capitalism with leftism, the same way countless liberals do.
You are however, absolutely correct about the coming repression that will be directed against the populace. It will be mostly directed against the left, as has always been the case, but we will definitely begin to see greater brutality in general as the overall immiseration and precarity of the average person continue to ratchet upwards.
In tandem with this, we'll see ever-increasing social policing of culture-war nonsense, as the social unrest continues to play out in a make-believe symbolic realm completely detached from material reality. People will of course continue to believe that it's "the authoritarian left" or "the bigoted right" that is ultimately to blame, depending of which flavour of news media they consume, missing the symbiotic relationship between two parties that both represent nothing but the short-term financial interests of capital.
>>Do you think that any of the organizations that constitute these groups are run by social activists?
it is clear that they are, while they may not be owned by social activists the day to day operations are certainly controlled by social activists
Take the recent effort of google employees to form a union, one not to negotiate pay or working conditions but rather to demand a litany of things around social activism including the power to control the policys and projects of the company
Then there are publishers, tech companies, and universities that continually have their employees protest if their employer engages with anyone that they deem to have "wrong think" see the Reaction at spotify when they brought on Joe Rogan, or reactions to Ben Shapiro speaking at any Campus, or the reaction at Penguin to the publishing of certian books...
To deny these companies are run by social activists is to deny reality itself
>"Left" media is a tiny, powerless fraction of the media.
100% incorrect, the Left enjoys a majorty position in Fiction Media (movies, TV Shows etc), and you can see a clear political shift in narrative of TV Shows.
i like to binge watch shows, even long running shows. So over the course of a month or more I may a long running series back to back, several of them that ran in the early 00's till after Trumps election you can see a clear political messaging shift in them, from an attempt to being "neutral" in their politics to a clear hard left turn.
Further Print News media is clearly Left bias as well probably 70% / 30% left to right positioning
Your lone example of Cable TV news is a weak argument, and if you talk to many conservatives you will find there is a large contingent of people that believe that since Roger Ailes passed Fox News has also taken a left turn...
I think alot of your position is based on the fact that many of these places are "not as far left" as you, or other organizations, but this does not make them "right" either.
CNN is not as far left as MSNBC, but CNN is not right either.
Barrack Obama is not as far left as AOC but that does not make Obama a Republican
it is clear that they are, while they may not be owned by social activists the day to day operations are certainly controlled by social activists
Take the recent effort of google employees to form a union, one not to negotiate pay or working conditions but rather to demand a litany of things around social activism including the power to control the policys and projects of the company
Then there are publishers, tech companies, and universities that continually have their employees protest if their employer engages with anyone that they deem to have "wrong think" see the Reaction at spotify when they brought on Joe Rogan, or reactions to Ben Shapiro speaking at any Campus, or the reaction at Penguin to the publishing of certian books...
To deny these companies are run by social activists is to deny reality itself
>"Left" media is a tiny, powerless fraction of the media.
100% incorrect, the Left enjoys a majorty position in Fiction Media (movies, TV Shows etc), and you can see a clear political shift in narrative of TV Shows.
i like to binge watch shows, even long running shows. So over the course of a month or more I may a long running series back to back, several of them that ran in the early 00's till after Trumps election you can see a clear political messaging shift in them, from an attempt to being "neutral" in their politics to a clear hard left turn.
Further Print News media is clearly Left bias as well probably 70% / 30% left to right positioning
Your lone example of Cable TV news is a weak argument, and if you talk to many conservatives you will find there is a large contingent of people that believe that since Roger Ailes passed Fox News has also taken a left turn...
I think alot of your position is based on the fact that many of these places are "not as far left" as you, or other organizations, but this does not make them "right" either.
CNN is not as far left as MSNBC, but CNN is not right either.
Barrack Obama is not as far left as AOC but that does not make Obama a Republican
> while they may not be owned by social activists the day to day operations are certainly controlled by social activists
Complete fantasy. You're not citing any evidence whatsoever here so I really shouldn't be bothering, but just think this through. When you witness for example Kuerig pull their advertising from Fox News, that is not evidence of some leftist agenda in their management. It is some combination of (a) a response to customer complaints/bad press, (b) an absolute storm of free publicity resulting from the controversy and (c) customer goodwill from the majority of the population. It's exactly the kind of action of the free market conservatives are supposed to be so enamored of. If you honestly think that companies are running socially progressive ads etc. because they are run by social activists, you are (a) just as gullible as all the liberals who eat up that style of marketing and (b) not living anywhere in the vicinity of reality.
You've also cited the example of a union, an organization explicitly in conflict with management, to bolster your argument about the management of organizations being captured by social activists. Absurd.
> if you talk to many conservatives you will find there is a large contingent of people that believe that since Roger Ailes passed Fox News has also taken a left turn...
Someone who would complain about some "left turn" by Fox News is not someone with whom it's worth discussing politics.
> Further Print News media is clearly Left bias as well probably 70% / 30% left to right positioning
Nope. Almost all media is either liberal (read: neoliberal) or conservative. Left wing print media is negligible.
> I think alot of your position is based on the fact that many of these places are "not as far left" as you
My position is not based on the fact that these places are "not as far left" as me. I am not further along on some sliding scale. Yeah, I probably agree with liberals on most social issues. However, I have a qualitatively different outlook to liberals, one rooted in a fundamentally incompatible worldview.
At the end of the day, you've made it clear that the left-right divide is about culture-war issues for you. Some of the repressive apparatus of the state is going to start being directed against the fraction of reactionaries who can no longer be assimilated by the system, but it's not going to approach the level of brutality reserved for e.g. BLM in the foreseeable future. You can continue to enjoy media catering to people totally fixated on the lost cause of relegitimating retrograde social attitudes, because it doesn't pose a threat to people in power.
Complete fantasy. You're not citing any evidence whatsoever here so I really shouldn't be bothering, but just think this through. When you witness for example Kuerig pull their advertising from Fox News, that is not evidence of some leftist agenda in their management. It is some combination of (a) a response to customer complaints/bad press, (b) an absolute storm of free publicity resulting from the controversy and (c) customer goodwill from the majority of the population. It's exactly the kind of action of the free market conservatives are supposed to be so enamored of. If you honestly think that companies are running socially progressive ads etc. because they are run by social activists, you are (a) just as gullible as all the liberals who eat up that style of marketing and (b) not living anywhere in the vicinity of reality.
You've also cited the example of a union, an organization explicitly in conflict with management, to bolster your argument about the management of organizations being captured by social activists. Absurd.
> if you talk to many conservatives you will find there is a large contingent of people that believe that since Roger Ailes passed Fox News has also taken a left turn...
Someone who would complain about some "left turn" by Fox News is not someone with whom it's worth discussing politics.
> Further Print News media is clearly Left bias as well probably 70% / 30% left to right positioning
Nope. Almost all media is either liberal (read: neoliberal) or conservative. Left wing print media is negligible.
> I think alot of your position is based on the fact that many of these places are "not as far left" as you
My position is not based on the fact that these places are "not as far left" as me. I am not further along on some sliding scale. Yeah, I probably agree with liberals on most social issues. However, I have a qualitatively different outlook to liberals, one rooted in a fundamentally incompatible worldview.
At the end of the day, you've made it clear that the left-right divide is about culture-war issues for you. Some of the repressive apparatus of the state is going to start being directed against the fraction of reactionaries who can no longer be assimilated by the system, but it's not going to approach the level of brutality reserved for e.g. BLM in the foreseeable future. You can continue to enjoy media catering to people totally fixated on the lost cause of relegitimating retrograde social attitudes, because it doesn't pose a threat to people in power.
One could also construct an argument about some groups like ISIS recruiting and calling for violence in social media, claiming to fight for freedom and against evil, and create a false slippery slope that America might be equivalent to the caliphate in the next 70 years.
I could argue that with all the defects in the Russian political climate, I would prefer to live that kind of regime than something equivalent to an ISIS caliphate, but I consider both arguments fallacious and more akin to scare tactics.
I could argue that with all the defects in the Russian political climate, I would prefer to live that kind of regime than something equivalent to an ISIS caliphate, but I consider both arguments fallacious and more akin to scare tactics.
Reminder that this was the year where right wing militia groups felt confident enough to plot to kidnap lawmakers in Michigan. Anything is possible, and this country is changing.
It pretty easy to see how a law or norm implemented for just reasons can be co-opted for nefarious ones. The US has been doing this for as long as I've been alive. Patriot Act?
> Without an uncensorable currency, any political adversary -- especially an incumbent -- can just coerce payment processors into blocking payments to their opponents through threats of imprisonment or violence against a handful of executives.
That has always happened, Visa/Mastercard have been used that way since forever. The Swift system is designed to exercise financial control. Paypal bans anyone for merely looking suspicious to them.
That has always happened, Visa/Mastercard have been used that way since forever. The Swift system is designed to exercise financial control. Paypal bans anyone for merely looking suspicious to them.
The very idea that cryptocurrency is an "uncensorable currency" is just fundamentally false, yet is a common refrain of crypto supporters who somehow think crypto can exist outside the realm of government control.
Governments can choose to make anything they want illegal, and they have the guns to back up that decision. Sure, it may be easy to make crypto transactions more surreptitiously, but at the end of the day someone is going to want to spend that crypto on something that has real value, and governments can, and do, control what method of payments are acceptable.
Governments can choose to make anything they want illegal, and they have the guns to back up that decision. Sure, it may be easy to make crypto transactions more surreptitiously, but at the end of the day someone is going to want to spend that crypto on something that has real value, and governments can, and do, control what method of payments are acceptable.
Going from bans due to ToS violations all of the way to government coercion of executives through imprisonment is an enormous leap in logic. There's quite a few steps along that path in between.
And if course given that bitcoin has to be sent and received, if we ever arrived at your dystopia, bitcoin would not help: the political rival would simply jail the executive for receiving bitcoin payments instead of USD currency. Bitcoin isn't preventing your dystopia.
And if course given that bitcoin has to be sent and received, if we ever arrived at your dystopia, bitcoin would not help: the political rival would simply jail the executive for receiving bitcoin payments instead of USD currency. Bitcoin isn't preventing your dystopia.
government coercion of executives through imprisonment
I think you read this slightly wrong -- drop the government (political adversary != government adversary) and relax imprisonment for threats of violence:
"coercion of executives through threats of violence"
...and we've got something a lot closer to what we already see today.
I think you read this slightly wrong -- drop the government (political adversary != government adversary) and relax imprisonment for threats of violence:
"coercion of executives through threats of violence"
...and we've got something a lot closer to what we already see today.
Likely the cryptocurrency would still go through an intermediary like Coinbase. And of course Coinbase could terminate their account.
It's easy to donate cryptocurrency to other people. From there getting it into cash can be a problem, but I can think of a million ways of doing it. Privacy technology helps a lot.
A million ways that look like money laundering. Are they going to tell Coinbase that the 10 million they are withdrawing is from the local laundromat?
Nah, you got to be clever. Tell Coinbase your CryptoKitty "sold" to an anonymous buyer for $10M.
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/09/05/most-expensive-cr...
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/09/05/most-expensive-cr...
These things don't work anymore. They recently passed a law that says all exchanges must report everything that flows through them, and that's just the beginning. If you think those cute stories like selling virtual cats to an anon will work in the future, you're being naive. The government has made it clear what their intent is. They will be regulating crypto circulation through on/off ramps, and every user of those exchanges must do KYC and report where they spent their money. If they do things like what you said, it will now legally be classified as money laundering.
if there's a will there's a way. Just look at projects like bisq and fiatdex. Not to mention the pretty obvious solution of just using crypto as money.
Also, things like I mentioned definitely still work.
Also, things like I mentioned definitely still work.
You said these things were easy. My point is that it will be increasingly difficult to do so. Your comment about "If there's a will there may be a way" is not the answer because having a "way" doesn't mean it's easy, and that was exactly my point. Tor exists, but that doesn't mean it's easy to do Tor, nor do regular people use Tor.
I don't think it is a totalitarian issue. One problem is that the SEC and FTC have sat on their hands in the 21st century. There is no competition anymore. At worst this leads to party supporting companies in each market who will still allow it.
If alternative chat, payment, etc. are prevented from being created, that is not a "free market" decision. This smells like a politically aligned cartel, with key companies enjoying de facto monopoly positions in effect legislating what is and what is not acceptable.
Right now, we haven't heard from ISPs. The entire suite of services that are controlled by the monopoly FANGs can be recreated, including clouds and cloud-fronts.
If that line is crossed as well then we'll have a modern society entirely dependent on information infrastructure that is controlled by a handful of companies with pedigree rooted firmly in the defense and intelligence sectors. You can call that whatever you please, but it will not be pleasant.
[p.s. I vote Green.]
Right now, we haven't heard from ISPs. The entire suite of services that are controlled by the monopoly FANGs can be recreated, including clouds and cloud-fronts.
If that line is crossed as well then we'll have a modern society entirely dependent on information infrastructure that is controlled by a handful of companies with pedigree rooted firmly in the defense and intelligence sectors. You can call that whatever you please, but it will not be pleasant.
[p.s. I vote Green.]
I'm inclined to agree with you. I realize that the term has been abused to the point of meaninglessness, but Fascist economics is defined by corporate monopolies in symbiosis with the state.
It will likely be pleasant for the vast majority of people, who have no objectionable views one way or the other. It might even be better, not having to deal with the constant disruption.
I don't have specific studies to point to ATM but am certain there have been [a few] that have looked at isolating specific aspects of social networks that seem to engender the imo legitimate "constant disruption" that you mention. Point being that keep in mind that simply changing interaction patterns may affect the desired goal of (say) "a civil virtual society".
"Objectionable views" is an objectionable notion for many. And "unified messaging" from monopoly information and communication corporations (owned by an astonishingly small subset of humanity) is not a legitimate source of authority for determining what is or is not "objectionable".
This is the entire point of political systems: resolving conflicts of views and providing a mechanism for harmonious, fair, and productive societies. Unless the plan is to medicate people, in which case sure, a perfectly homogenous body politic may be in your future.
"Objectionable views" is an objectionable notion for many. And "unified messaging" from monopoly information and communication corporations (owned by an astonishingly small subset of humanity) is not a legitimate source of authority for determining what is or is not "objectionable".
This is the entire point of political systems: resolving conflicts of views and providing a mechanism for harmonious, fair, and productive societies. Unless the plan is to medicate people, in which case sure, a perfectly homogenous body politic may be in your future.
To me this just smells like a bunch of companies finally booting people off for violating ToS. Especially given a reasonable argument that President Trump committed a crime, failing to enforce their ToS could open them to their own legal liability for facilitating activity that went against their ToS and is later found to be criminal. Shareholders would sue for securities fraud at the very least.
You could look at countries as being part of a market. If one country decides to ban your speech, you just move to another one, right? But that's not how it works because switching countries is very difficult. We demand free speech from a government even if we theoretically have the option to move.
If you have a colluding oligopoly in something crucial to do business such as payments or communication, where it's difficult to switch due to network effects, being banned by them is like being banned by government.
If you have a colluding oligopoly in something crucial to do business such as payments or communication, where it's difficult to switch due to network effects, being banned by them is like being banned by government.
Switching online payment providers isn't like moving to a new country, even a little bit.
Payment networks are where the network effects and scale are. Visa and Mastercard have been known to ban people for political reasons.
Payment providers are just a front end for their networks, so it's easy to switch providers like Stripe, but you can still be banned by underlying network like Mastercard and your business will suffer.
Payment providers are just a front end for their networks, so it's easy to switch providers like Stripe, but you can still be banned by underlying network like Mastercard and your business will suffer.
Then perhaps there's a market opportunity for a credit card and online payment company that caters to white supremacists?
::Announcer Voice:: "Banned from Master Card? Try Master Racecard. Disclaimer: proof of aryan ancestry required; octoroons need not apply.
I would honestly and sincerely rather do a year in prison then get permabanned by all of big tech.
If case you havent noticed once VISA bans you nobody wants to do business with you anymore.
That's a small market, getting even smaller ...
...which could be viewed as the overall market is deciding not to cater to these views... which is also absolutely legal (and creates a market opportunity for someone else if the group not supported supports it)
[deleted]
First they banned those they deemed to have wrong think from Social Media, crying Build your own Social media, it is a private company...
So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied, so then they banned them from app stores users used to connect and find the new service... crying Build your own service it is a private company
So they did, but the totalitarian were not satisfied so they banned them from the network infrastructure used to connect them to the service... crying build your own network infrastructure it is private company
So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied so they banned from the payment services used to generate revenue for the service... crying build your own payment service it is private company
So they did, but totalitarians were still not satisfied, still hiding behind the "but its a private company" the totalitarians continue to demand anyone that disagrees with them be banned from all services everywhere all the while screaming that they are not in fact totalitarian, no they are upholding freedom for all...
see in 1984 war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength
So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied, so then they banned them from app stores users used to connect and find the new service... crying Build your own service it is a private company
So they did, but the totalitarian were not satisfied so they banned them from the network infrastructure used to connect them to the service... crying build your own network infrastructure it is private company
So they did, but the totalitarians were not satisfied so they banned from the payment services used to generate revenue for the service... crying build your own payment service it is private company
So they did, but totalitarians were still not satisfied, still hiding behind the "but its a private company" the totalitarians continue to demand anyone that disagrees with them be banned from all services everywhere all the while screaming that they are not in fact totalitarian, no they are upholding freedom for all...
see in 1984 war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength
As a counterexample: The Pirate Bay have successfully dealt with this sort of thing for many years, and they were subject to much harsher and more sustained censorship. Including legal attacks by various nation states.
Is it really totalitarianism in this case? Or, just some private companies inconveniencing people by choosing not to do business with them?
Is it really totalitarianism in this case? Or, just some private companies inconveniencing people by choosing not to do business with them?
While I applaud Pirate Bay for the technological ingenuity that is not an counter example in anyway
The Pirate Bay is more or less a link register today after having been pushed to the point where they can not even sustain hosting torrent files, they can only host mag links.
This is far cry from running an actual platform or business on the internet.
The Pirate Bay is more or less a link register today after having been pushed to the point where they can not even sustain hosting torrent files, they can only host mag links.
This is far cry from running an actual platform or business on the internet.
How is it not a counterexample? TPB has user registration, submissions and comments, and a search function. Conceptually, this isn't too different to the function of Parler.
Also, the introduction of magnet links (or more generally, the DHT which those rely on) was a broadly positive move for the BitTorrent community, reducing reliance on centralized tracker servers.
Also, the introduction of magnet links (or more generally, the DHT which those rely on) was a broadly positive move for the BitTorrent community, reducing reliance on centralized tracker servers.
It is divise and it will backfire. Soon there will have to be a separate everything for Republicans and Democrats.
Chances are that Trump is going to own a big part of it. That is why Trump is not on Gab or Parler, because he will compete with them.
Chances are that Trump is going to own a big part of it. That is why Trump is not on Gab or Parler, because he will compete with them.
I think the issue is more that Trump, who is a highly divisive character, has become the face of the Republican party.
So people end up conflating the ostracism of Trump and those in his periphery with an attack on the Republican party.
So people end up conflating the ostracism of Trump and those in his periphery with an attack on the Republican party.
Trump to this day has an approval rate of around 40%. That is a pretty large “periphery”. You can not just seperate him from the Republican party. They tried and failed.
It'll certainly be interesting to see what happens to the Republican party over the next few years, given that they've ended up tying themselves so strongly to Trump's cult of personality.
It appears as if they started distancing themselves as soon as he lost. There was always a contingent of "Never Trumpers". Politicians are fickle.
It will be interesting to see what happens, more so because I expect widespread disillusionment from Trump republicans.
It will be interesting to see what happens, more so because I expect widespread disillusionment from Trump republicans.
> There was always a contingent of "Never Trumpers". Politicians are fickle.
Trump isn't really a Republican, it's just that on some key issues, his position aligns better with the Republican party. The majority of the Republican party was openly anti-Trump in the beginning, then later turned around due to his massive public support.
That hasn't really changed, his approval is as stable as ever. The only people buying into the "failed coup" narrative are the ones that never supported him to begin with. Dropping Trump, as much as the party might want to, is not a recipe for success. Strategically, dividing the Republican party will be the prime objective of Democrats.
Trump isn't really a Republican, it's just that on some key issues, his position aligns better with the Republican party. The majority of the Republican party was openly anti-Trump in the beginning, then later turned around due to his massive public support.
That hasn't really changed, his approval is as stable as ever. The only people buying into the "failed coup" narrative are the ones that never supported him to begin with. Dropping Trump, as much as the party might want to, is not a recipe for success. Strategically, dividing the Republican party will be the prime objective of Democrats.
Personally I think or rather hope this is a defining moment for both Democrat and Republicans,
It will really come down to what the Democrats do with their current turn in power, The republican party is clearly fractured, if the Democrats attempt to ram through sweeping social and economic changes that appeal to their most authoritarian left base then it will fracture the Democrat party as well
This could be, for the first time since the Wig Party collapsed, that we see an opening for an actual 3rd party to emerge
It will really come down to what the Democrats do with their current turn in power, The republican party is clearly fractured, if the Democrats attempt to ram through sweeping social and economic changes that appeal to their most authoritarian left base then it will fracture the Democrat party as well
This could be, for the first time since the Wig Party collapsed, that we see an opening for an actual 3rd party to emerge
Even Pence has done some distancing. Probably a lot more after he realized that Trump's rhetoric resulted in an assassination attempt.
Except Twitter is for Republicans too. And many of them like Bill Kristol turned against Trump because of his behavior. Many that still support Trump have managed to stay on Twitter because they act responsibly.
The problem with Parker and Gab is that they are only for the problem users. In fact, in an interview with Kara Swisher the CEO said that they have panels of volunteers that judge whether a post should be removed. The blind leading the blind.
The problem with Parker and Gab is that they are only for the problem users. In fact, in an interview with Kara Swisher the CEO said that they have panels of volunteers that judge whether a post should be removed. The blind leading the blind.
Republican is a political party, not a ideaology.
Bill Kristol is an Authoritarian, Pro-War, corporatist Republican that does not share much in way of ideology with many social conservatives in the Political party.
Bill Kristol is the type of Republican that turned me away from the Republican party
Bill Kristol is closer in political alignment with the Authoritarian Left, than he is with the Libertarian right which is why he is allowed to stay on Twitter.
Twitter is for Authoritarians / Totalitarians
Bill Kristol is an Authoritarian, Pro-War, corporatist Republican that does not share much in way of ideology with many social conservatives in the Political party.
Bill Kristol is the type of Republican that turned me away from the Republican party
Bill Kristol is closer in political alignment with the Authoritarian Left, than he is with the Libertarian right which is why he is allowed to stay on Twitter.
Twitter is for Authoritarians / Totalitarians
He's either making his own or negotiating a piece of Gab or Parker, whichever gives him a bigger piece, to make them his platform of choice.
I think you are correct except it remains to be seen if the new alt-Internet is centralized or decentralized.
Exercise of free market principles by platforms booting people/entities that violate their ToS isn't totalitarian.
This would be true if the ToS was applied evenly with out political bias
My reading of the situation is that Twitter etc. we're fine turning a (not very) blind eye until President Trump did something that is arguably illegal. At that point self-interest kicked in as they realized "oh crap since he did this with the help of our platform and we've been letting him violate our own rules we may have legal liability OMG ban!"
Heck, AWS hosts the National Enquirer, the publication that tried to blackmail AWS's owner with genital pics. It's difficult to claim anti-conservative bias when so much borderline and over the line extreme right content is allowed to remain.
If there's an appearance of conservative bias then I believe it is because between President Trump peddling conspiracy theories and general hatred of those who oppose him, it simply caused more extremist content to be posted, and therefore more to be banned. It's not bias is there really is a lot more extreme right content.
Heck, AWS hosts the National Enquirer, the publication that tried to blackmail AWS's owner with genital pics. It's difficult to claim anti-conservative bias when so much borderline and over the line extreme right content is allowed to remain.
If there's an appearance of conservative bias then I believe it is because between President Trump peddling conspiracy theories and general hatred of those who oppose him, it simply caused more extremist content to be posted, and therefore more to be banned. It's not bias is there really is a lot more extreme right content.
[deleted]
https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347970421161922560
does this make you reconsider at all?
does this make you reconsider at all?
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. I hadn't seen that thread from Navalny before, and I certainly think it adds a useful perspective to the debate.
The author implies it’s worse to be censored by a company because with government you in theory can influence it with voting... but in practice you have about as much direct influence as reversing tides in the ocean by splashing against them.
Interesting, but no, it doesn't change my mind. What I agree with is that the ban decision making process should be open and transparent, which this was not.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's so interesting when people cheer on censorship because, don't worry, they've been convinced that it's good censorship. Still doesn't change what it is though.
I'm sure anybody that's been censored, dehumanized, and removed from society by an evil regime has been comforted by the fact that the people doing it think it's fine to do it, or because the people doing it are doing it legally. Those facts don't make it right ...
I'm sure anybody that's been censored, dehumanized, and removed from society by an evil regime has been comforted by the fact that the people doing it think it's fine to do it, or because the people doing it are doing it legally. Those facts don't make it right ...
I have a feeling that at least half of people here are using the free market argument ironically. Because until last week it was usually republicans who advocated for the free market, no government regulation, and believing that markets sort themselves out magically. And now they are angry when the free market is going in the direction they don't like.
There are cartel and monopoly arguments to be made that are based on maintaining an efficient free market. This is generally a bipartisan issue, but the sides are taking turns on it.
Of course Stripe does not have a monopoly, but the broader discussion involves major players that can function as a cartel.
Of course Stripe does not have a monopoly, but the broader discussion involves major players that can function as a cartel.
I think that Apple and Google should definitely be broken up or somehow regulated because they act as gatekeepers and there are no viable alternatives. Especially Apple where there is no way to even sideload an application. And I say this as an Apple user. But there's no guarantee what would happen even if there were five mobile platforms. In such parallel universe all five would maybe take the same action. However I don't think that other platforms which took some drastic actions last week are gatekeepers and I don't see a point in regulating them (Stripe, Twitter, AWS)
Regarding collecting money there should definitely be some government sponsored alternative solution for quick inter-bank transfers. In my country political parties collect donations by bank transfers. They provide an IBAN account number and anyone can send money to that account from any other bank in the EU. Same with private initiatives. Recently there was an earthquake in my home country which did some damage to a smaller city and most donation initiatives were collecting through bank accounts. The central bank runs the infrastructure for inter-bank communication (basically a clearing house). Right now they are working on a system where you will be able to associate your phone number and/or an email address to an IBAN (basically a DNS-like service) so you won't even need to know someone's IBAN to send them money.
Regarding collecting money there should definitely be some government sponsored alternative solution for quick inter-bank transfers. In my country political parties collect donations by bank transfers. They provide an IBAN account number and anyone can send money to that account from any other bank in the EU. Same with private initiatives. Recently there was an earthquake in my home country which did some damage to a smaller city and most donation initiatives were collecting through bank accounts. The central bank runs the infrastructure for inter-bank communication (basically a clearing house). Right now they are working on a system where you will be able to associate your phone number and/or an email address to an IBAN (basically a DNS-like service) so you won't even need to know someone's IBAN to send them money.
I agree except for the case of Twitter. There may be alternative services similar to Twitter but they are not functionally the same because the broader public does not use it. I consider Twitter as a medium like phone or email that happens to be run by one company.
The debate here seems like fuel for antitrust issues. A single company deciding not to do business with someone (over actions, not innate stuff like protected classes) should be fine, but when you let them get to be a backbone service, then issues surface like those discussed by everyone here.
If google, for example decided to stop surfacing trump stuff in results, that could be a real issue. Not because it’s google doing a bad thing, but because google has become so big. Maybe “what happens if this service started banning folks?” is a useful thought exercise for whether a platform has accrued too much market share/power/influence.
If google, for example decided to stop surfacing trump stuff in results, that could be a real issue. Not because it’s google doing a bad thing, but because google has become so big. Maybe “what happens if this service started banning folks?” is a useful thought exercise for whether a platform has accrued too much market share/power/influence.
Stripe (and every other credit card processors) have long refused to do business with a broad amount and types of businesses. For example, Stripe themselves don't serve most travel sites.
https://stripe.com/blog/why-some-businesses-arent-allowed
It's a super common practice to deny some customers for basically all financial services companies.
https://stripe.com/blog/why-some-businesses-arent-allowed
It's a super common practice to deny some customers for basically all financial services companies.
If they stopped providing services to all political campaigns that’d be comparable.
If they stopped doing business with groups advocating for the violent overthrow of the government that would he compatible.
If you read the blog post I linked to you'd see there are various exceptions that Stripe makes in most categories and they make business justifications for each exception.
It's in Stripe's best interest to deny services to Trump because coups and unstable governments are just bad for business. That's why the business lobbying group the The National Association of Manufacturers is calling for invoking the 25th Amendment
This is part of their statement:
“This is not the vision of America that manufacturers believe in and work so hard to defend. Across America today, millions of manufacturing workers are helping our nation fight the deadly pandemic that has already taken hundreds of thousands of lives. We are trying to rebuild an economy and save and rebuild lives. But none of that will matter if our leaders refuse to fend off this attack on America and our democracy—because our very system of government, which underpins our very way of life, will crumble.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/business/national-associa...
Financial services companies have always chosen their customers carefully, If there were antitrust concerns with this they would have already been addressed - because this is SOP.
It's in Stripe's best interest to deny services to Trump because coups and unstable governments are just bad for business. That's why the business lobbying group the The National Association of Manufacturers is calling for invoking the 25th Amendment
This is part of their statement:
“This is not the vision of America that manufacturers believe in and work so hard to defend. Across America today, millions of manufacturing workers are helping our nation fight the deadly pandemic that has already taken hundreds of thousands of lives. We are trying to rebuild an economy and save and rebuild lives. But none of that will matter if our leaders refuse to fend off this attack on America and our democracy—because our very system of government, which underpins our very way of life, will crumble.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/business/national-associa...
Financial services companies have always chosen their customers carefully, If there were antitrust concerns with this they would have already been addressed - because this is SOP.
What your missing is they are advocating for violence against people. Why is it is an issue to disrupt that?
No one is removing groups that say taxes should be lower. They are distancing them selves from a groups whose core policy is now attempt to violently overthrow the government because they lost an election. If I started discussing on this site how to kill government officials, I'd be banned pretty quick.
No one is removing groups that say taxes should be lower. They are distancing them selves from a groups whose core policy is now attempt to violently overthrow the government because they lost an election. If I started discussing on this site how to kill government officials, I'd be banned pretty quick.
To the extent that these separate companies are actually coordinating a takedown of a third party, they could run afoul of anti-racketeering / RICO statutes.
Not that I would hold my breathe waiting for the Department of Justice to press charges.
But private companies do not actually have the right to coordinate takedowns of other companies.
Not that I would hold my breathe waiting for the Department of Justice to press charges.
But private companies do not actually have the right to coordinate takedowns of other companies.
Even if they're talking to each other about it, there's no racketeering or other criminal issue involved when this is the companies enforcing their established ToS. Getting together and saying "hey I think this latest incident really shows we should pay more attention to ToS enforcement" isn't racketeering.
Do you have any actual evidence of coordination, or are you just making stuff up?
Stripe is hardly a “backbone” service. There a dozens of different payment processors out there, many of them much larger than Stripe.
There’s absolutely nothing preventing the Trump campaign from using a different payment processor.
It would be a different matter if Visa and MasterCard had blocked them.
There’s absolutely nothing preventing the Trump campaign from using a different payment processor.
It would be a different matter if Visa and MasterCard had blocked them.
But arguably CloudFlare is such a service and it is still hosting quite a bit of content that actively incites to violence on inauguration day. I won't link to it here though.
Exactly. I'm even sort of glad all of this is happening, because it shows more clear than ever to everyone who can think calmly because he isn't into all this political bullshit (which are few, sadly), how broken all this stuff really currently is. And it's broken on so many levels.
First off, I don't see why, philosophically, the owner of a service shouldn't be allowed to decide, who he wants to do business with. And despite I do remember some stories when the same people who are cheering for Trump to get banned everywhere were defending, quite hypocritically, the opposite point of view, it really wasn't something new and outrageous, even back then, especially when dealing with all these internet-machines. We are long used to the fact, that getting banned on some internet forum is ok and you generally don't have the real option to appeal. The host is the host, and he bans whoever he wants. And while sometimes it may be much much more than a little inconvenience for the person getting banned, people never really cared, because it's rare enough for the consequences of it to be really tragic for people to feel empathetic: society doesn't give a fuck about the problems of an individual unless enough people fear the same might happen to them.
Second, it's never been a secret, where Silicon Valley (HN folks included) is leaning politically. So let's not pretend there are some justifications why they had to do all this shit to Trump for some greater good. The truth is, the entities involved just hate the guy, pretty much everyone in big tech except for Thiel was donating generously to his opponents. So no big surprise here either.
But the first thing that was really special about Trump being bullied by Twitter (quite a while ago) is that this was not some random guy, it was the acting president of a country that hosts Twitter, elected by (more or less) half of the country (on both occasions). So, while (arguably) playing by the rules, Twitter was basically showing that their opinion was more important, than the opinion of the guy half of their the country voted for. And there wasn't some other platform which he could move to, Twitter is Twitter and the rest is, well, the rest. So this was the first point.
Fast forward to now, Trump being banned from everywhere and apps that refuse to ban Trump being banned from Amazon/Apple Store/Google Play themselves, we arrive to the second point: things look a little differently, when there are like 3 major service providers that are supposedly competing with each other, and if they all agree that you're a person non-grata, you are fucked. Even if the half of the country supports you, it's nothing. What really matters that 10 guys on top of these big companies don't like you.
I don't really care about USA elections bullshit, so here is the real point: we don't usually see this, because, first off, there's supposedly not that many reasons for all of FAANG and such to dislike some random person, and second, if it happens, we'll never hear about it anyway. But if the guy half of the country supports (nevermind he is even so called POTUS) struggles to deal with this, everyone else is completely at their mercy.
So either there is decentralization, or there is this.
First off, I don't see why, philosophically, the owner of a service shouldn't be allowed to decide, who he wants to do business with. And despite I do remember some stories when the same people who are cheering for Trump to get banned everywhere were defending, quite hypocritically, the opposite point of view, it really wasn't something new and outrageous, even back then, especially when dealing with all these internet-machines. We are long used to the fact, that getting banned on some internet forum is ok and you generally don't have the real option to appeal. The host is the host, and he bans whoever he wants. And while sometimes it may be much much more than a little inconvenience for the person getting banned, people never really cared, because it's rare enough for the consequences of it to be really tragic for people to feel empathetic: society doesn't give a fuck about the problems of an individual unless enough people fear the same might happen to them.
Second, it's never been a secret, where Silicon Valley (HN folks included) is leaning politically. So let's not pretend there are some justifications why they had to do all this shit to Trump for some greater good. The truth is, the entities involved just hate the guy, pretty much everyone in big tech except for Thiel was donating generously to his opponents. So no big surprise here either.
But the first thing that was really special about Trump being bullied by Twitter (quite a while ago) is that this was not some random guy, it was the acting president of a country that hosts Twitter, elected by (more or less) half of the country (on both occasions). So, while (arguably) playing by the rules, Twitter was basically showing that their opinion was more important, than the opinion of the guy half of their the country voted for. And there wasn't some other platform which he could move to, Twitter is Twitter and the rest is, well, the rest. So this was the first point.
Fast forward to now, Trump being banned from everywhere and apps that refuse to ban Trump being banned from Amazon/Apple Store/Google Play themselves, we arrive to the second point: things look a little differently, when there are like 3 major service providers that are supposedly competing with each other, and if they all agree that you're a person non-grata, you are fucked. Even if the half of the country supports you, it's nothing. What really matters that 10 guys on top of these big companies don't like you.
I don't really care about USA elections bullshit, so here is the real point: we don't usually see this, because, first off, there's supposedly not that many reasons for all of FAANG and such to dislike some random person, and second, if it happens, we'll never hear about it anyway. But if the guy half of the country supports (nevermind he is even so called POTUS) struggles to deal with this, everyone else is completely at their mercy.
So either there is decentralization, or there is this.
I think our history books do a disservice when they teach McCarthyism by focusing only on the falsely accused-- many Americans really did support the USSR and some even swore an oath to Stallin. The lesson should be that it was still a mistake to take civil liberties away from these people who passionately supported a horrible cause, not that McCarthyists were just bad prosecutors who arrested the wrong people.
I believe Trump supporters, especially the QAnon weirdos, are wrong to believe the things that they do, but they are less wrong than the people who supported the Soviet Union during its genocidal reign. Unless people are charged and convicted of a crime, their livelihoods should not be taken away by the whims of these powerful companies selectively enforcing their rules. McCarthyism was wrong then and it's wrong now, even though its targets are wrong too.
I believe Trump supporters, especially the QAnon weirdos, are wrong to believe the things that they do, but they are less wrong than the people who supported the Soviet Union during its genocidal reign. Unless people are charged and convicted of a crime, their livelihoods should not be taken away by the whims of these powerful companies selectively enforcing their rules. McCarthyism was wrong then and it's wrong now, even though its targets are wrong too.
>The lesson should be that it was still a mistake to take civil liberties away
I agree. No one should take Stripe's civil liberties away from them.
I agree. No one should take Stripe's civil liberties away from them.
Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now
>Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now
I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.
Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.
Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
when did I say Stripe didn't have the legal right to do this? I used the Hollywood blacklist as a parallel precisely because it too was a legal enforcement of political speech by a big consolidated industry that had the power to end peoples' careers
I only think it's morally wrong.
I only think it's morally wrong.
But it's not a parallel at all.
All the Hollywood studios (a bunch of different entities) conspired with each other not to hire those people.
Stripe is a single entity and isn't (AFAIK) working with others on the payment processing industry to block a specific set of people/groups.
And it's protected (and IMHO, should be) because it's a political organization -- Stripe has the right (as do you or I) to choose whether or not they wish to support (verbally, financially or through other material methods) any particular political party, policy position or candidate.
Let's say that you own a business that makes t-shirts. And you strongly support candidate X. Should you be required to make t-shirts for candidate Y (candidate X's opponent)?
And if you chose not to make t-shirts for candidate Y, is that morally wrong?
All the Hollywood studios (a bunch of different entities) conspired with each other not to hire those people.
Stripe is a single entity and isn't (AFAIK) working with others on the payment processing industry to block a specific set of people/groups.
And it's protected (and IMHO, should be) because it's a political organization -- Stripe has the right (as do you or I) to choose whether or not they wish to support (verbally, financially or through other material methods) any particular political party, policy position or candidate.
Let's say that you own a business that makes t-shirts. And you strongly support candidate X. Should you be required to make t-shirts for candidate Y (candidate X's opponent)?
And if you chose not to make t-shirts for candidate Y, is that morally wrong?
you are being intentionally obtuse. there is obviously a difference between a t shirt vendor and 1/2 of a duopoly on online payments. the other of which also (coincidentally in your view) took the same measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative
>there is obviously a difference between a t shirt vendor and 1/2 of a duopoly on online payments.
Except there isn't a duopoly in online payments. In fact, Stripe is just one of many (and not anywhere near the largest) payment processors[0].
[0] https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/largest-...
Except there isn't a duopoly in online payments. In fact, Stripe is just one of many (and not anywhere near the largest) payment processors[0].
[0] https://www.business.org/finance/payment-processing/largest-...
>measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative
Why must it be through an online payment processor?
My bank will send payments for me. And I can write a check and mail it to whoever I want.
Why must it be through an online payment processor?
My bank will send payments for me. And I can write a check and mail it to whoever I want.
good luck starting an eccommerce business where everyone has to write you a money order. oh and you can't use amazon, ebay, or shopify either
you don't really believe what you're saying do you? that's like telling blacklisted hollywood writers and actors that they can make their own plays in their backyards
you don't really believe what you're saying do you? that's like telling blacklisted hollywood writers and actors that they can make their own plays in their backyards
But we're not talking about an e-commerce business are we?
We're talking about a candidate's campaign fundraising operation. Which is odd in and of itself, because as far as I know that candidate isn't actually running for any office.
You've moved the goalposts far enough, haven't you?
We're talking about a candidate's campaign fundraising operation. Which is odd in and of itself, because as far as I know that candidate isn't actually running for any office.
You've moved the goalposts far enough, haven't you?
> Hollywood is a private business as well.
No, it's not a private business.
> They were within their rights to make a blacklist
No, making an agreement in restraint of trade is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
No, it's not a private business.
> They were within their rights to make a blacklist
No, making an agreement in restraint of trade is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
are you under the impression that the hollywood studios published an actual blacklist and openly admitted to collusion?
They didn't do that, just like the tech giants are not doing that now, as they take the same action at the same time against the same target.
They didn't do that, just like the tech giants are not doing that now, as they take the same action at the same time against the same target.
> are you under the impression that the hollywood studios published an actual blacklist and openly admitted to collusion?
Neither publication not open admission are necessary for a combination in restraint of trade to be illegal, and you'd usually want to avoid them since they make it much easier to prove.
Neither publication not open admission are necessary for a combination in restraint of trade to be illegal, and you'd usually want to avoid them since they make it much easier to prove.
yes but practically big businesses can get away with these types of things without much fuss. even in the case where Apple and Google were caught wage-fixing, and there were emails from the CEOs blatantly colluding to prove it, all they got was a slap on the wrist. So it's effectively legal in my view
The QAnon folks are no less irrational than any other (pseudo-)religious devotees and should be afforded the same protections under the first amendment.
[deleted]
This is like the millionth time this has been posted on this website in the past few days, but the first amendment applies to the government, not private companies.
The first amendment applies to corporations when they use the state to enforce their speech over someone else's. The actual case history surrounding first amendment rights is way more complicated than you're implying. There are situations where the government can restrict your first amendment rights; there are situations where you can have your first amendment rights violated by a company — and seek restitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Can you give me an example of something that has happened recently in regards to QAnon where their first amendment rights may have been violated?
Can you give me an example of something that has happened recently in regards to QAnon where their first amendment rights may have been violated?
the poster you are replying to seems to be arguing that Qanon people should be a protected class under the civil rights act because it's a hokey pseudo religion with prophecies, shamans, and everything. That absolutely does apply to private companies. I don't really know what to make of that as I am not a lawyer, but I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one.
Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past. In the near future somebody who is banned from both Paypal and Stripe will be close to being perpetually unbanked in some lines of work. The way progressives have cheered on giving tech companies this much power over our lives has been dispiriting
Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past. In the near future somebody who is banned from both Paypal and Stripe will be close to being perpetually unbanked in some lines of work. The way progressives have cheered on giving tech companies this much power over our lives has been dispiriting
The first amendment doesn’t prohibit discrimination against protected classes though, that’s an entirely different section of the legal code.
the civil rights act effectively does protect speech with regards to religion and sexual orientation, since the idea that we won't discriminate against those things as long as nobody finds out is not what it means
>Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past.
What solution do you propose? Take away the right of association from one group of people to enable another group?
That seems strange to me. If you allow the government to create a precedent where you can restrict the rights of anyone, then you can restrict the rights of everyone.
That idea makes me very uncomfortable.
What solution do you propose? Take away the right of association from one group of people to enable another group?
That seems strange to me. If you allow the government to create a precedent where you can restrict the rights of anyone, then you can restrict the rights of everyone.
That idea makes me very uncomfortable.
What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world
This argument seems to intentionally ignore that the conservative-led decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the bakery.
>What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world
No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible:
If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.
No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible:
If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.
again I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one.
>If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
This applies to Stipe and Paypal too. They can arbitrarily prevent anyone from operating an online business. The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
>If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
This applies to Stipe and Paypal too. They can arbitrarily prevent anyone from operating an online business. The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
>The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
I'm not sure why you bring that up, since that's not a position that I've advocated, nor is it one that I support.
I find your repeated strawman[0] arguments quite tiresome.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I'm not sure why you bring that up, since that's not a position that I've advocated, nor is it one that I support.
I find your repeated strawman[0] arguments quite tiresome.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
[deleted]
Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like a larger problem is being ignored here that I feel I should call attention to.
This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists. Actions like these though seemingly harmless in the short-term are going to radicalize the exact person/type of people that you do not want to radicalize.
Because a lot of high-ranking SV folks (and patrickc) are on here, please, for the sake of stability in the country, do not continue down this path.
This may seem innocuous now and purely a matter of principle, but this is a match to gasoline (in a multitude of ways).
---
Please do not read this through whatever political lens you occupy, but instead through the lens of civility.
This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists. Actions like these though seemingly harmless in the short-term are going to radicalize the exact person/type of people that you do not want to radicalize.
Because a lot of high-ranking SV folks (and patrickc) are on here, please, for the sake of stability in the country, do not continue down this path.
This may seem innocuous now and purely a matter of principle, but this is a match to gasoline (in a multitude of ways).
---
Please do not read this through whatever political lens you occupy, but instead through the lens of civility.
On the other hand, avoiding conflict in the short-term will only embolden those who create and thrive on conflict. For these types of people, their next move is usually to escalate. You see this with bullies, abusive relationships, rapists, serial killers, terrorists, etc. They learn what they can get away with, they like the power it gives them, and they try something more.
Therefore, we can't make decisions based on the fear of their response, even if we have a personal aversion to conflict. That's falling into the trap of the abused. We have to make decisions based on defending our principles and standing up for what we believe is right.
No matter what, some people are going to be pissed off at any sufficiently meaningful decision (or indecision). If the people pissed off are violent types, well, then perhaps that's a sign the right decision was made.
I understand that there's a hell of a lot of nuance to this - sometimes you don't poke the sleeping bear. I think Wednesday showed the bear is absolutely not asleep.
Therefore, we can't make decisions based on the fear of their response, even if we have a personal aversion to conflict. That's falling into the trap of the abused. We have to make decisions based on defending our principles and standing up for what we believe is right.
No matter what, some people are going to be pissed off at any sufficiently meaningful decision (or indecision). If the people pissed off are violent types, well, then perhaps that's a sign the right decision was made.
I understand that there's a hell of a lot of nuance to this - sometimes you don't poke the sleeping bear. I think Wednesday showed the bear is absolutely not asleep.
Nobody is saying “don’t arrest and prosecute the people who invaded the Capitol”.
This is about the campaign finance/social media account/etc of the current sitting POTUS.
You don’t need to condone the actions of the Capitol terrorists to take issue with him being banned from every platform having committed no crime (or at least, not having been convicted of any crime).
A few hundred people invaded the Capitol, but tens of millions of people voted for Trump. We’re not talking about the former; I think it’s very reasonable to be concerned that this divisiveness might radicalise the latter.
This is about the campaign finance/social media account/etc of the current sitting POTUS.
You don’t need to condone the actions of the Capitol terrorists to take issue with him being banned from every platform having committed no crime (or at least, not having been convicted of any crime).
A few hundred people invaded the Capitol, but tens of millions of people voted for Trump. We’re not talking about the former; I think it’s very reasonable to be concerned that this divisiveness might radicalise the latter.
Serious question: Would those people have been at the Capitol without Trump's 'Stop the Steal' rhetoric?
Maybe, I don't know. There was a group of people arrested in Michigan (?) for the kidnapping of the Governor (?), so it's possible.
But either way, I don't think it's relevant. If you want to boot someone off social media because they espouse a cause that others take too far, then there's a lot of BLM people who should receive the same fate. Anything else is rank hypocrisy.
It's worth adding that I think Trump is a puerile moron and "the election was stolen" people are loons (even the ones who didn't break into the Capitol or attend a protest). I'm not even an American, I have no dog in this fight.
But the double standard is so painfully clear, even from thousands of kilometres away. Applying these rules/bans/etc in such a blatantly partisan manner is only going to increase this divisiveness, the USA will tear itself apart from the inside.
But either way, I don't think it's relevant. If you want to boot someone off social media because they espouse a cause that others take too far, then there's a lot of BLM people who should receive the same fate. Anything else is rank hypocrisy.
It's worth adding that I think Trump is a puerile moron and "the election was stolen" people are loons (even the ones who didn't break into the Capitol or attend a protest). I'm not even an American, I have no dog in this fight.
But the double standard is so painfully clear, even from thousands of kilometres away. Applying these rules/bans/etc in such a blatantly partisan manner is only going to increase this divisiveness, the USA will tear itself apart from the inside.
At least when it comes to BLM vs Capitol there are three very important differences that far outweigh the surface level similarities:
1. Power - what happened at the Capitol was conducted by people who have enjoyed broad political power, whereas the BLM protests were about the people who have been unjustly under the thumb (or knee) of those in power.
2. Message - the BLM protests were about very real and well documented and long-standing mistreatment of Black Americans at the hands of police, where the ‘stop the steal’ crowd is angry about a complete fabrication.
3. Stakes - is the event threatening to the foundation of society? I think this one is pretty straightforward.
While on the surface the BLM and Capitol events look similar (large groups of people protesting, small groups within committing violence, some government buildings involved), their basis and moral authority are entirely different.
As far as the decision to deplatform, the nature of these types of things is there will never and can never be a simple rule to dictate important judgment calls. Law is not code, nor are the actions or ToS’s of companies. Trump is such a singular figure that is completely unlike others, commanding a huge amount of power through 85M followers and the bully pulpit of the presidency. He is nothing like any BLM or frankly any other Twitter user that it’s almost seems like a joke to draw comparison. That can’t be ignored, in fact that’s the very point - he’s unique, and uniquely dangerous. There is no double standard because there is no comparison. He’s literally the most powerful person in America and Black people are as a group are the least powerful. That matters.
As far as the consequences, well it’s damned if you do damned if you don’t as far as I can see. We have a lot of real problems and divisions in society, and now a lot of people have been whipped up into holding imagined grievances that some are likely to translate into violence down the line. Meanwhile the next few weeks are an incredibly vulnerable time in American democracy due to the power vacuum that occurs during a transfer of power, and based on what information we have available to us, it looks like violence and disruption was being planned prior to any deplatforming. That’s very scary, and we need to do what we can to reasonably minimize that risk.
1. Power - what happened at the Capitol was conducted by people who have enjoyed broad political power, whereas the BLM protests were about the people who have been unjustly under the thumb (or knee) of those in power.
2. Message - the BLM protests were about very real and well documented and long-standing mistreatment of Black Americans at the hands of police, where the ‘stop the steal’ crowd is angry about a complete fabrication.
3. Stakes - is the event threatening to the foundation of society? I think this one is pretty straightforward.
While on the surface the BLM and Capitol events look similar (large groups of people protesting, small groups within committing violence, some government buildings involved), their basis and moral authority are entirely different.
As far as the decision to deplatform, the nature of these types of things is there will never and can never be a simple rule to dictate important judgment calls. Law is not code, nor are the actions or ToS’s of companies. Trump is such a singular figure that is completely unlike others, commanding a huge amount of power through 85M followers and the bully pulpit of the presidency. He is nothing like any BLM or frankly any other Twitter user that it’s almost seems like a joke to draw comparison. That can’t be ignored, in fact that’s the very point - he’s unique, and uniquely dangerous. There is no double standard because there is no comparison. He’s literally the most powerful person in America and Black people are as a group are the least powerful. That matters.
As far as the consequences, well it’s damned if you do damned if you don’t as far as I can see. We have a lot of real problems and divisions in society, and now a lot of people have been whipped up into holding imagined grievances that some are likely to translate into violence down the line. Meanwhile the next few weeks are an incredibly vulnerable time in American democracy due to the power vacuum that occurs during a transfer of power, and based on what information we have available to us, it looks like violence and disruption was being planned prior to any deplatforming. That’s very scary, and we need to do what we can to reasonably minimize that risk.
>1. Power - what happened at the Capitol was conducted by people who have enjoyed broad political power, whereas the BLM protests were about the people who have been unjustly under the thumb (or knee) of those in power.
I don't think this is true at all. There is a lot of resentment out there from poor whites who have been getting the short end of many sticks lately. They may be better off than poor blacks on average, but they do not enjoy political power. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the people who enjoy political power are white, that all, or even most, whites enjoy political power.
I believe both protests were by groups lacking in power, and that this sort of thing is only going to get worse as economic inequality increases.
Most people don't have power, and it's getting worse as power is concentrated into the hands of the few. As bad as black people have it on average, pitting poor blacks against poor whites is a distraction from the real power disparity, which is that a lot of people in the US are really, really poor. Whilst the elites pay lip service to the issues faced by blacks, whist doing almost nothing to help (a rich black kid getting into a better school does nothing for the impoverished masses), the poorer whites don't feel like the elites are even pretending to try to address their problems. And they're right.
The US needs to fix its inequality issues if it expects either side to stop protesting, and violence is only going to get worse as people see their issues not being addressed.
Storming the capital was not a bright idea, but angry people are stupid, and they're going to just cause as much destruction as possible until life for them gets better. History is littered with examples of inequality leading to violent uprising.
I don't think this is true at all. There is a lot of resentment out there from poor whites who have been getting the short end of many sticks lately. They may be better off than poor blacks on average, but they do not enjoy political power. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the people who enjoy political power are white, that all, or even most, whites enjoy political power.
I believe both protests were by groups lacking in power, and that this sort of thing is only going to get worse as economic inequality increases.
Most people don't have power, and it's getting worse as power is concentrated into the hands of the few. As bad as black people have it on average, pitting poor blacks against poor whites is a distraction from the real power disparity, which is that a lot of people in the US are really, really poor. Whilst the elites pay lip service to the issues faced by blacks, whist doing almost nothing to help (a rich black kid getting into a better school does nothing for the impoverished masses), the poorer whites don't feel like the elites are even pretending to try to address their problems. And they're right.
The US needs to fix its inequality issues if it expects either side to stop protesting, and violence is only going to get worse as people see their issues not being addressed.
Storming the capital was not a bright idea, but angry people are stupid, and they're going to just cause as much destruction as possible until life for them gets better. History is littered with examples of inequality leading to violent uprising.
I completely agree with your point about the power and wealth imbalances in American society today regardless of race. We have growing wealth inequality and that is limiting opportunity relative to what we used to enjoy and is usually destabilizing to societies. It’s bad and getting worse.
It sounds like we generally agree but I also don’t think I did a good job of stating my point about power imbalance. The stated purpose of the gathering at the Capitol was to take power away from other people who voted. It was a demonstration in support of disenfranchisement, in so far as people were there to ‘stop the steal’. And it was done with the support and incitement of the most powerful person in America. BLM has never been about taking peoples rights away, and that’s a huge difference.
It’s also come out that a lot of the people there weren’t exactly poor, we’ve seen lawyers and business owners and cops and a whole bunch of middle class people, flying in and staying at the Hyatt etc. This makes sense, it cost money to get to DC, and the poorest wouldn’t be able to make the trip, and it shows in voter demographics too. I absolutely believe that some of the unrest and dissatisfaction on the right is due to the real economic anxiety arguments that you point out, but I think there’s also something deeper down that is much darker than that - a loss of privileged status that certain voters are experiencing due to changes occurring in America.
This is happening along gender, race, age, education, and economic lines simultaneously. 40+ year old whites that make up the majority of the right grew up with social expectations and experiences that have changed a lot. You used to be able to get a HS or maybe college degree and have a well paying job right there waiting. You used to be able to buy a house. You used to watch TV and see people that look like you. You used to interact with the opposite sex in a particular way. You used to be perfectly healthy. Now you’re older, you’re navigating different gender dynamics, more voices and cultures are coming up and different people are on tv, and you’re now dealing with health issues. Your job, where you used to get paid well and find worth, is not doing that anymore. Your sense of purpose, self-worth, and place in the world is challenged.
Some of this status loss is necessary as America moves forward on gender and race. Some is just the indignity of aging. Some is economic. Put together this loss of status is creating resentment, which is being used by media and demagogues to sow division and feelings of victimhood.
Where on the spectrum these people were of ‘totally manipulated and brainwashed’ vs ‘just here because I’m worried about status loss’ vs ‘conscious support for disenfranchisement and anti-democratic power grabs’, their actions and the implications of those actions at the Capitol were nonetheless something altogether different than past protests & riots.
It sounds like we generally agree but I also don’t think I did a good job of stating my point about power imbalance. The stated purpose of the gathering at the Capitol was to take power away from other people who voted. It was a demonstration in support of disenfranchisement, in so far as people were there to ‘stop the steal’. And it was done with the support and incitement of the most powerful person in America. BLM has never been about taking peoples rights away, and that’s a huge difference.
It’s also come out that a lot of the people there weren’t exactly poor, we’ve seen lawyers and business owners and cops and a whole bunch of middle class people, flying in and staying at the Hyatt etc. This makes sense, it cost money to get to DC, and the poorest wouldn’t be able to make the trip, and it shows in voter demographics too. I absolutely believe that some of the unrest and dissatisfaction on the right is due to the real economic anxiety arguments that you point out, but I think there’s also something deeper down that is much darker than that - a loss of privileged status that certain voters are experiencing due to changes occurring in America.
This is happening along gender, race, age, education, and economic lines simultaneously. 40+ year old whites that make up the majority of the right grew up with social expectations and experiences that have changed a lot. You used to be able to get a HS or maybe college degree and have a well paying job right there waiting. You used to be able to buy a house. You used to watch TV and see people that look like you. You used to interact with the opposite sex in a particular way. You used to be perfectly healthy. Now you’re older, you’re navigating different gender dynamics, more voices and cultures are coming up and different people are on tv, and you’re now dealing with health issues. Your job, where you used to get paid well and find worth, is not doing that anymore. Your sense of purpose, self-worth, and place in the world is challenged.
Some of this status loss is necessary as America moves forward on gender and race. Some is just the indignity of aging. Some is economic. Put together this loss of status is creating resentment, which is being used by media and demagogues to sow division and feelings of victimhood.
Where on the spectrum these people were of ‘totally manipulated and brainwashed’ vs ‘just here because I’m worried about status loss’ vs ‘conscious support for disenfranchisement and anti-democratic power grabs’, their actions and the implications of those actions at the Capitol were nonetheless something altogether different than past protests & riots.
BLM rhetoric has resulted in the assassination of numerous police officers, yet no one is deplatforming BLM.
> We’re leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia by hundreds of thousands of votes, and then late in the evening or early in the morning, boom, these explosions of and bullshit, and all of a sudden. All of a sudden it started to happen.
> Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican party. He’s got guts, he fights. He fights, and I’ll tell you.
> We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us.
> We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
> I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
> It was going to be great. And now we’re out here fighting.
> I want to thank the more than 140 members of the House. Those are warriors. ... Where is Hillary? Where is she?
> But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. ... What happened to Hunter? Where’s Hunter?
> Now that’s many, many times what it would take to overthrow the state. Just that one element. 400,000 ballots appeared from nowhere, right after the election. (Use of “overthrow the state.”)
> Let them get out. Let the weak ones get out. This is a time for strength. ... They want to indoctrinate your children.
> We did good. We got rid of the ISIS caliphate. ... In Wisconsin, corrupt Democrat run cities deployed more than 500 illegal unmanned, unsecured drop boxes, which collected a minimum of 91,000 unlawful votes.
> When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do.
> Looking out at all the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future.
> So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
- POTUS Trump
That’s only part of the stuff he said during the speech immediately before they marched, at his direction, to the Capitol building. He mentioned being peaceful once in his speech. Most of the undertones of the speech were about fighting/being strong for their way of life and belief in him being the rightful winner.
> Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican party. He’s got guts, he fights. He fights, and I’ll tell you.
> We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us.
> We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
> I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
> It was going to be great. And now we’re out here fighting.
> I want to thank the more than 140 members of the House. Those are warriors. ... Where is Hillary? Where is she?
> But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. ... What happened to Hunter? Where’s Hunter?
> Now that’s many, many times what it would take to overthrow the state. Just that one element. 400,000 ballots appeared from nowhere, right after the election. (Use of “overthrow the state.”)
> Let them get out. Let the weak ones get out. This is a time for strength. ... They want to indoctrinate your children.
> We did good. We got rid of the ISIS caliphate. ... In Wisconsin, corrupt Democrat run cities deployed more than 500 illegal unmanned, unsecured drop boxes, which collected a minimum of 91,000 unlawful votes.
> When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do.
> Looking out at all the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future.
> So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
- POTUS Trump
That’s only part of the stuff he said during the speech immediately before they marched, at his direction, to the Capitol building. He mentioned being peaceful once in his speech. Most of the undertones of the speech were about fighting/being strong for their way of life and belief in him being the rightful winner.
Based on how the German press was claiming that Trump was clearly guilty for the Capitol building incident, I was expecting at least some kind of controversial statement, but there's no explicit call for violence or anything in there. Nothing.
If this is all that the people blaming Trump have, they can't even convince an impartial observer or a judge, never mind his supporters.
If this is all that the people blaming Trump have, they can't even convince an impartial observer or a judge, never mind his supporters.
Perhaps I should have made it more clear, but this is only part of the hour long speech. He spent most of the speech claiming that we had an illegitimate election, that he won by a lot, that all the media is lying, and that Biden will destroy America and all that they believe in.
So you know, basic undermining of our entire democracy. Also, Trump almost always gets supporters to read between the lines. It’s the expectation he sets.
So you know, basic undermining of our entire democracy. Also, Trump almost always gets supporters to read between the lines. It’s the expectation he sets.
Couldn't have said it better. Thank you for this.
I don't agree with this at all and I am tired of seeing "sensible" people here explain how it's important to reach out to fascists and make them feel loved. You're only advocating further normalisation of fascism, and depriving them of the consequences of their actions—consequences that have always been a part of civil society. What's more, that you seem to be more preoccupied with not upsetting these fascists rather than that just a few days ago these very same fascists either attempted a coup or supported a coup does indeed speak of your self-professed naivety (at best). These fascists are a cancer on the body politic and the solution is not to listen to many of the posters here who think that somehow magically the best course of action is simply to do nothing at all, lest we upset the poor lickle fascists.
Just categorizing everyone protesting as "fascists" is ignorant. These people think the election was rigged, and they don't trust institutions. They think that our democracy is at risk, and your solution is to push them, deplatform them, and remove all hope of legal political influence?
Reacting to this anxiety with force is going to cause a war if it continues.
Reacting to this anxiety with force is going to cause a war if it continues.
> These people think the election was rigged, and they don't trust institutions.
The don't come up with these conclusions themselves. Only one very influential "leader", with a Twitter following of 88M, has been claiming elections are a fraud in America:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-longstanding-history-c...
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797
Appeasing his followers has been tried for the past ~5ish years. That led to Jan 6. Further appeasement will lead to worse outcomes unless trump is politically and legally, and _socially_ contained.
The don't come up with these conclusions themselves. Only one very influential "leader", with a Twitter following of 88M, has been claiming elections are a fraud in America:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-longstanding-history-c...
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797
Appeasing his followers has been tried for the past ~5ish years. That led to Jan 6. Further appeasement will lead to worse outcomes unless trump is politically and legally, and _socially_ contained.
I disagree and feel that's a very simplistic explanation. If anything the past four years of democrat reaction to Trump has directly contributed to the situation we're in. The failure to acknowledge this simple fact is startling.
If you were a Trump supporter who was just called a fascist, racist, bigot, white supremacist, uncle tom, unintelligent rube during the past four years, and you watched as the media, hollywood, elites, and democrat party tried everything possible to undermine your legally elected President, including unmasking of family/friends/campaign, bogus 2+ year Russia investigation peddled as fact by the pundits 24/7 7 days a week, impeachment #1, daily conspiracies of all variety, and I could go on; would you trust the outcome of the election?
There were hundreds of sworn affidavits including by democrats and independents, factual things worth investigating if not to simply bring closure to the numerous issues, and the democrats instead not only slammed the door shut, they opened have and continue to deride conservatives & Trump supporters.
How on Earth is it not clear why people don't trust the election results or even more so how we ended up with 50,000+ people in DC and a small subset ending up inside the Capitol building?
To top all of that off, for over 3 months this past summer in multiple cities across the nation, blm/antifa threw very often violent protests that were watered down by the media as "mostly peaceful", despite millions of humans seeing with their own eyes what was happening. People were shot and killed in multiple places, multiple police officers were injured and killed. They tried to storm the White House & Portland Federal building.
How can you still claim it's all due to just one person? I find it to be total nonsense.
I'm sure I'll be downvoted for saying the above, but failure to at least recognize what I'm saying is a colossal mistake. This is what the other side is feeling.
If you were a Trump supporter who was just called a fascist, racist, bigot, white supremacist, uncle tom, unintelligent rube during the past four years, and you watched as the media, hollywood, elites, and democrat party tried everything possible to undermine your legally elected President, including unmasking of family/friends/campaign, bogus 2+ year Russia investigation peddled as fact by the pundits 24/7 7 days a week, impeachment #1, daily conspiracies of all variety, and I could go on; would you trust the outcome of the election?
There were hundreds of sworn affidavits including by democrats and independents, factual things worth investigating if not to simply bring closure to the numerous issues, and the democrats instead not only slammed the door shut, they opened have and continue to deride conservatives & Trump supporters.
How on Earth is it not clear why people don't trust the election results or even more so how we ended up with 50,000+ people in DC and a small subset ending up inside the Capitol building?
To top all of that off, for over 3 months this past summer in multiple cities across the nation, blm/antifa threw very often violent protests that were watered down by the media as "mostly peaceful", despite millions of humans seeing with their own eyes what was happening. People were shot and killed in multiple places, multiple police officers were injured and killed. They tried to storm the White House & Portland Federal building.
How can you still claim it's all due to just one person? I find it to be total nonsense.
I'm sure I'll be downvoted for saying the above, but failure to at least recognize what I'm saying is a colossal mistake. This is what the other side is feeling.
There is clearly a large disenfranchised segment of the population. They have all kinds of reasons with varying degrees of veracity. Lots of people are trying to ignore it, sweep it under the rug, etc. But the real problem here is that a lot of corps+people are trying to "fix" it by stamping it out. Nearly half of the U.S. voted for trump - so I don't think stamping it out is going to work - but it might lead to worse things.
Do they really think the election was rigged or is that just what they say to signal each other and 'trigger' the libs? These aren't starry-eyed idealists whose naïve beliefs about politics have suddenly been crushed, they voted for for the rudest blowhard on Twitter after having him as President for the last 4 years.
They know he pushes hardline policies, they know he's super-antagonistic, they know he's been impeached for corruption, they know that half of what he says makes no sense. They may not like or approve of Biden (I don't either tbh) but Trump voters absolutely know who he is. Poll after poll has established that a plurality of them them don't really give a shit about democracy and that loyalty to Trump is their top concern.
I think what you're worried about is that if they get shut down they will become more aggressive, and I agree that's highly likely. But the approach of appeasing these people and soothing their ruffled feathers has been tried for years and they have just become more and more aggressive over that time. You have a draw a line somewhere, and their attempt to overrun Congress and halt the confirmation of an election seems like a good place to do it.
They know he pushes hardline policies, they know he's super-antagonistic, they know he's been impeached for corruption, they know that half of what he says makes no sense. They may not like or approve of Biden (I don't either tbh) but Trump voters absolutely know who he is. Poll after poll has established that a plurality of them them don't really give a shit about democracy and that loyalty to Trump is their top concern.
I think what you're worried about is that if they get shut down they will become more aggressive, and I agree that's highly likely. But the approach of appeasing these people and soothing their ruffled feathers has been tried for years and they have just become more and more aggressive over that time. You have a draw a line somewhere, and their attempt to overrun Congress and halt the confirmation of an election seems like a good place to do it.
OK, most charitably, some of the people protesting unwittingly supported and took part in a fascist coup. Sucks for them I suppose, it's of course an easy mistake to make.
People have sat by and watched for 4 years and did nothing whilst Trump worked to erode institutions, culminating in the American people democratically voting in a free and fair election to oust President Trump. The reaction to that was an attempted fascist coup. Clearly doing nothing has failed catastrophically. Perhaps there are more optimal solutions to this attack on democracy, but the posters here clutching their pearls over what is a relatively light response to an attempted coup should spare the rest of us the faux outrage.
People have sat by and watched for 4 years and did nothing whilst Trump worked to erode institutions, culminating in the American people democratically voting in a free and fair election to oust President Trump. The reaction to that was an attempted fascist coup. Clearly doing nothing has failed catastrophically. Perhaps there are more optimal solutions to this attack on democracy, but the posters here clutching their pearls over what is a relatively light response to an attempted coup should spare the rest of us the faux outrage.
> remove all hope of legal political influence
no one has suggested this and none of the actions of the past few days can be categorized as this
Trump’s campaign (for an election that has ended) is not the only campaign in the country
no one has suggested this and none of the actions of the past few days can be categorized as this
Trump’s campaign (for an election that has ended) is not the only campaign in the country
[deleted]
What else do you call people supporting fascists?
The people you refuse to reach out to by and large are not made up of fascists. And so we will get what always happens when this kind of mindset takes root en masse.
The problem is those people are already radicalized, and if you give them what they want out of fear, then they’ve already won
I know some of them, and no, but they're getting there.
Your original post can be read as an indirect threat (don’t push them to the brink...or else). Why are you saying these things on behalf of a group of people that you’re not a member of?
I know lots of them, and yes, lots of them were there years ago. It's just a first-mover problem because it's relatively easy to infiltrate radical groups and so those which plan violent action tend to informed on or penetrated. This is one reason they look to powerful authority figures for leadership, because peer-to-peer coordination is risky and uncertain.
I don't agree with the sentiment. You cannot be responsible for people's opinions/reactions for actions you take that you feel are right. Moreover, by placating the very people you would upset otherwise by punitive actions you send a signal that their actions can go unpunished and further entrench the idea that they are right in their actions which is much more dangerous than a temporary outrage.
> This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists
Sometimes certain things need to be dealt with by force, there's no way around it.
It seems that that freedom of speech is not the cause of stability, but stability gives rise to (certain degrees) of freedom of speech. It's a slippery slope, but each country has to have a moral basis on which to decide where to draw the line.
Sometimes certain things need to be dealt with by force, there's no way around it.
It seems that that freedom of speech is not the cause of stability, but stability gives rise to (certain degrees) of freedom of speech. It's a slippery slope, but each country has to have a moral basis on which to decide where to draw the line.
The words you just wrote about necessary force are the same ones coming out of the mouths of those you wrote them about.
It should be obvious where this road leads unless we have a leader wake us up.
It should be obvious where this road leads unless we have a leader wake us up.
It's perfectly OK to punch someone back after they've punched you first. You're not obliged to stand there and keep reasoning with them while they hit you again.
Put this in a frame and hang it. It describes war.
If that is what you seek, so be it. Everyone argues their war is just. But war is always the same, no matter how just it is.
If that is not what you seek, consider how to move towards peace.
The worst thing to do is to cause a war when you wanted peace, because you didn't understand what was happening.
If that is what you seek, so be it. Everyone argues their war is just. But war is always the same, no matter how just it is.
If that is not what you seek, consider how to move towards peace.
The worst thing to do is to cause a war when you wanted peace, because you didn't understand what was happening.
Spare me the theatrics. Suggesting that the person getting hit (in this metaphor) is the one seeking war is like an abuser blaming their victim for having made them do the bad thing again.
It really won't. It'll be cited as a the grievance that drove them over the line in manifestos or court testimony, but generally people are radicalized by themselves or peers and then cast around for an exterior excuse afterwards. The grievances vary with circumstances, the target or out-group disliked by the extremist person stays the same.
You are correct, I have been saying this for months/years. The reason this is escalating is for the same reason this always does: unwillingness to believe war is a possibility, then unwillingness to forgive until the suffering has gone on so long it is intolerable.
I am concerned about all the normal employees of these companies, that are taking these political actions. The higher up people can afford round the clock security. The normal SDE at these companies did not sign up for political activist company. What do they do now?
Appeasement has never, ever worked throughout history.
The implied threat of radicalization should be dead to you, and those who try to make this argument. They are already radicalized.
[deleted]
The idea is if you remove enough of their ability to communicate with the general population, their influence will be significantly reduced. It would remove the feedback loop that's feeding the fire.
It also sends a message that their behavior is unacceptable. That has a very strong influence on culture as a whole. Messages like this are how a lot of civil rights movements have worked.
It also sends a message that their behavior is unacceptable. That has a very strong influence on culture as a whole. Messages like this are how a lot of civil rights movements have worked.
The larger problem is that the United States Congress was, just four days ago, invaded by a violent mob and forced into hiding for hours. People are going to be a lot more radicalized if they think they can get away with that! It would be like refusing to cut business ties with a mafia don because you're afraid of radicalizing his soldiers - maybe there's some short-term benefit, but in the long term all you accomplish that way is legitimizing the violence.
I agree with this, instinctually. However, I think the political calculus here is that it's better to really piss off a "small" amount of people than allow a potentially larger group to get radicalized.
Vice did an article on this recently, when Telegram tried to kick off ISIS: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb55bd/telegram-deplatformin...
It's interesting to consider whether the (soon to be former) president of the US deserves similar treatment to a terrorist organization responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
Vice did an article on this recently, when Telegram tried to kick off ISIS: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vb55bd/telegram-deplatformin...
It's interesting to consider whether the (soon to be former) president of the US deserves similar treatment to a terrorist organization responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
This confirms how disingenuous/delusional "free market", "free association" and "free assembly" arguments are in this case. Decisions by entities of this size simply cannot be interpreted under a "free association" lens, except to the same extent that Lockheed-Martin not selling arms to Iran, or, more pertinently, Baidu not serving up photos of the Tiananmen Square protests, can be interpreted under the same lens. You cannot conclude that an act of censorship is not a state or government wielding its power merely because it is done by a private company,
Nominally, Tencent is a privately owned company freely choosing who they provide a platform to [2]. But in reality, they have absolutely no choice but to ban Winnie the Pooh, unless they want a state apparatus to make their lives incredibly difficult from then on.
The same in the US: these are not mom-and-pop stores with immediate agents and agendas exercising their free association rights in accordance with their personal beliefs. These are large tech companies, deeply and inseparably intertwined with public authority and the political parties, lobbying and making political contributions on one side, seeking political approval and avoiding threats of regulatory retaliation on the other. They know full well that if they ban the wrong speech and refuse to ban the "right" speech, they face being regulated out of business. Indeed, seeing this threat, we see them scramble to align with an incoming administration.
You don't have to be an all-in free speech absolutist to see what's wrong with this: we're not talking about people with fringe views having to move to fringe platforms, we're talking about the campaign of the largest (soon-to-be-)opposition party being banned from major platforms en masse, while people with significant credibility regarding authoritarianism [1], who also happen to be on bad terms with said opposition party [2] denounce these acts as "unacceptable acts of censorship".
[1] https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644 [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-05/donald-trump-us-has-n...
Nominally, Tencent is a privately owned company freely choosing who they provide a platform to [2]. But in reality, they have absolutely no choice but to ban Winnie the Pooh, unless they want a state apparatus to make their lives incredibly difficult from then on.
The same in the US: these are not mom-and-pop stores with immediate agents and agendas exercising their free association rights in accordance with their personal beliefs. These are large tech companies, deeply and inseparably intertwined with public authority and the political parties, lobbying and making political contributions on one side, seeking political approval and avoiding threats of regulatory retaliation on the other. They know full well that if they ban the wrong speech and refuse to ban the "right" speech, they face being regulated out of business. Indeed, seeing this threat, we see them scramble to align with an incoming administration.
You don't have to be an all-in free speech absolutist to see what's wrong with this: we're not talking about people with fringe views having to move to fringe platforms, we're talking about the campaign of the largest (soon-to-be-)opposition party being banned from major platforms en masse, while people with significant credibility regarding authoritarianism [1], who also happen to be on bad terms with said opposition party [2] denounce these acts as "unacceptable acts of censorship".
[1] https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644 [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-05/donald-trump-us-has-n...
This is insane. I’m anti crypto since inception but there needs to be checks and balances. No judicial precedent or order just monopolies. If you’re pro AWS and social media banning I disagree but can understand to an extent. This is just lunacy
this is a pretty good time for a lot of the anti crypto crowd to figure out the necessity of permissionless money. I hope to never hear the statement "crypto has no real usecase" ever again.
What's lunacy is inciting your supporters to be violent and try to overthrow democracy. Replace insurrection with child porn and see if your argument still stands.
And yet Apple and Google have never taken any action against twitter despite similar content over the past four years threatening or organizing violence on twitter - content which is still there to this day.
America has fallen into an Orwellian society. Would have never thought that possible, but to see the number of people supportive of such a society is mind boggling.
America has fallen into an Orwellian society. Would have never thought that possible, but to see the number of people supportive of such a society is mind boggling.
Isn't this overreach?
Financial organisation making conditions on which political party you can support.
Financial organisation making conditions on which political party you can support.
It's not about which political party they support. Literally no one is being banned from stripe just for voting republican.
This takes it a step closer, and certainly invokes that fear.
They would have done it sooner if it was politically motivated, as opposed to being in reaction to breach of their ToS.
I disagree. Earlier would mean Republicans have more time to enforce consequences. With looming antitrust cases with many big tech companies, this could be construed as a pledge of loyalty.
Interesting point I hadn't considered, but in the face of it, Occam's razor makes me more inclined to believe this isn't a cross-Big Tech conspiracy and more in reaction to the bad press following the Capitol events.
I’d argue it’s both. They’re acting in concert and not letting a good crisis go to waste.
Or they wanted to do it sooner but they were afraid that Trump might get angry and come after them like what he did to Tic Tok?
pmiller2(2)
Financial organization choosing not to facilitate transactions that fund literal terrorism.
Yes, it's very much overreach.
They have been doing it on other less prominent people and businesses, and haven't suffered any major consequences.
But, this is major escalation in political activism, and likely will not end up the way things have worked out in the past.
They have been doing it on other less prominent people and businesses, and haven't suffered any major consequences.
But, this is major escalation in political activism, and likely will not end up the way things have worked out in the past.
[deleted]
Trump wasn't banned for being a republican...
Your political party isn’t a protected class. If you think it should be then call your congress critter and get them to change the law.
Except in California (where Stripe is HQ'd).
https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/10/ar....
https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/10/ar....
The trump campaign fundraises through a generic platform for all republicans, is the entire Republican party cutoff from Stripe now?
More generally Stripe knows which users have contributed to the campaign, bought merch etc. Even beyond the card used as they also fingerprint the browser[1]. Will those users be blocked by Stripe Radar across all sites now? After all they "contributed to domestic terrorism"
Probably not, but what a great marketing on ramp for 75M people to crypto!
[1] https://mtlynch.io/stripe-recording-its-customers/
More generally Stripe knows which users have contributed to the campaign, bought merch etc. Even beyond the card used as they also fingerprint the browser[1]. Will those users be blocked by Stripe Radar across all sites now? After all they "contributed to domestic terrorism"
Probably not, but what a great marketing on ramp for 75M people to crypto!
[1] https://mtlynch.io/stripe-recording-its-customers/
I m sorry but all this concerted action feels (from afar) a lot like "if people don't vote the way we want, we re just gonna have to force them". It's not about overreach, but companies are not political entities, and reversing this relationship is a self-defeating travesty
And if they are doing it for cheap popularity points -- well trump may be gone in a week, but his voters won't leave. this just reinforces mistrust in the state itself
And if they are doing it for cheap popularity points -- well trump may be gone in a week, but his voters won't leave. this just reinforces mistrust in the state itself
Stop downplaying a literally terrorist attack on the nation's Capitol.
You realize the weeks-long “peaceful” BLM/Antifa protests caused orders of magnitude more damage in multiple cities, rather than this one protest in one building that happened for one day?
Also there’s phone recordings of several people at the capitol incident who were actually antifa people disguised as trump supporters. I’d share a link to some tweets to show you.... but guess what? They’ve been banned
Also there’s phone recordings of several people at the capitol incident who were actually antifa people disguised as trump supporters. I’d share a link to some tweets to show you.... but guess what? They’ve been banned
It's entertaining how the left was so critical of the use of the word "terrorist" when talking about the War on Terror, but then immediately started throwing it around when it politically expedient.
The FBI says one the biggest threats is domestic terrorism.
> In recent years, federal authorities have described American extremists as the most urgent terror threat to the country and beefed up resources against them, carrying out a wave of prosecutions this year to head off potential violence as the presidential election approached.
https://www.propublica.org/article/domestic-terrorism-a-more...
> In recent years, federal authorities have described American extremists as the most urgent terror threat to the country and beefed up resources against them, carrying out a wave of prosecutions this year to head off potential violence as the presidential election approached.
https://www.propublica.org/article/domestic-terrorism-a-more...
This does fit the definition of terrorism though: violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes.
I think it would be very difficult to argue that last week's invasion of the Capitol Building was neither violent nor politically motivated.
I think it would be very difficult to argue that last week's invasion of the Capitol Building was neither violent nor politically motivated.
By that same definition the antifa riots are terrorism too then? Politically motivated violence - throwing explosives, setting buildings on fire, etc.
Yet I haven't heard that word used at all.
Yet I haven't heard that word used at all.
"Antifa riots" is a somewhat vague descriptor, but may well be yes, depending on which incident or incidents you're referring to.
Are you sure you haven't heard anyone describe anti-fascist actions as terrorism? I believe Trump himself said as much, several times last year, to wide news coverage.
Are you sure you haven't heard anyone describe anti-fascist actions as terrorism? I believe Trump himself said as much, several times last year, to wide news coverage.
The "ANTIFA" riots? Can you cite a source for this claim that the black lives matters protests were propagated in any sort of widespread, organized concerted effort by "ANTIFA"? I hear this claim often from Trump supporters but as far as I can tell, they either heard it on talk radio or Fox News. Considering Fox News' coverage of Trump prior to the election, I don't exactly consider them a reliable source. If you could provide a single source for these claims I think that would help your case tremendously.
Otherwise (and I'm so sorry if this sounds condescending), have you considered reflecting on the trustworthiness of the news you tend to digest? I think we can all agree that it's time for the GOP to reflect. Many of them were willing to throw away their principles by repeating Trump's lies that the election was unfair or stolen. Have you not yet arrived at this conclusion finally?
Otherwise (and I'm so sorry if this sounds condescending), have you considered reflecting on the trustworthiness of the news you tend to digest? I think we can all agree that it's time for the GOP to reflect. Many of them were willing to throw away their principles by repeating Trump's lies that the election was unfair or stolen. Have you not yet arrived at this conclusion finally?
Yea, 6 months of coordinated riots and the "right" is the problem https://fukkot.com/riots/all/
Oh and Biden won less counties than Hillary, which was already low for her (hence her loss). Biden under performed in every state except for 5 key swing states and even then it was only a "win" because a never before seen amount of mail in ballots were used. Perhaps they were fake, or perhaps people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box. Still against state law either way.
Oh and very few ballots were contested due to signature mismatches. Funny because Obama won his senate seat in the 90's by having a team canvas all of his competitors primary ballots and had them whittled down until he was the only one running for the office that year.
Oh and Biden won less counties than Hillary, which was already low for her (hence her loss). Biden under performed in every state except for 5 key swing states and even then it was only a "win" because a never before seen amount of mail in ballots were used. Perhaps they were fake, or perhaps people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box. Still against state law either way.
Oh and very few ballots were contested due to signature mismatches. Funny because Obama won his senate seat in the 90's by having a team canvas all of his competitors primary ballots and had them whittled down until he was the only one running for the office that year.
I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing that this is factually incorrect. I hope that you're able to reflect on this in the next few years as Donald Trump's legacy will be similar to that of Nixon, if not worse. And deservedly so. I don't believe any further conversation will be in the spirit of Hacker News' rules. I'm sorry your leader tricked so many of you and then immediately threw you all under the bus.
At moderation, I realize I've gotten to a point that you may consider "flame bait" and I'll admit, my tensions are high due to the reprehensible nature of many of these comments and how sad I am for my country. I'm happy to have my comment removed of it doesn't follow the guidelines.
At moderation, I realize I've gotten to a point that you may consider "flame bait" and I'll admit, my tensions are high due to the reprehensible nature of many of these comments and how sad I am for my country. I'm happy to have my comment removed of it doesn't follow the guidelines.
You seem genuine, so I'll bite.
There will be no reflection of "Donald Trump's legacy" that is positive for the left. I do not watch CNN or fox news, or get my "news" from twitter. For the last 5 years, I've mostly kept in touch with reality through youtube. There were tons of independent journalists that I followed. Some that were covering the election had paid subscriptions to pollster data and software. They could drill down into county level and precinct level data and it was shocking to see vote totals that exceeded the population of the entire precinct! You could go back historically and see every election 2016,2012, etc and see the turnout rates were always 50-70%. It was these precincts that flipped the entire state from red to blue. I thought surely this would be going into audit and court territory and did not bother to save the data or videos as I figured "all would come into the light".
Then youtube banned all these channels. They were not even republican! They were banned for comparing voter turn out numbers with data they paid money to access! Fast forward to this last week. I'm watching another youtube journalist interviewing people at the Jan 6th protest. She was mostly talking with older people, asking what made them show up, etc. There was music, food, and people just generally hanging out. I go back to work for the rest of the day and ignored the news cycle only to get a notification of her posting another video later in the evening about how she just found out about the siege on the capitol. She was there and knew nothing about until getting back to the hotel! And then the entire left wing media labels the event as terrorists and white supremacists. Her next video the next day was about her now being on a no fly list and couldn't get on a plane. Now her entire channel is deleted and I have no idea what happened to her! All this for interviewing grandmas at a protest!
My entire way of getting news for the last 5 years is now non-existent. And you tell me that I am supposed to "reflect" on this? That somehow because I don't drink everything that CNN makes up means I need to be removed from society? That I should only get my news from one "official" source?
I try to engage with people on the left, and it's always "show me the proof!". I had great proof, and numbers, but the left removed it all and now I have nothing and am told the BLM protests were so much more honorable than the capitol protest when all of the videos on youtube of people organizing through facebook and telegram groups with slogans of "good cops are dead cops" are now also deleted and people act like the protests never happened. We do not have a state run media in america, but it is clear that we have a media run state and every one on the left is the very definition of 'Koristne Budale'. All the way to the point of voting for a man who the KKK applauded in the 60's for his pro segregation policies. Now he is somehow the face of "anti racism" and "defund the police" when in the 90's he pushed for the death penalty for repeat drug offenders.
Why don't you try a thought process? How would you feel if it was herds of trump supporters marching through cities lighting everything on fire for 6 months while everyone talked about how peaceful they where? So you think, "We'll show them come Nov 4th". And on Nov 4th, Biden takes an immediate lead only to loose in the middle of the night because Trump's "mail in ballots just arrived" and there's no need to check signatures. And then it bounces around the courts for nearly two months, none of them speaking on the matter at hand, but instead claiming that somehow it is not the court's problem to solve. So you attend a protest at the capitol only to be labeled as a terrorist because some really fringe people were all the media focused on. You'd be absolutely loosing your mind. If you think it feels bad being on the left, trying being on the right!
Oh and Trump is not my leader. It took him two weeks before he started talking about the numbers I had on the 5th. He in many cases this year has been late to the game. Our only hope is extreme voter reform, but the democrats love a loose ballot. They do not orchestrate fraud, they only make sure the pool stays too muddy to clean.
We are about to have 80 million americans that will never see Biden or the DNC as legit. It will be like fighting over Jefferson Davis all over again.
I hope you reflect deeply. I've been an agnostic, a leftist, a libertarian. Telling me to get enlightened and go back ain't happening.
There will be no reflection of "Donald Trump's legacy" that is positive for the left. I do not watch CNN or fox news, or get my "news" from twitter. For the last 5 years, I've mostly kept in touch with reality through youtube. There were tons of independent journalists that I followed. Some that were covering the election had paid subscriptions to pollster data and software. They could drill down into county level and precinct level data and it was shocking to see vote totals that exceeded the population of the entire precinct! You could go back historically and see every election 2016,2012, etc and see the turnout rates were always 50-70%. It was these precincts that flipped the entire state from red to blue. I thought surely this would be going into audit and court territory and did not bother to save the data or videos as I figured "all would come into the light".
Then youtube banned all these channels. They were not even republican! They were banned for comparing voter turn out numbers with data they paid money to access! Fast forward to this last week. I'm watching another youtube journalist interviewing people at the Jan 6th protest. She was mostly talking with older people, asking what made them show up, etc. There was music, food, and people just generally hanging out. I go back to work for the rest of the day and ignored the news cycle only to get a notification of her posting another video later in the evening about how she just found out about the siege on the capitol. She was there and knew nothing about until getting back to the hotel! And then the entire left wing media labels the event as terrorists and white supremacists. Her next video the next day was about her now being on a no fly list and couldn't get on a plane. Now her entire channel is deleted and I have no idea what happened to her! All this for interviewing grandmas at a protest!
My entire way of getting news for the last 5 years is now non-existent. And you tell me that I am supposed to "reflect" on this? That somehow because I don't drink everything that CNN makes up means I need to be removed from society? That I should only get my news from one "official" source?
I try to engage with people on the left, and it's always "show me the proof!". I had great proof, and numbers, but the left removed it all and now I have nothing and am told the BLM protests were so much more honorable than the capitol protest when all of the videos on youtube of people organizing through facebook and telegram groups with slogans of "good cops are dead cops" are now also deleted and people act like the protests never happened. We do not have a state run media in america, but it is clear that we have a media run state and every one on the left is the very definition of 'Koristne Budale'. All the way to the point of voting for a man who the KKK applauded in the 60's for his pro segregation policies. Now he is somehow the face of "anti racism" and "defund the police" when in the 90's he pushed for the death penalty for repeat drug offenders.
Why don't you try a thought process? How would you feel if it was herds of trump supporters marching through cities lighting everything on fire for 6 months while everyone talked about how peaceful they where? So you think, "We'll show them come Nov 4th". And on Nov 4th, Biden takes an immediate lead only to loose in the middle of the night because Trump's "mail in ballots just arrived" and there's no need to check signatures. And then it bounces around the courts for nearly two months, none of them speaking on the matter at hand, but instead claiming that somehow it is not the court's problem to solve. So you attend a protest at the capitol only to be labeled as a terrorist because some really fringe people were all the media focused on. You'd be absolutely loosing your mind. If you think it feels bad being on the left, trying being on the right!
Oh and Trump is not my leader. It took him two weeks before he started talking about the numbers I had on the 5th. He in many cases this year has been late to the game. Our only hope is extreme voter reform, but the democrats love a loose ballot. They do not orchestrate fraud, they only make sure the pool stays too muddy to clean.
We are about to have 80 million americans that will never see Biden or the DNC as legit. It will be like fighting over Jefferson Davis all over again.
I hope you reflect deeply. I've been an agnostic, a leftist, a libertarian. Telling me to get enlightened and go back ain't happening.
Sorry, but I don't have a response for you that is in the spirit of this site's rules. Namely, that conversation should be interesting. Have a nice day.
>Oh and Biden won less counties than Hillary, which was already low for her (hence her loss).
why is this relevant? electoral college votes (and population, if you care about the popular vote) isn't distributed by counties.
>Biden under performed in every state except for 5 key swing states
Can you define "underperformed"?
>Perhaps they were fake, or perhaps people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box. Still against state law either way.
If you're going to go with the election fraud claim, at least provide evidence rather than just beating around the bush. Also, please cite how "people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box" is against state law.
>Oh and very few ballots were contested due to signature mismatches. Funny because Obama won his senate seat in the 90's by having a team canvas all of his competitors primary ballots and had them whittled down until he was the only one running for the office that year.
How is this relevant? Is there a process for invaliding signatures that the republicans haven't invoked? Do democrat voters' signatures get invalidated at a higher rate than republicans? Is the "normal" invalidation rate high enough to surpass biden's lead in the key states?
why is this relevant? electoral college votes (and population, if you care about the popular vote) isn't distributed by counties.
>Biden under performed in every state except for 5 key swing states
Can you define "underperformed"?
>Perhaps they were fake, or perhaps people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box. Still against state law either way.
If you're going to go with the election fraud claim, at least provide evidence rather than just beating around the bush. Also, please cite how "people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box" is against state law.
>Oh and very few ballots were contested due to signature mismatches. Funny because Obama won his senate seat in the 90's by having a team canvas all of his competitors primary ballots and had them whittled down until he was the only one running for the office that year.
How is this relevant? Is there a process for invaliding signatures that the republicans haven't invoked? Do democrat voters' signatures get invalidated at a higher rate than republicans? Is the "normal" invalidation rate high enough to surpass biden's lead in the key states?
> for this claim that the black lives matters
Nobody said anything about BLM. That was just you.
Instead the previous poster was likely refering to the violence and death that happened, at places like the Seattle Cap hill autonomous zone.
Such events included many self identified anarchists. And there absolutely were shootings attacks on a government building during those anarchist riots.
Nothing to do with BLM. Instead, people are referring to the actions taken by anarchists.
Nobody said anything about BLM. That was just you.
Instead the previous poster was likely refering to the violence and death that happened, at places like the Seattle Cap hill autonomous zone.
Such events included many self identified anarchists. And there absolutely were shootings attacks on a government building during those anarchist riots.
Nothing to do with BLM. Instead, people are referring to the actions taken by anarchists.
> Nobody said anything about BLM. That was just you.
Oh, okay. I had thought I had seen Donald Trump try several times during his speeches to conflate ANTIFA with the BLM movement in order to discredit BLM. Considering we know that a certain number of Trump's base will follow him all the way to treason, I hope you can understand why I might believe they were tricked into thinking this was true.
A reputable source would still be appreciated though. Thanks.
Oh, okay. I had thought I had seen Donald Trump try several times during his speeches to conflate ANTIFA with the BLM movement in order to discredit BLM. Considering we know that a certain number of Trump's base will follow him all the way to treason, I hope you can understand why I might believe they were tricked into thinking this was true.
A reputable source would still be appreciated though. Thanks.
“Not being taken seriously”? They are all being tracked down and arrested. Put on no fly lists. New legislation is being drafted to address domestic terrorism. All of their social media platforms are being shut down.
What does this author mean by “not being taken seriously”?
What does this author mean by “not being taken seriously”?
“Enjoyed”, past tense, while they were openly plotting terrorism and insurgency.
Once they executed it, that stopped (mostly, though people—including here on HN—are still arguing that they shouldn't be taken seriously.) But, had they been taken seriously when plotting murder and Insurrection in the open, it could have been disrupted before they swarmed the Capitol, or even showed up in D.C.
Once they executed it, that stopped (mostly, though people—including here on HN—are still arguing that they shouldn't be taken seriously.) But, had they been taken seriously when plotting murder and Insurrection in the open, it could have been disrupted before they swarmed the Capitol, or even showed up in D.C.
I’m reading the FBI warned the Capitol police about it ahead of the rally. So again, I don’t see them “not being taken seriously”.
> I’m reading the FBI warned the Capitol police about it ahead of the rally.
I’m reading now that anonymoust “senior law enforcement officials” are claiming that, even though the FBI already, after the event, said they had no intelligence that anything beyond First Amendment protected activity was planned or likely to occur. So either the FBI was previously lying on the record to make themselves look bad, or officials that won’t go on the record are lying to place the blame for failures on the Capitol Police after the head of the Capitol Police resigned at the request of the Speaker, so that responsibility is on a head that has already rolled.
I’m reading now that anonymoust “senior law enforcement officials” are claiming that, even though the FBI already, after the event, said they had no intelligence that anything beyond First Amendment protected activity was planned or likely to occur. So either the FBI was previously lying on the record to make themselves look bad, or officials that won’t go on the record are lying to place the blame for failures on the Capitol Police after the head of the Capitol Police resigned at the request of the Speaker, so that responsibility is on a head that has already rolled.
At this point the partisan hyperbole is thick enough that one can take a look at the title, domain name and reliably predict the content of the article.
It would be encouraging if individuals could take the media and political institutions 'seriously'. Instead, as you observe, the divisions are being driven deeper. Dissenters are being labeled terrorists. Those who wear there tolerance on their shirt sleeves can't tolerate disagreement. They claim that only intolerant people disagree.
If 50k+ people march on the Capitol Building, at what point are the politicians within responsible for failing to represent their interests? Isn't that a basic premise of democracy, that violence will be averted by proportional representation?
If half the country finds no credibility in media reportage, at what point are reporters responsible?
Was there nothing else that the media or the political establishment could have done to address the public's concerns and add legitimacy to the process? Or is it simply enough to dismiss them all as terrorists?
Obviously this strategy hasn't worked thus far, yet the establishment seems keen on doubling down.
According to the narrative I've seen, the above non sequiturs should be ignored. The circumstances are special. It is all the work of an exceptional conman. The people have been deceived because they are not as intelligent or compassionate as their betters. Of course, you dear reader are part of the in-group. Allow me to throw you some platitudes as I demonize the others. Our form of tribalism is nothing like theirs.
This time is different, but it is also the same as that other time. That time another political figure kept repeating the same lie. Be sure that is not our tribe repeating lies about the out-group. Did I mention that this time is different?
It would be encouraging if individuals could take the media and political institutions 'seriously'. Instead, as you observe, the divisions are being driven deeper. Dissenters are being labeled terrorists. Those who wear there tolerance on their shirt sleeves can't tolerate disagreement. They claim that only intolerant people disagree.
If 50k+ people march on the Capitol Building, at what point are the politicians within responsible for failing to represent their interests? Isn't that a basic premise of democracy, that violence will be averted by proportional representation?
If half the country finds no credibility in media reportage, at what point are reporters responsible?
Was there nothing else that the media or the political establishment could have done to address the public's concerns and add legitimacy to the process? Or is it simply enough to dismiss them all as terrorists?
Obviously this strategy hasn't worked thus far, yet the establishment seems keen on doubling down.
According to the narrative I've seen, the above non sequiturs should be ignored. The circumstances are special. It is all the work of an exceptional conman. The people have been deceived because they are not as intelligent or compassionate as their betters. Of course, you dear reader are part of the in-group. Allow me to throw you some platitudes as I demonize the others. Our form of tribalism is nothing like theirs.
This time is different, but it is also the same as that other time. That time another political figure kept repeating the same lie. Be sure that is not our tribe repeating lies about the out-group. Did I mention that this time is different?
[deleted]
I guess the chickens really did come home to roost.
Why aren't you blaming the security at the capital? Isn't it there fault the rioters got as far as they did?
Yes, but... that doesn't justify entering the capital or climbing the building either. The state of security isn't the topic of discussion above.
It should be. It's the reason those people got into the capital building.
The security at the capitol was deliberately limited, probably to allow exactly this to happen and probably by the orders of Trump himself. The investigation over this will seal the deal on which higher ups get charged.
Limited by who? I doubt trump's people could have considered this a legit coup opportunity.
The president, the defense secretary, we'll find out once an investigation is conducted.
> I doubt trump's people could have considered this a legit coup opportunity.
They were minutes away from killing elected representatives.
> I doubt trump's people could have considered this a legit coup opportunity.
They were minutes away from killing elected representatives.
> They were minutes away from killing elected representatives.
For that to be true the people invading the capital would need to have intent to kill, weapons, and minutes access to those representatives. How many of those things are proven to be true?
For that to be true the people invading the capital would need to have intent to kill, weapons, and minutes access to those representatives. How many of those things are proven to be true?
All of those are true. They were there to "stop the steal" and were chanting "hang Mike Pence" and they had zip ties, pipe bombs, mace and more than likely plenty of guns. Only the elected representatives had time to evacuate, many of their staff were barricaded inside still. They had intent, weapons and access.
It's a business decision. What if a boycott starts because other customers don't like Stripe sticking with Parler? They should just eat the losses? It's a business decision and companies are free to make them.
The irony of this is that you’re so close to being right, but you’re focusing on the wrong group.
On Wednesday an armed mob literally rushed the Capitol because people didn’t vote the way they wanted them to, with the intent to just force them. It might end up being a “self-defeating travesty”, but only time will tell.
But you seem more worried about a virtual “mob”, which frankly seems insanely out of touch at the moment. And more than a little bit insulting, given that there are actual mobs running around trying to kill members of congress.
On Wednesday an armed mob literally rushed the Capitol because people didn’t vote the way they wanted them to, with the intent to just force them. It might end up being a “self-defeating travesty”, but only time will tell.
But you seem more worried about a virtual “mob”, which frankly seems insanely out of touch at the moment. And more than a little bit insulting, given that there are actual mobs running around trying to kill members of congress.
> armed mob
I donno if I'm just blind but I keep hearing 'armed' but I haven't seen any photos of the mob carrying guns or baseball bats as claimed by the media.
The only photo that showed anything was the guy climbing over the seats with zip-ties which were apparently taken from a bag left by a police offer?
Not saying you're wrong just feel like the photos / videos, vs what people are saying, seem to contradict each other.
I donno if I'm just blind but I keep hearing 'armed' but I haven't seen any photos of the mob carrying guns or baseball bats as claimed by the media.
The only photo that showed anything was the guy climbing over the seats with zip-ties which were apparently taken from a bag left by a police offer?
Not saying you're wrong just feel like the photos / videos, vs what people are saying, seem to contradict each other.
Capitol police found and defused three pipe bombs, and seven people in the mob so far were arrested for carrying illegal firearms.
And as an aside, "armed" versus "unarmed" is largely immaterial. I don't care if you and five hundred of your buddies show up with supersoakers and pool noodles with the intent to overturn a vote count, it's a direct assault on democracy.
And as an aside, "armed" versus "unarmed" is largely immaterial. I don't care if you and five hundred of your buddies show up with supersoakers and pool noodles with the intent to overturn a vote count, it's a direct assault on democracy.
I found these with a 10 second web search. There were many more results with similar information.
According to this[0]:
"More than 60 people were arrested, at least 50 police were injured, and officers confiscated guns, pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails."
And this[1]:
"An Alabama man allegedly parked a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle and a handgun two blocks from the US Capitol building on Wednesday for hours before authorities ever noticed, according to federal prosecutors.
Another man allegedly showed up in the nation's capital with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and told acquaintances that he wanted to shoot or run over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prosecutors said."
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...
[1] https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/feds-p...
According to this[0]:
"More than 60 people were arrested, at least 50 police were injured, and officers confiscated guns, pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails."
And this[1]:
"An Alabama man allegedly parked a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle and a handgun two blocks from the US Capitol building on Wednesday for hours before authorities ever noticed, according to federal prosecutors.
Another man allegedly showed up in the nation's capital with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and told acquaintances that he wanted to shoot or run over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prosecutors said."
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...
[1] https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/feds-p...
Mistrust is already there. It is too late. Force is the only way forward. Even they agree with this notion, otherwise they wouldn't storm the capitol. Everyone is just playing according to the rules.
betterunix2(2)
[deleted](2)
What’s amazing is this is, despite most commenters agreeing here, incredible evidence for the “they’re all controlled by the same people” crowd.
This level of coordinated action shouldn’t be possible in a healthy, diverse, competitive environment.
This level of coordinated action shouldn’t be possible in a healthy, diverse, competitive environment.
Of course it is. It’s not like these are fringe views that people are acting on. Look at his inner circle who abandoned him before “Big Tech” did. There’s a huge (and growing) chunk of society that is sick of what he says and does. Forget his ideals, I’m talking about his behavior.
The obvious reason could be something happening, impacting all these decisions in an major way. An attempted self-coup is a pretty good reason to act. Now the obvious question is, why did it take a few days?
A) It didn't (twitter and other social media platforms reacted pretty fast)
B) Companies that don't have a lot of experience with people inciting violence and riots (i.e. not huge social media companies) probably didn't have a process ready
C) Since other companies took actions, the ones left may "read the room"
In fact, the spread-around (in time) and ad-hoc actions speak more to an "oh shit, this is very bad for our image and our own employees are very unhappy with this" reaction
A) It didn't (twitter and other social media platforms reacted pretty fast)
B) Companies that don't have a lot of experience with people inciting violence and riots (i.e. not huge social media companies) probably didn't have a process ready
C) Since other companies took actions, the ones left may "read the room"
In fact, the spread-around (in time) and ad-hoc actions speak more to an "oh shit, this is very bad for our image and our own employees are very unhappy with this" reaction
sure it is possible, these people all just agree that parler and trump are a danger to the country and want no part of it anymore. the combination of the riots and trump losing the election means there is both more motivation to jump ship and less risk from doing so. if trump had won the election none of these companies would take the risk.
[deleted]
Bad idea IMO, the Internet doesn't forget. Why would anyone choose Stripe over another payment processor now when Stripe comes with the additional risk of being banned at a whim for whatever political/ideological/opportunistic virtue-signalling reason? It's not like they have a monopoly like Apple and Google with their respective App Stores. The same goes for AWS, it's just irresponsible to use it now.
> being banned at a whim
The President of the United States just incited insurrection because he lost the election.
This is not a case of somebody being "banned at a whim".
The President of the United States just incited insurrection because he lost the election.
This is not a case of somebody being "banned at a whim".
> incited insurrection
AFAICT this is a common opinion shared by half the population or so, but it's not an undisputed fact or court ruling. What's protecting you or me from similarly popular accusations that might be false in our case? Should we only use Stripe and AWS if we are certain we'll never do, say, or be associated with something that might upset half the population of the USA or a few people in power? Wikileaks upset a lot of people and got banned by VISA and others, for example. Without any wrongdoing in my opinion.
For my business sense, being dependant on AWS, Stripe, Shopify or other politically motivated organizations is a risky situation I'd rather avoid. YMMV.
AFAICT this is a common opinion shared by half the population or so, but it's not an undisputed fact or court ruling. What's protecting you or me from similarly popular accusations that might be false in our case? Should we only use Stripe and AWS if we are certain we'll never do, say, or be associated with something that might upset half the population of the USA or a few people in power? Wikileaks upset a lot of people and got banned by VISA and others, for example. Without any wrongdoing in my opinion.
For my business sense, being dependant on AWS, Stripe, Shopify or other politically motivated organizations is a risky situation I'd rather avoid. YMMV.
Welcome to the shiny new age of totalitarian tolerance.
I wonder if during world war 2 people opposed fighting nazis like this...
The US is not at war, these are two groups within a single country.
I think you are missing the point of my question. I’m pointing out that not all opinions should be protected equally. Opinions of hate or violence are bad for society. I don’t understand why the suppression of those things is considered totalitarian? Especially when it comes from private enterprise.
Because if you block 'bad' opinions, you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible and eventually you'll find that opposing a current government is 'bad' (this happened in my country in a short span of 15 years). So it turns out that allowing all speech, even 'bad' is less harmful for society in the long run than trying to suppress some speech.
Canada has restrictions on free speech that prevent things like saying hateful stuff. And so far Canada looks pretty democratic and fair to me.
Have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...
Have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...
Actually it's fraught with issues. "Hate speech" was used to stop the republishing of the cartoons that got the Danish guy murdered.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...
Nothing's perfect, my point us that it didn't lead to a totalitarian state.
Some provinces there literally have curfews and police patrolling the street to arrest anyone breaching curfew. Just because it's justified as an attempt to slow the spread ot covid, doesn't make it any less totalitarian.
Temporary emergency measures don't make a totalitarian government. For that matter, similar measures were temporarily taken and then rescinded in the past; proof of non-totalitarianism. Further proof is minority governments and recent changes in governing parties. Totalitarian governments don't have these.
I think further burden of proof on wether Canada is a totalitarian state reasonably falls on those who believe it is. It seems reasonable to accept that Canada isn't totalitarian as a premise, when I say that some restrictions on freedom of speech don't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
I think further burden of proof on wether Canada is a totalitarian state reasonably falls on those who believe it is. It seems reasonable to accept that Canada isn't totalitarian as a premise, when I say that some restrictions on freedom of speech don't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
So what?
The thing is, even if someone recognizes:
>… you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible…
By the time this may matter the most, it is already too late… rubicon has already been crossed. Thus, the one who recognizes this must position themselves to expect any of the downsides that will most assuredly come and to expect society to be of no help at all to achieve such ends.
>… you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible…
By the time this may matter the most, it is already too late… rubicon has already been crossed. Thus, the one who recognizes this must position themselves to expect any of the downsides that will most assuredly come and to expect society to be of no help at all to achieve such ends.
This is a third time today I see this hypocritical nonsense. The definition of tolerance is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.
If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.
If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.
Being tolerant of those who believe differently absolutely does not preclude pushing back against those who are not tolerant of those who believe differently from them.
There's no hypocrisy there.
Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.
There's no hypocrisy there.
Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.
> Opinions of hate or violence are bad for society
The issue is making this distinction. You’re out of your mind if you want corporations to make that for you.
The issue is making this distinction. You’re out of your mind if you want corporations to make that for you.
The problem here, and I am not disagreeing with you or blaming you for this, is the Republican Party spent four decades telling us ceding control of things to the marketplace and private industry was going to make the world better. That they are now hoist by their own petard is something for a better person than me to not laugh at.
And on the flip side, the Democrats have been clutching pearls about the monopoly of big tech, but once big tech starts silencing their political opponents they come rushing to big tech's defense and talk about how much they believe in free markets.
It's entertaining as hell.
It's entertaining as hell.
If that does happen, if they were to abandon oversight of Big Tech over this, that would be soulless and wrong. I just don’t see how you know this will happen.
[deleted]
Yes because there could never be a war within a country right?
Civil wars are still wars, and we're inching closer.
Yes, they were. In the UK, there was fairly consistent opposition to fighting the Nazis. Even after France was overrun, there was a fairly large minority in the UK saying that the UK should surrender and ally with Germany (some of these were right-wing, some of them were not). In the US, unsurprisingly given the huge number of German migrants to the US, there was fairly unanimous opposition which is why the US joined so late. The connection with Britain and France was only really present in the elites of US society, isolationism was the default.
Also, it is worth remembering that what we know about the Nazis today is not necessarily what people knew about the Nazis then.
I think myths about WW2 are quite damaging. Everyone today appears to think that they are in a good vs evil battle. Not only is this quite clearly not justified by the facts today (for example, comparing the Capitol with Kristallnacht, as Schwarznegger did, is a chilling inaccuracy...particularly from someone who hails from Austria), it wasn't the situation then...no-one in WW2 in the US regarded it as a good vs evil battle (only Churchill did, and he was lambasted for it).
Also, it is worth remembering that what we know about the Nazis today is not necessarily what people knew about the Nazis then.
I think myths about WW2 are quite damaging. Everyone today appears to think that they are in a good vs evil battle. Not only is this quite clearly not justified by the facts today (for example, comparing the Capitol with Kristallnacht, as Schwarznegger did, is a chilling inaccuracy...particularly from someone who hails from Austria), it wasn't the situation then...no-one in WW2 in the US regarded it as a good vs evil battle (only Churchill did, and he was lambasted for it).
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of Nazi ideas about race and social organization came from America. Not all, but enough to make most modern Americans uncomfortable. America had a sizable Nazi party, and eugenics was a hugely popular movement before the Nazis really highlighted the severe downsides of that ideology.
America also turned away a lot of Jewish refugees for similar reasons. Most of the ended up victims of the Holocaust. It's only after the war that the "we had to fight this great, singular evil" emerged.
America also turned away a lot of Jewish refugees for similar reasons. Most of the ended up victims of the Holocaust. It's only after the war that the "we had to fight this great, singular evil" emerged.
Well, IBM didn't ban Germany...
No, a lot of the wealthy, powerful people in the US were profiting off Nazis.
I really don't think this is it (Yet), but (although the Chinese may take priority sadly) the Orwell's of the future will probably be writing about these companies.
[deleted]
tclancy(1)
As a complete outsider to US politics I'm still struggling to understand why so many people are upset at "Big Tech" about this.
I think what all the de-platforming efforts show very clearly is that people inside these companies, taking their cues from what is most likely a majority of their employees and probably most importantly...customer base, don't want to be associated with certain types of behavior.
Maybe it's driven by greed, maybe ethics...doesn't really matter. They've done the analysis and they've all decided that it's ultimately bad for the company long term.
From all the complaints, one would think that these CEO's just woke up one day decreed these bans due to their own personal feelings.
I think what all the de-platforming efforts show very clearly is that people inside these companies, taking their cues from what is most likely a majority of their employees and probably most importantly...customer base, don't want to be associated with certain types of behavior.
Maybe it's driven by greed, maybe ethics...doesn't really matter. They've done the analysis and they've all decided that it's ultimately bad for the company long term.
From all the complaints, one would think that these CEO's just woke up one day decreed these bans due to their own personal feelings.
To the HN users arguing in bad faith that Parler was just another Twitter or Facebook, it wasn't. The top posts of the site were overwhelmingly calls for violence, racism, and the spread of conspiracy theories. Parler volunteer moderators curated all dissenting voices on the platform to produce the exact content they wanted (accounts are shadowbanned by default until they are 'approved' for crying out loud).
This is the paradox of tolerance reaching its tipping point. Any sufficiently tolerant society can only be so tolerant until a bad actor becomes so detrimental to the continued function of that society, that they must choose between allowing some intolerance toward the destructive actor or risk losing everything by allowing the bad actor to continue their work.
This is not the patriot act. This isn't Prism. This is a group of people grooming others to shout fire in a crowded assembly hall. Good riddance.
This is the paradox of tolerance reaching its tipping point. Any sufficiently tolerant society can only be so tolerant until a bad actor becomes so detrimental to the continued function of that society, that they must choose between allowing some intolerance toward the destructive actor or risk losing everything by allowing the bad actor to continue their work.
This is not the patriot act. This isn't Prism. This is a group of people grooming others to shout fire in a crowded assembly hall. Good riddance.
Is Parler a Russian OP? Is this conspiracy theory or facts? https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1327270213256179712
I haven't seen any "proper" news channels touching founding/funding subject.
I haven't seen any "proper" news channels touching founding/funding subject.
I feel like decentralized solution like Bitcoin would solve the problems of responsibility, liability and trust. There needs to be economic incentives and costs throughout the network. You as a processing node can support who ever you want and you can collect fees from them for processing transactions. For example if majority of nodes do not want to process certain transactions from certain individuals or organizations renaming nodes can charge high fees and earn huge profits meanwhile demotivating the sender/s of this transactions.
Satoshi mentioned feeding off of spammers[1] ; basically you farm money from malicious and toxic emails(content) or malicious and toxic transactions. This way you disincentive them to continue with their malicious operations.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=cryptography&m=123290127832572&w=2
Satoshi mentioned feeding off of spammers[1] ; basically you farm money from malicious and toxic emails(content) or malicious and toxic transactions. This way you disincentive them to continue with their malicious operations.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=cryptography&m=123290127832572&w=2
Not everything can and should be solved by half-baked blockchain technologies.
Bitcoin was in alpha when Satoshi released it and then left 2 years later. If he/she stayed Bitcoin would be something like PayPal is today. Without founder/s projects aren't the same just like when Jobs left Apple, Apple almost disappeared under new leadership.
Typo:
remaining nodes*
remaining nodes*
He'll have to start taking cryptocurrency.
He said previously of cryptocurrency:
"I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air. Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity."
"I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air. Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity."
He might have an epiphany, due to his changed circumstances.
The full thread seems way too coherent and well-punctuated to be not written by a policy-maker/advisor, especially on a matter like US Fiat (put bluntly this is not a man who is either intelligent or interested in things like that)
Just make your own platform bro
Just create your own online shop bro
Just host your own platform bro
Just host your own videos bro
Just make your own DDoS protection bro
Just make your own ISP bro
Just create your own law firm bro
Just create our own payment processing bro
Just create your own online shop bro
Just host your own platform bro
Just host your own videos bro
Just make your own DDoS protection bro
Just make your own ISP bro
Just create your own law firm bro
Just create our own payment processing bro
The trump campaign raised $200 million from soliciting donations to challenge the elections.
Maybe they could have used some of that money to do just that?
There's plenty of money to at least try.
Maybe they could have used some of that money to do just that?
There's plenty of money to at least try.
Your point is well taken.
However, forcing people or organizations (which are groups of people) to host or support speech/activities they do not wish to support restricts the rights of those people/organizations.
If you can force them to give up their rights, others can force you to give up your rights.
I can't support that at all.
What's more, the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy/cabal that spans every corporation, industry and profession to murder free speech is a pretty far-fetched one.
There's an old saw that says, "if everyone around you appears to be an asshole, perhaps it's you and not everyone else."
Not obligatory but apropos:
https://xkcd.com/1357
However, forcing people or organizations (which are groups of people) to host or support speech/activities they do not wish to support restricts the rights of those people/organizations.
If you can force them to give up their rights, others can force you to give up your rights.
I can't support that at all.
What's more, the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy/cabal that spans every corporation, industry and profession to murder free speech is a pretty far-fetched one.
There's an old saw that says, "if everyone around you appears to be an asshole, perhaps it's you and not everyone else."
Not obligatory but apropos:
https://xkcd.com/1357
My objection to that argument is that the companies claim that the content on the website isn't their speech when invoking Section 230, then claim that it is their speech in order to invoke the First Amendment.
Section 230 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.
So how can a company have free speech rights regarding content if they aren't the speaker?
Section 230 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.
So how can a company have free speech rights regarding content if they aren't the speaker?
Section 230 is irrelevant to the discussion in this case[1].
Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all.
Rather, this is about freedom of association.
Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0].
[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all.
Rather, this is about freedom of association.
Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0].
[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Sorry, I thought this discussion was on a different post. You're right, the argument above doesn't apply to Stripe.
Instead, I would respond that freedom of association is considerably more limited than other rights. Soldiers, students, jurors, prisoners, etc are often forced into association with people they would rather not associate with, and businesses are legally forced into association to protect the rights of other people. When there is a conflict between freedom of association and other rights or government interests, freedom of association rarely prevails.
So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous.
Instead, I would respond that freedom of association is considerably more limited than other rights. Soldiers, students, jurors, prisoners, etc are often forced into association with people they would rather not associate with, and businesses are legally forced into association to protect the rights of other people. When there is a conflict between freedom of association and other rights or government interests, freedom of association rarely prevails.
So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous.
>So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous.
A fair point. How would you apply that in this case?
I'm not being snarky, I just don't see the relevance of applying your (correct in certain circumstances) reasoning in this particular case.
A fair point. How would you apply that in this case?
I'm not being snarky, I just don't see the relevance of applying your (correct in certain circumstances) reasoning in this particular case.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the details of this case, so I won't speculate about how this case might be resolved under current law.
But the general principle I would apply here is that people who own important infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to interfere in elections (Trump 2024 in this case, I assume) by refusing to allow candidates to use that infrastructure.
I don't think that's controversial in the case of, say, electricity or phone service, and it seems reasonable to apply it to payment processing as well.
But the general principle I would apply here is that people who own important infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to interfere in elections (Trump 2024 in this case, I assume) by refusing to allow candidates to use that infrastructure.
I don't think that's controversial in the case of, say, electricity or phone service, and it seems reasonable to apply it to payment processing as well.
Your argument makes little or no sense to me.
1. When it comes to political actors, forcing a person or organization to support a specific candidate (who isn't even on any ballot at the moment) amounts to political coercion and is antithetical to a free society;
2. Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that?
3. Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly. In fact, Stripe is just one of many players in that market[0];
4. Not only does the Donald Trump Campaign (a specific "candidate") have other options for online payment processing, online payment processing is not the only way to collect donations. As such, in addition to the dozens of other payment processors on the market, Bank transfers, Western Union, Zelle, CashApp, old fashioned checks and money orders, cash etc., etc., etc. are also available.
You've got this all backwards. Political activity/speech is strongly protected in the US -- no just positive activity/speech, but negative activity/speech as well.
And if the government can force Stripe (or you or me) to provide support to a political actor, then all of our rights are being impinged.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service...
1. When it comes to political actors, forcing a person or organization to support a specific candidate (who isn't even on any ballot at the moment) amounts to political coercion and is antithetical to a free society;
2. Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that?
3. Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly. In fact, Stripe is just one of many players in that market[0];
4. Not only does the Donald Trump Campaign (a specific "candidate") have other options for online payment processing, online payment processing is not the only way to collect donations. As such, in addition to the dozens of other payment processors on the market, Bank transfers, Western Union, Zelle, CashApp, old fashioned checks and money orders, cash etc., etc., etc. are also available.
You've got this all backwards. Political activity/speech is strongly protected in the US -- no just positive activity/speech, but negative activity/speech as well.
And if the government can force Stripe (or you or me) to provide support to a political actor, then all of our rights are being impinged.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service...
I'm not comfortable with the idea of "reverse boycotts", in which businesses can hinder candidates by denying them services. That gives business owners far too much power over elections (and Citizens United already gives them too much, IMO). I want democracy, not plutocracy.
> Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that?
Absolutely fine, if that "material support" was merely providing the same business I provide everyone else, at the usual cost. To me, paid services are not "material support", a phrase I would only use to describe in-kind contributions (that is, services provided for free).
And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. What's backwards about expecting big tech to act like other businesses?
> Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly... [candidates] have other options for online payment processing
That's an important point, and here's the rule I would propose to account for it: treat refusing to do business with a candidate while doing business with their opponent as an in-kind contribution to their opponent. If the cost of finding an alternative is small, denying services will be allowed as a small in-kind contribution.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking about how I think things should work, not what the current law is, but I believe that's the legal principle behind the Equal-Time Rule, so it's not entirely legally unprecedented.
> Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that?
Absolutely fine, if that "material support" was merely providing the same business I provide everyone else, at the usual cost. To me, paid services are not "material support", a phrase I would only use to describe in-kind contributions (that is, services provided for free).
And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. What's backwards about expecting big tech to act like other businesses?
> Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly... [candidates] have other options for online payment processing
That's an important point, and here's the rule I would propose to account for it: treat refusing to do business with a candidate while doing business with their opponent as an in-kind contribution to their opponent. If the cost of finding an alternative is small, denying services will be allowed as a small in-kind contribution.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking about how I think things should work, not what the current law is, but I believe that's the legal principle behind the Equal-Time Rule, so it's not entirely legally unprecedented.
>And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics.
That's as may be. However, US Federal law doesn't require them to service anyone except in specific circumstances[0].
There are some state laws that extend to political affiliation, but that's almost always just in employment decisions and not B2B transactions.
If you think the law is wrong (I do not), you can advocate for changing the laws. I won't support your efforts, but I will and do support your right to do so.
Which is what you seem to want taken away from others.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
That's as may be. However, US Federal law doesn't require them to service anyone except in specific circumstances[0].
There are some state laws that extend to political affiliation, but that's almost always just in employment decisions and not B2B transactions.
If you think the law is wrong (I do not), you can advocate for changing the laws. I won't support your efforts, but I will and do support your right to do so.
Which is what you seem to want taken away from others.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
> I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others.
I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. I just don't want the weight of their opinion to be related to how much they own.
I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. I just don't want the weight of their opinion to be related to how much they own.
>I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away.
How else can forcing people to provide support (whether that support is compensated or not) for a political entity be interpreted?
Doing so would reduce the political rights of those affected.
And reducing those rights for to one group means they can do that to you or to me. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
How else can forcing people to provide support (whether that support is compensated or not) for a political entity be interpreted?
Doing so would reduce the political rights of those affected.
And reducing those rights for to one group means they can do that to you or to me. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
[deleted]
If you’re a principled free market conservative, then all of those are valid responses.
Welcome to the free market at work! Sometimes market forces work against you but you don’t get to complain about it.
Welcome to the free market at work! Sometimes market forces work against you but you don’t get to complain about it.
When all of those happen to you and are supported by the other half of the country are you more likely to try and integrate or secede?
Just build your own payment processor.
I'm curious if other countries around the world are going to see how dependent they are on these so called "platforms" and is it going to trigger a change.
If Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google, Stripe, etc. decide to ban you, you are done, vanished into thin air. You lose your infrastructure, social network, media channel, de-listed from Search, and oh yeah right, your financial end up being blocked.
While Uganda is not the best example, they are the first country which realised how quickly you can get deleted, so they just decided to completely block all the players. And again, the average joe gets hurt...
If Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google, Stripe, etc. decide to ban you, you are done, vanished into thin air. You lose your infrastructure, social network, media channel, de-listed from Search, and oh yeah right, your financial end up being blocked.
While Uganda is not the best example, they are the first country which realised how quickly you can get deleted, so they just decided to completely block all the players. And again, the average joe gets hurt...
Reminds me of when payment processors dropped Wikileaks. That was never reversed, so I don’t think this will be either.
[deleted]
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
I wonder, would these bans would have happened if the Republicans maintained control of the senate?
Counterfactuals are hard, and I'm spitballing here, I think it's useful to consider a scenario where that would be true: for Republicans to have maintained control of the Senate would likely correspond to more public support for Republicans in general, which means it's less likely there would have been run-offs in Georgia; the outcome of the November 2020 elections would likely have been settled much sooner, and less motivation for the unrest that culminated on January 6. So, as to the narrow "would these bans would have happened" now? Probably not.
All of this is conjecture, thought experiment off the top of my head that I will not do much to defend. And, of course, none of that is what actually happened.
All of this is conjecture, thought experiment off the top of my head that I will not do much to defend. And, of course, none of that is what actually happened.
I agree with you that counterfactuals are hard (and often pointless) -- but it is worth noting that it would have only taken a small shift in public support for Republicans to have kept control of the Senate -- for example, ~50K votes in the Ossoff/Perdue runoff, or alternately ~14K votes in the same race in the general election. That's an incredibly tiny shift, and one that could have been geographically isolated to a single state.
Additionally, I'd imagine a shift toward Republicans that fell short of Trump winning the presidency would have led to more unrest on Jan 6, not less.
Additionally, I'd imagine a shift toward Republicans that fell short of Trump winning the presidency would have led to more unrest on Jan 6, not less.
Maybe they are often pointless but I think in this case it would be helpful if we found out the main drivers for these decisions.
Let’s not undermine the significance of techs decision to censor here. The potential blowback could be in tens of millions of users abandoning these platforms for alternatives.
So should we give them credit or was this a political decision? Maybe the DOJ will drop its cases against big tech. Maybe the senate/congress will stop calling the CEOs to testify.
Let’s not undermine the significance of techs decision to censor here. The potential blowback could be in tens of millions of users abandoning these platforms for alternatives.
So should we give them credit or was this a political decision? Maybe the DOJ will drop its cases against big tech. Maybe the senate/congress will stop calling the CEOs to testify.
You’re looking right past the likely cause and jumping straight to the reaction. Ignoring the context is not useful. Twitter, Facebook, AWS, and others didn’t act ex nihilo.
To flip it around, do you think Twitter, Facebook, and AWS would have taken these actions if protesters hadn't broken into the Capitol on January 6? I think it's unlikely.
Twitter and Facebook have taken little action in the past four years even when there were many calls to do so, and Twitter had already come out and said that they'd subject Trump's account to normal TOS review after he leaves office. So something happened that caused them to change their decision. In this case it's not hard to see that the proximal and stated cause is sufficient to explain their actions.
To flip it around, do you think Twitter, Facebook, and AWS would have taken these actions if protesters hadn't broken into the Capitol on January 6? I think it's unlikely.
Twitter and Facebook have taken little action in the past four years even when there were many calls to do so, and Twitter had already come out and said that they'd subject Trump's account to normal TOS review after he leaves office. So something happened that caused them to change their decision. In this case it's not hard to see that the proximal and stated cause is sufficient to explain their actions.
That's pretty awful.
If I had a dime for every time I read some pearl clutching comment about the big brother slippery slope on HN, I could have retired by now.
In all these years, the only actual existential danger to society to materialize are precisely the entities that are now being deplatformed.
Excuse me if I don't take all this hand wringing on behalf of unstable insurrectionists seriously.
In all these years, the only actual existential danger to society to materialize are precisely the entities that are now being deplatformed.
Excuse me if I don't take all this hand wringing on behalf of unstable insurrectionists seriously.
When half the country is so resentful of the other half that it starts to act out, is escalating that situation the best option?
Or perhaps you let them vent for a bit (mostly harmlessly, but not entirely) and then try to engage with them and bring them back to reality?
Or perhaps you let them vent for a bit (mostly harmlessly, but not entirely) and then try to engage with them and bring them back to reality?
How do you engage with a mob that chants demands for executing democratically elected leaders while storming the capitol?
Listen to their demands and try to find a compromise?
Listen to their demands and try to find a compromise?
They just vented all over the Capitol. It was far from harmless, and could easily have been much worse. Continued appeasement makes little sense.
If you can provide something other than hand-wavy speculative justification for your theory, I'm all ears.
If you can provide something other than hand-wavy speculative justification for your theory, I'm all ears.
Upvoted for teaching me a new phrase.
I am curious for the people against such action by Stripe, what conditions do you think are appropriate before cutting off this kind of service to a customer?
I imagine there must be some conditions that would make one say "we are enabling this individual's actions" to some definiton of "actions" that you disagree with.
I imagine there must be some conditions that would make one say "we are enabling this individual's actions" to some definiton of "actions" that you disagree with.
Honestly? Breaking the law.
Companies providing a service should not care what it is used for. If society has a problem with what people are using services for, it should pass laws, and the companies should comply with the requirements of the law.
I don't know why we are allowing massive companies with unchecked power to make decisions about what is acceptable behaviour on social networks. Since when did they make the laws?
We have a process for this, and it is for democratically elected representatives accountable to their voters to write laws.
Just because you agree with the decisions made by these companies today doesn't mean this is the right process. They're unelected and unaccountable. It's an insult to democracy that we're allowing them to control people's behaviour, even if you agree with them.
Companies providing a service should not care what it is used for. If society has a problem with what people are using services for, it should pass laws, and the companies should comply with the requirements of the law.
I don't know why we are allowing massive companies with unchecked power to make decisions about what is acceptable behaviour on social networks. Since when did they make the laws?
We have a process for this, and it is for democratically elected representatives accountable to their voters to write laws.
Just because you agree with the decisions made by these companies today doesn't mean this is the right process. They're unelected and unaccountable. It's an insult to democracy that we're allowing them to control people's behaviour, even if you agree with them.
I spent a few minutes thinking about your reply and I can't determine whether I also share this same opinion, although it is a set of good points.
There are parts of me that feel like services like Facebook and Twitter may not fit in this model because they've almost inadvertently become modern journalistic entities, and my concerns with them are more monopolistic than their probably justified ability (given that they have become journalistic entities to some extent) to curate, regulate, and present information.
There are parts of me that feel like services like Facebook and Twitter may not fit in this model because they've almost inadvertently become modern journalistic entities, and my concerns with them are more monopolistic than their probably justified ability (given that they have become journalistic entities to some extent) to curate, regulate, and present information.
> Honestly? Breaking the law.
Good news!
Good news!
Did Parler break the law? Or just their users?
In either case, is Amazon acting on legitimate orders from law enforcement, or are they taking the law into their own hands?
Other than your comment, I've yet to hear anyone imply this is a legal, rather than a moral, matter.
Edit: I see this is the Stripe thread, not the AWS/Parler thread. I agree Trump has broken the law, though it is true that even criminals have regular bank accounts that don't get cancelled as soon as they're accused. Same thing applies, Stripe was not acting on a law enforcement request. It's vigilante justice, even if it's on the right side of history. I don't like the precedent.
In either case, is Amazon acting on legitimate orders from law enforcement, or are they taking the law into their own hands?
Other than your comment, I've yet to hear anyone imply this is a legal, rather than a moral, matter.
Edit: I see this is the Stripe thread, not the AWS/Parler thread. I agree Trump has broken the law, though it is true that even criminals have regular bank accounts that don't get cancelled as soon as they're accused. Same thing applies, Stripe was not acting on a law enforcement request. It's vigilante justice, even if it's on the right side of history. I don't like the precedent.
I think that it’s likely that Trump crossed the incitement line, and that he’s also vanishingly unlikely to be prosecuted for it. If he gets prosecuted, they’ll probably stick to easier to prove charges.
That being said, setting the line at illegal behavior being the thing that can get you banned might feel correct, it creates all kinds of weird problems.
First, the law is not designed to be the description of all that is worthy of condemnation. The law is designed as a back stop; it’s the state saying “this behavior is so bad that we need to curtail your freedoms”. The founding fathers explicitly believed that the marketplace of ideas should take care of things, and being ostracized is absolutely part of that.
If companies can cut contacts only for law breaking, then there will be all kinds of pressure to legislate every single aspect of human behavior. I doubt you’d like that, I know I wouldn’t.
Second, there are all kinds of unpleasant behavior that is and always will be legal. Selling guns is legal, as is pornography. Walking around and calmly saying racial slurs to everyone is also legal. Would you deny Starbucks the right to exclude patrons that call everyone a racial slur? Would you attempt to make that illegal? Someone would. Would you obligate every social platform to allow pornography and make eBay sell guns? After all, it’s legal to sell guns.
Third, if the only way you can get kicked off a platform is by breaking the law, this makes companies the social deciders of illegality. While they won’t turn into courts, in the public eye a lot of people will assume that being kicked off means that a law was broken. You do not want the ability for Amazon to accuse people of crimes, trust me.
If you fear that Amazon or whoever has too much power here, then the appropriate legal tool is anti-monopoly laws, not to create some new burdensome system with all kinds of bad side effects.
> In either case, is Amazon acting on legitimate orders from law enforcement, or are they taking the law into their own hands?
The irony is that in attempting to defend freedom, you’ve expressed a shockingly authoritarian sentiment. Law enforcement does not get to tell companies who they can and cannot do business with, and giving them that ability is horrifying.
That being said, setting the line at illegal behavior being the thing that can get you banned might feel correct, it creates all kinds of weird problems.
First, the law is not designed to be the description of all that is worthy of condemnation. The law is designed as a back stop; it’s the state saying “this behavior is so bad that we need to curtail your freedoms”. The founding fathers explicitly believed that the marketplace of ideas should take care of things, and being ostracized is absolutely part of that.
If companies can cut contacts only for law breaking, then there will be all kinds of pressure to legislate every single aspect of human behavior. I doubt you’d like that, I know I wouldn’t.
Second, there are all kinds of unpleasant behavior that is and always will be legal. Selling guns is legal, as is pornography. Walking around and calmly saying racial slurs to everyone is also legal. Would you deny Starbucks the right to exclude patrons that call everyone a racial slur? Would you attempt to make that illegal? Someone would. Would you obligate every social platform to allow pornography and make eBay sell guns? After all, it’s legal to sell guns.
Third, if the only way you can get kicked off a platform is by breaking the law, this makes companies the social deciders of illegality. While they won’t turn into courts, in the public eye a lot of people will assume that being kicked off means that a law was broken. You do not want the ability for Amazon to accuse people of crimes, trust me.
If you fear that Amazon or whoever has too much power here, then the appropriate legal tool is anti-monopoly laws, not to create some new burdensome system with all kinds of bad side effects.
> In either case, is Amazon acting on legitimate orders from law enforcement, or are they taking the law into their own hands?
The irony is that in attempting to defend freedom, you’ve expressed a shockingly authoritarian sentiment. Law enforcement does not get to tell companies who they can and cannot do business with, and giving them that ability is horrifying.
It does not feel like any of these purges are voluntary. Maybe fb which is coincidentally under most legal pressure atm
I'm in favor of payment processors doing the right thing but I also want people to have ways to move money where they want. which seems like something the internet has failed to evolve, without these very very high priced middlemen. I wish banks would do something useful. they don't. seems like they won't. this guy deserves nothing but choking society by these narrow narrow deciders, these enablers of basic functions opting out... grossly imbalanced & disgusting that this is such a death knell, that events like this are catastrophic. coproations should not have such a chokehold on basic society.
[deleted]
All of these silicon valley companies need to realize they live in a bubble. You can't continue doing this and expect it to be recieved well.
Yes the extreme right is ridiculous. But the extreme left is too.
Spend some time outside silicon valley and other liberal hubs. Understand the perspective of others.
I am not in favor of violence. I am not in favor of Trump's behavior. However Trumps stance on policy typically aligns more closely with what I believe than Biden. Behavior like this alienates me.
Again, I do not love Trump. Far from it. But these moves come across not as anti-extreme-right, but anti-conservative.
Yes the extreme right is ridiculous. But the extreme left is too.
Spend some time outside silicon valley and other liberal hubs. Understand the perspective of others.
I am not in favor of violence. I am not in favor of Trump's behavior. However Trumps stance on policy typically aligns more closely with what I believe than Biden. Behavior like this alienates me.
Again, I do not love Trump. Far from it. But these moves come across not as anti-extreme-right, but anti-conservative.
> But these moves come across not as anti-extreme-right, but anti-conservative.
No, they're anti-"storm the nation's seat of government with an angry mob intent on killing members of Congress and / or the Vice President, as a last ditch effort to overturn a democratic election"
No, they're anti-"storm the nation's seat of government with an angry mob intent on killing members of Congress and / or the Vice President, as a last ditch effort to overturn a democratic election"
Yes some were violent. Yes those who were violent should be arrested, investigated, etc. But I'd argue half the country doesn't agree that the mobs intent was on killing members of congress. And that's the issue. You view it from that perspective, and from that perspective it makes sense to ban everything. But half the country (likely) doesn't agree with that perspective.
I remember seeing bloody heads of Trump on twitter. That certainly seems a lot more like inciting violence than Trump saying to head down the street. As violence started to break out Trump tweeted that they should remain peaceful. Followed up by a video saying go home in peace.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6568305002
I remember seeing bloody heads of Trump on twitter. That certainly seems a lot more like inciting violence than Trump saying to head down the street. As violence started to break out Trump tweeted that they should remain peaceful. Followed up by a video saying go home in peace.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/6568305002
[deleted]
Huh? You're really trying to compare what some randos do on Twitter to what the President of the United States did on Wednesday?
Really think about it: the President of the United States incited a mob to attack the Capitol to prevent the certification of the vote of his political opponent.
He did this by pushing constant lies and propaganda for months, and urging his followers to "fight" for him. Go watch his speech and then try to tell me he didn't know exactly what he was doing.
> Trump saying to head down the street
I'm honestly flabbergasted that you can see the culmination of Trump's actions from the past year (or however long he's claimed the election would be rigged) as just saying "head down the street".
Really think about it: the President of the United States incited a mob to attack the Capitol to prevent the certification of the vote of his political opponent.
He did this by pushing constant lies and propaganda for months, and urging his followers to "fight" for him. Go watch his speech and then try to tell me he didn't know exactly what he was doing.
> Trump saying to head down the street
I'm honestly flabbergasted that you can see the culmination of Trump's actions from the past year (or however long he's claimed the election would be rigged) as just saying "head down the street".
Do you honestly believe Trump was trying to overthrow the government? Had that been his real intent I'm fairly certain it would have had a more significant outcome beyond people stealing random envelops and podiums.
It was a protest that went too far. We've seen plenty of this occur from both sides in the past year.
It was a protest that went too far. We've seen plenty of this occur from both sides in the past year.
He was trying to overthrow the election, yes. The same thing he's been trying to do since November 4th. The fact that it was an incompetent attempt (like all of his attempts) makes no difference.
Rudy and Trump were busy calling members of congress DURING the lock down to get them to object to the count in order to delay the process.. For reasons. I'm not sure what they were hoping to do by just delaying everything.
He was trying to overturn the result of a democratically conducted election. You don't get to "both sides" this.
Democrats tried to disrupt the electoral college vote in 2016, and there were many faithless voters.
They failed, but they tried.
Not to mention four years of telling their base the election was stolen or hacked, followed by a pointless impeachment.
This is the new norm. And both sides are indeed complicit and escalating.
They failed, but they tried.
Not to mention four years of telling their base the election was stolen or hacked, followed by a pointless impeachment.
This is the new norm. And both sides are indeed complicit and escalating.
You failed to mention that Clinton lost 5 electoral votes as a result of those shenanigans, while Trump lost 2. None of the faithless electors voted for the other major candidate. How does that constitute "Democrats" trying to overturn the election?
What's more, Clinton herself was not the one trying to supposedly "disrupt the electoral college vote." If you're going to make up a story, at least make it consistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
Edit: Also:
> “What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling.
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...
What's more, Clinton herself was not the one trying to supposedly "disrupt the electoral college vote." If you're going to make up a story, at least make it consistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...
Edit: Also:
> “What the Committee did find however is very troubling. We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling.
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...
> Do you honestly believe Trump was trying to overthrow the government?
Yes, just like I think that was the US’s goal in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs. And just as with the Bay of Pigs, the active agents that were sent off were expendable and abandoned once it didn't work.
> Had that been his real intent I'm fairly certain it would have had a more significant outcome beyond people stealing random envelops and podiums.
Murder of a law enforcement officer is a more significant thing than stealing random envelopes and podiums, as is a mob being stopped from harming Congressional staffers and members at several points by only seconds (and in one case by application of deadly force.)
> It was a protest that went too far.
The people involved said online they were going to seize and kill security officers and members of Congress to achieve their goals, they did the first and were forcibly prevented from being able to do the second. It was a violent insurrection that went less far than planned.
Yes, just like I think that was the US’s goal in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs. And just as with the Bay of Pigs, the active agents that were sent off were expendable and abandoned once it didn't work.
> Had that been his real intent I'm fairly certain it would have had a more significant outcome beyond people stealing random envelops and podiums.
Murder of a law enforcement officer is a more significant thing than stealing random envelopes and podiums, as is a mob being stopped from harming Congressional staffers and members at several points by only seconds (and in one case by application of deadly force.)
> It was a protest that went too far.
The people involved said online they were going to seize and kill security officers and members of Congress to achieve their goals, they did the first and were forcibly prevented from being able to do the second. It was a violent insurrection that went less far than planned.
The Bay of Pigs is a good example of an actual coup attempt with military training and small arms. Can you see the difference between that and what happened at the Capitol Building?
> The Bay of Pigs is a good example of an actual coup attempt with military training and small arms.
The Bay of Pigs wasn’t a coup attempt, though it was an attempt to replace the government. It was an invasion, support for which was cancelled when the expendable, superficially deniable spearhead force did less well than planned.
And, yes, there are lots of differences between it and coup attempt at the Capitol, which is why I didn’t say they were similar generally, only specific, identified points.
The Bay of Pigs wasn’t a coup attempt, though it was an attempt to replace the government. It was an invasion, support for which was cancelled when the expendable, superficially deniable spearhead force did less well than planned.
And, yes, there are lots of differences between it and coup attempt at the Capitol, which is why I didn’t say they were similar generally, only specific, identified points.
Perhaps we should turn to the academic papers on the topic if we are to argue semantics.
https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even...
>"In their article “Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset,” authors Jonathan M. Powell and Clayton L. Thyne provide a definition:
A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive.
There are two key components of this definition. The first is that it is illegal. Powell and Thyne note that this “illegal” qualifier is important to include "because it differentiates coups from political pressure, which is common whenever people have freedom to organize."
In other words, protests, or threats of protest don’t count as coups. Neither do legal efforts such as a vote of no confidence or an impeachment.
But an even more critical aspect of Powell and Thyne’s definition is that it requires the involvement of elites."
http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/powell-thyne-JPR-2011.pdf
>"Nonetheless, we should not be surprised that the media has rushed to apply the term to the riot. This phenomenon was examined in a November 2019 article titled “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research?,” by Leiv Marsteintredet and Andres Malamud. The authors note that as the incidence of real coups has declined, the word has become more common but with modifiers attached."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321719888857
https://mises.org/wire/capitol-riot-wasnt-coup-it-wasnt-even...
>"In their article “Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset,” authors Jonathan M. Powell and Clayton L. Thyne provide a definition:
A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive.
There are two key components of this definition. The first is that it is illegal. Powell and Thyne note that this “illegal” qualifier is important to include "because it differentiates coups from political pressure, which is common whenever people have freedom to organize."
In other words, protests, or threats of protest don’t count as coups. Neither do legal efforts such as a vote of no confidence or an impeachment.
But an even more critical aspect of Powell and Thyne’s definition is that it requires the involvement of elites."
http://www.uky.edu/~clthyn2/powell-thyne-JPR-2011.pdf
>"Nonetheless, we should not be surprised that the media has rushed to apply the term to the riot. This phenomenon was examined in a November 2019 article titled “Coup with Adjectives: Conceptual Stretching or Innovation in Comparative Research?,” by Leiv Marsteintredet and Andres Malamud. The authors note that as the incidence of real coups has declined, the word has become more common but with modifiers attached."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321719888857
> A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive.
That’s a rather incomplete definition:
—quote—
Threats to democracy involve officeholders’ abuse of the official powers given to— them within a democracy through the unconstitutional extension of those powers either temporally or substantively. This abuse is most dramatic in a coup d’état. The traditional coup occurs when one part of the state attempts to take over other organs of the state using force or the threat of force. Because the military represents that part of the state meant to control a monopoly of force,3 the military is the most frequent – but not the only – culprit. Other kinds of coups could occur if a head of government uses unconstitutional means to dismiss judges who deliver unwelcome judgments (what Dr. Mort Halperin calls an “auto-coup”), or to get rid of an “uncontrollable” legislature in order to rule by decree instead (another form of autocoup). A distinct but functionally similar threat is of the erosion of democracy, where officials abuse their constitutional powers to take over gradually the powers of other institutions, as in Zimbabwe.
—end-quote—
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/42605/1/World_Politics_Review.pdf
> There are two key components of this definition. The first is that it is illegal. […] But an even more critical aspect of Powell and Thyne’s definition is that it requires the involvement of elites
And the attack on the Capitol was both illegal violence and with the involvement of elites, who egged it on because they sought to benefit from it, so what’s your point?
That’s a rather incomplete definition:
—quote—
Threats to democracy involve officeholders’ abuse of the official powers given to— them within a democracy through the unconstitutional extension of those powers either temporally or substantively. This abuse is most dramatic in a coup d’état. The traditional coup occurs when one part of the state attempts to take over other organs of the state using force or the threat of force. Because the military represents that part of the state meant to control a monopoly of force,3 the military is the most frequent – but not the only – culprit. Other kinds of coups could occur if a head of government uses unconstitutional means to dismiss judges who deliver unwelcome judgments (what Dr. Mort Halperin calls an “auto-coup”), or to get rid of an “uncontrollable” legislature in order to rule by decree instead (another form of autocoup). A distinct but functionally similar threat is of the erosion of democracy, where officials abuse their constitutional powers to take over gradually the powers of other institutions, as in Zimbabwe.
—end-quote—
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/42605/1/World_Politics_Review.pdf
> There are two key components of this definition. The first is that it is illegal. […] But an even more critical aspect of Powell and Thyne’s definition is that it requires the involvement of elites
And the attack on the Capitol was both illegal violence and with the involvement of elites, who egged it on because they sought to benefit from it, so what’s your point?
I don't think there were grandmas with thermoses on the beaches in the Bay of Pigs.
Riots are generally illegal by definition. If Trump asking people to go home and respect police officers is your idea of elite involvement, we've reached an impasse.
Take care.
Riots are generally illegal by definition. If Trump asking people to go home and respect police officers is your idea of elite involvement, we've reached an impasse.
Take care.
> If Trump asking people to go home and respect police officers is your idea of elite involvement
No, that's my idea of elite abandonment after the attack had failed, similar to the American abandonment of the pawns in the Bay of Pigs. The incitement by Trump, Giuliani, et al., immediately prior to the attack is my idea of elite involvement.
No, that's my idea of elite abandonment after the attack had failed, similar to the American abandonment of the pawns in the Bay of Pigs. The incitement by Trump, Giuliani, et al., immediately prior to the attack is my idea of elite involvement.
The officer was killed with a fire extinguisher. I don't mean to downplay the tragedy of his death. But using a fire extinguisher certainly sounds a lot more like a protest gone too far than a president trying to over throw the government.
Do I need to remind you that Trump encouraged the protest to be peaceful? Then released a video telling everyone to go home, peacefully? Those involved in the violence are being arrested.
"People" online have held up bloody Trump heads, wished for Trump to die. The extreme left isn't this super peaceful always tolerant group. The extreme right isn't either.
Do I need to remind you that Trump encouraged the protest to be peaceful? Then released a video telling everyone to go home, peacefully? Those involved in the violence are being arrested.
"People" online have held up bloody Trump heads, wished for Trump to die. The extreme left isn't this super peaceful always tolerant group. The extreme right isn't either.
I would like to add too that it's no coincidence that all these extremist groups were at Trump's rally. He has been talking to these people using coded language and rhetorical devices for years. Lots of gross rhetoric at every rally, for years and it's all recorded for people to go back and pour over now.
Then there was the great idea to hold a rally down the road from the capital building on that very day, actively invite a bunch of extremist groups you've been courting for years, whip those people up using inflammatory rhetoric and your greatest hits about the the election being stolen, tell them "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness, because you have to show strength and you have to be strong", and then invite them to walk down to the capital building with you..
And let's tweet this during the assault on congress for good measure: Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution
I'm not sure it mattered if Trump meant for this to happen. He's toxic, and he's dangerous.
Then there was the great idea to hold a rally down the road from the capital building on that very day, actively invite a bunch of extremist groups you've been courting for years, whip those people up using inflammatory rhetoric and your greatest hits about the the election being stolen, tell them "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness, because you have to show strength and you have to be strong", and then invite them to walk down to the capital building with you..
And let's tweet this during the assault on congress for good measure: Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution
I'm not sure it mattered if Trump meant for this to happen. He's toxic, and he's dangerous.
I think the poster's point was that you can cherry pick extreme examples from either side to support a desired narrative. If you believe that most of the Capitol Building protesters were peaceful this makes sense. Even if you disagree, take that as a hypothetical and work backwards from there to understand this view.
Several media outlets are highlighting the worst behavior and generalizing from there. Of course the media has every incentive to be sensationalist. There's also a question of bias outside of the motive of sensationalism.
Several media outlets are highlighting the worst behavior and generalizing from there. Of course the media has every incentive to be sensationalist. There's also a question of bias outside of the motive of sensationalism.
I’m sure they took it into account that certain people would feel “alienated” by this, but weighed it against what has happened over the last 4 years and what happened last week in the Capitol and decided “yep, worth it”.
Personally, I don’t understand how you can acknowledge that you ‘far from love Trump’ (paraphrase) but then consider a banning of his campaign (which is separate from the R party and from conservatism) as against you, a conservative.
Personally, I don’t understand how you can acknowledge that you ‘far from love Trump’ (paraphrase) but then consider a banning of his campaign (which is separate from the R party and from conservatism) as against you, a conservative.
I wonder if this will spearhead the adoption of cryptocurrencies which we so desperately need?
Who said free speech must extend to every private entity? Can I walk into anyone's home, business, property, or vicinity and say whatever I want with zero consequence? Why should websites have to allow anything to be written on their own website?
This is the start of antitrust against big tech. They’ve made enemies on both sides
This is a really bad idea. I'm more sympathetic to Twitter. Even under the First Amendment there's no right to say things that aren't true. Which is more the issue than incitement. But this goes way too far:
Companies with business before the US and foreign governments should not be making these decisions. The potential for corruption is absolutely huge. Do we really want Tik Tok deciding what the US President can and can't say.
This is going to further erode trust in US institutions. To believe Trump isn't lying about the election you have to think there's a massive conspiracy to keep him out of power. Well...
Banning people from sharing beliefs doesn't make them less popular. Banning racist speech has NOT worked in Europe.
This is disproportionate to what Trump actually did. This is not to downplay the seriousness of a riot inside the Capitol Building. The timing and nature of the act are repugnant and the people who did it deserve to spend some quality time in federal prison. Trump's false rhetoric about the election being stolen undoubtedly (and foreseeably) motivated these people. But I don't think what he said can be fairly read as advocating what happened. There was no threat whatsoever of the government being overthrown. Trump and people like him will ultimately find a way around these actions. And once they do they will cease to be effective. Individual states can probably step in and ban this sort of thing. And I fully expect most Red States to have done so by the end of the year. These tools should be preserved for a true emergency. Which this isn't.
The right solution to the issue of disinformation is changing libel laws. NYT vs Sullivan was probably a mistake. And several states have criminal libel laws that could have plausibly been applied here.
Companies with business before the US and foreign governments should not be making these decisions. The potential for corruption is absolutely huge. Do we really want Tik Tok deciding what the US President can and can't say.
This is going to further erode trust in US institutions. To believe Trump isn't lying about the election you have to think there's a massive conspiracy to keep him out of power. Well...
Banning people from sharing beliefs doesn't make them less popular. Banning racist speech has NOT worked in Europe.
This is disproportionate to what Trump actually did. This is not to downplay the seriousness of a riot inside the Capitol Building. The timing and nature of the act are repugnant and the people who did it deserve to spend some quality time in federal prison. Trump's false rhetoric about the election being stolen undoubtedly (and foreseeably) motivated these people. But I don't think what he said can be fairly read as advocating what happened. There was no threat whatsoever of the government being overthrown. Trump and people like him will ultimately find a way around these actions. And once they do they will cease to be effective. Individual states can probably step in and ban this sort of thing. And I fully expect most Red States to have done so by the end of the year. These tools should be preserved for a true emergency. Which this isn't.
The right solution to the issue of disinformation is changing libel laws. NYT vs Sullivan was probably a mistake. And several states have criminal libel laws that could have plausibly been applied here.
Silicon Appalachia is gonna be hilarious.
This is why we need cryptocurrency.
There's clearly a line in the sand to be made somewhere here e.g. funding child pornography or terrorism. The easy answer for Stripe is "we ban any account that promotes illegal activity". In that sense, I can see the rationale of banning a political campaign that has clearly fomented an attempt at circumvent a legal civil process.
I just want to say that I really like the format of that article: short and to the point.
I love Axios. It also looks like they might even try to be more than a news outlet, but more of a tech company. I signed up to access this tool, would love to try it out for our clients.
https://www.axios.com/hq
https://www.axios.com/hq
All of this is bullish for cryptocurrencies, that's all I'm gonna add here.
Trump could have gotten away with anything. Free speech has to have limits. Free speech, but not at the cost of lives. Trump crossed a bar, his constant spread of hatred and dividing the country led to people dying. It led to his supporters walking into the capitol with IED bombs. If they found Mike Pence or Nancy pelosi, they were ready to spill blood. People died. It has been discussed in Parler, thedonald.win, in r/TheDonald subreddit.
This is the line. If they simply protested outside, it would have been fine.
Although I am not okay with total ban forever.
The courts should be the ones deciding on such matters. We ought to have a civil debate about this. Both sides feel they are right.
I also agree that Big Tech is way too powerful and Republicans strongly feel they are suppressed. That ain’t right. Big Tech needs to be held in check. They don’t enforce their policies uniformly, neither is there a due process where both sides of the argument are heard and recorded before a judgement is made. Someone wakes up and clicks a button “Ban” without much recourse for their actions.
That’s the problem. We need more objectivity and accountability in the system.
This is the line. If they simply protested outside, it would have been fine.
Although I am not okay with total ban forever.
The courts should be the ones deciding on such matters. We ought to have a civil debate about this. Both sides feel they are right.
I also agree that Big Tech is way too powerful and Republicans strongly feel they are suppressed. That ain’t right. Big Tech needs to be held in check. They don’t enforce their policies uniformly, neither is there a due process where both sides of the argument are heard and recorded before a judgement is made. Someone wakes up and clicks a button “Ban” without much recourse for their actions.
That’s the problem. We need more objectivity and accountability in the system.
Maybe I'm looking at things differently.
Doesn't this push Trump to accept bitcoin. Wouldn't bitcoin get a big boost making him richer as the donations increased?
By doing this now highlight how much Stripe profitted when the going was good. But it also signals when the going isn't good they will not stick with you.
Doesn't this push Trump to accept bitcoin. Wouldn't bitcoin get a big boost making him richer as the donations increased?
By doing this now highlight how much Stripe profitted when the going was good. But it also signals when the going isn't good they will not stick with you.
I hope Stripe gave them a week to find a new payment processor.
Conservatives argued it was totalitarian overreach to force a cake baker to make a gay cake, maybe rightly so even if totalitarian was hyperbolic. Now we’re going to force companies to allow people to coordinate or encourage the overthrow of the entire government and that’s not totalitarian?
Freedom of speech, you cry.
Well, OK, this is freedom of speech…for Stripe. They don’t like what Trump has done. They are a private company. It’s their ball. They can take it home whenever they want to.
Speech has consequences, and if you foment a hostile takeover of Congress, you pay your price.
Well, OK, this is freedom of speech…for Stripe. They don’t like what Trump has done. They are a private company. It’s their ball. They can take it home whenever they want to.
Speech has consequences, and if you foment a hostile takeover of Congress, you pay your price.
This argument went out the window when Amazon started infrastructure bans. "Build your own..." What? Internet? Country?
Amazon aren't the only provider of hosting services, even if they are one of the largest. It's entirely doable to shift providers, even in the face of censorship - The Pirate Bay is one long-running example of this.
I'm not sure how you missed the point by that much. Infrastructure bans are a thing now. You can't produce an app to compete with Twitter and Facebook if you don't have access to scalable infrastructure. Moving to a different host to get canceled there isn't a solution.
Yes you can, it just means the scalability has to be designed in without using AWS/GCP/Azure services. Just like we all used to do it.
"Build your own country" would be a nice start to another civil war.
I would greatly appreciate if the Trumpists would go form their own nation.
I recognize that you were being facetious, but this is work a look.
Greater decentralization, smaller polities and a less powerful federal government could be a workable solution. It doesn't have to go to the point of secession. It is possible to respond with tolerance and let all sides live according to their wishes.
Greater decentralization, smaller polities and a less powerful federal government could be a workable solution. It doesn't have to go to the point of secession. It is possible to respond with tolerance and let all sides live according to their wishes.
So long free speech and thanks for all the fish.
[deleted]
"Nobody gets fired for banning Trump."
People behind all the platforms that are now banning Trump and GOP politicians presumably were aware of what was happening in the last two years. I wonder if recent events were truly the last straw for them, or did they suddenly gain the will to act after election results and are doing the right thing because it’s convenient now.
Tech companies are acting exactly like Republicans who were aligned with Trump. Everybody using this chance to say how much against Trump they are... in his last 10 days.
Honestly it is ugly how stupid and easily swayed they think the public are.
The time to ban and disconnect from Trump was about 3 years ago.
Honestly it is ugly how stupid and easily swayed they think the public are.
The time to ban and disconnect from Trump was about 3 years ago.
Ironic, in light of the Trump admins recent ban on Alipay and other chinese payment apps.[1]
[1]: https://www.ft.com/content/0cd2285d-5e39-4d54-81e7-f4c657364...
[1]: https://www.ft.com/content/0cd2285d-5e39-4d54-81e7-f4c657364...
Know your customer.
What took so long?
"Stripe is the Christian bakery and Trump is the gay wedding."
Imagine what would happen if Trump comes back and says:
"Our store is only accepting Bitcoin, Ethereum and Monero as payment methods"
Could spearhead the shift to decentralized cryptocurrencies.
"Our store is only accepting Bitcoin, Ethereum and Monero as payment methods"
Could spearhead the shift to decentralized cryptocurrencies.
The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you.
We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
Please make your points more substantively than this. Your comment is the fulcrum tipping this thread into flamewar, and that's because the ratio of grandiosity-plus-inflammation to information in it is super high (high is bad).
(I'd make the same reply if you were arguing this way for the opposite position, in case anyone is still worried about that.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(I'd make the same reply if you were arguing this way for the opposite position, in case anyone is still worried about that.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don’t know if you were paying attention last week, but the mob literally came for the members of Congress.
There are wrong opinions, and then there is “six million Jews were not enough” and “hang the Vice President”, and a violent mob attacking the Capitol. No one is under any obligation to tolerate such actions in a civil society.
If I advocate for your murder, am I just expressing an opinion that should be consequence free if someone kills you? Does that change if enough people agree with me that you should be killed?
There are wrong opinions, and then there is “six million Jews were not enough” and “hang the Vice President”, and a violent mob attacking the Capitol. No one is under any obligation to tolerate such actions in a civil society.
If I advocate for your murder, am I just expressing an opinion that should be consequence free if someone kills you? Does that change if enough people agree with me that you should be killed?
The mob has been coming for law enforcement and federal buildings in many major cities in America for nine months now. This mob actively organized on Twitter and other social media. Where was the outrage in June? Most of the organizations that organized this destruction still have their Twitter accounts.
> Where was the outrage in June?
Good question.
Like with all the mainstream media that 'reported' in front of the federal buildings and businesses that got looted and burned down, the shootings in the CHAZ/CHOP areas and the continuous riots and chaos all over the summer last year as seen on Twitter, they told me that there was 'nothing to see here' and it was a 'mostly peaceful protest' which everyone knows is absolute BS.
Both the GOP and Democrats instantly condemned the Capitol riots, but as for the summer riots, but not a single condemnation from the media of those events or even the Democrats disavowing the summer riots in June that are still continuing to this day.
The outrage did not fit their narrative. Neither did it fit their definition of what they think a 'mob' is, since the main culprits behind it were BLM and Antifa, as usual.
Good question.
Like with all the mainstream media that 'reported' in front of the federal buildings and businesses that got looted and burned down, the shootings in the CHAZ/CHOP areas and the continuous riots and chaos all over the summer last year as seen on Twitter, they told me that there was 'nothing to see here' and it was a 'mostly peaceful protest' which everyone knows is absolute BS.
Both the GOP and Democrats instantly condemned the Capitol riots, but as for the summer riots, but not a single condemnation from the media of those events or even the Democrats disavowing the summer riots in June that are still continuing to this day.
The outrage did not fit their narrative. Neither did it fit their definition of what they think a 'mob' is, since the main culprits behind it were BLM and Antifa, as usual.
> The mob has been coming for law enforcement and federal buildings in many major cities in America for nine months now
They're "coming for" police reform and transparency.
Please don't misrepresent or generalise very disparate groups of demonstrators.
They're "coming for" police reform and transparency.
Please don't misrepresent or generalise very disparate groups of demonstrators.
adnzzzzZ(1)
So the ends justify the means? Only certain ideas are allowed for mobs to be okay?
That is correct. It is okay to rally against police brutality; it is not okay to hold a Nazi rally.
chrissnell(1)
I love it when people try to gaslight us like we haven't seen the shit that happened last year. The capitol building "coup" was like watching a kids bop version of BLM/antifa.
Attacking people protesting for racial justice is nothing new.
https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/status/1300196044693741574/p...
Same accusations were made against peaceful many time in history.
There is also evidence of police instigating violence: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-p...
Same accusations were made against peaceful many time in history.
There is also evidence of police instigating violence: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-p...
I think you would find that the majority of people do not support the riots that were happening (and still are) prior, either. So if we say, those accounts should be banned also, will that make everything ok, as both sides would/could be seen as equal?
At the end of the day, we must also recognize that corporations are still run by humans. Those humans make decisions within the context of their own biases and interests. Those interests are also legal requirements in some cases.
It's a tough situation, but even companies which do not have a legal requirement to do so, should be able to express their own views, and be accountable for them. I believe that actions (or threats) by Trump towards twitter earlier on expresses how the Government at the time thought that social platforms should have some accountability.
> "We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can't let a more sophisticated version of that.... happen again." ..... Trump
At the end of the day, we must also recognize that corporations are still run by humans. Those humans make decisions within the context of their own biases and interests. Those interests are also legal requirements in some cases.
It's a tough situation, but even companies which do not have a legal requirement to do so, should be able to express their own views, and be accountable for them. I believe that actions (or threats) by Trump towards twitter earlier on expresses how the Government at the time thought that social platforms should have some accountability.
> "We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can't let a more sophisticated version of that.... happen again." ..... Trump
Setting aside for a moment the multiple orders of magnitude difference in lethality per participant, the key distinction for me is this: what happened in the Capitol is about usurping the monopoly on violence possessed by the government. BLM is not about overthrowing the government, and has never posed a credible threat to it. Even if BLM overthrew the government, no one has been talking about mass executions. By contrast, 6MWNE was on full display at the Capitol attack, as were calls to execute legally appointed representatives. I have been half expecting Trump to declare on Twitter that anyone who kills a democrat gets a pardon.
With the current state of the right wing in the US, there is a clear and present danger of us losing our democracy. When you look at the statements about the election from last _June_, or the purges at the Defense Department last fall, it is clear that this nonsense (and it is nonsense, 59 court cases and counting) about election fraud was premeditated, and so was this coup attempt. This is the Beer Hall Putsch, and it’s a mistake to see how lucky we got and say there is an equivalence to protests against police violence.
Assuming you’re arguing in good faith, what you’re missing is that the outrage from this event isn’t about the five dead people, tragic though that is. It’s about the fact that armed protesters just walked into the Capitol Building while Congress was in session. We are very, very lucky we don’t have dead congresspeople. What do you think the mob that beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher in the Capitol building would have done to AOC if they’d gotten to her?
We cannot afford to make the mistake Weimar Germany did. We cannot assume that because this failed the problem is gone. We cannot appease these people, we cannot treat them as benign. They must all be identified and prosecuted, and their enablers in Congress must be expelled from our governing bodies.
With the current state of the right wing in the US, there is a clear and present danger of us losing our democracy. When you look at the statements about the election from last _June_, or the purges at the Defense Department last fall, it is clear that this nonsense (and it is nonsense, 59 court cases and counting) about election fraud was premeditated, and so was this coup attempt. This is the Beer Hall Putsch, and it’s a mistake to see how lucky we got and say there is an equivalence to protests against police violence.
Assuming you’re arguing in good faith, what you’re missing is that the outrage from this event isn’t about the five dead people, tragic though that is. It’s about the fact that armed protesters just walked into the Capitol Building while Congress was in session. We are very, very lucky we don’t have dead congresspeople. What do you think the mob that beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher in the Capitol building would have done to AOC if they’d gotten to her?
We cannot afford to make the mistake Weimar Germany did. We cannot assume that because this failed the problem is gone. We cannot appease these people, we cannot treat them as benign. They must all be identified and prosecuted, and their enablers in Congress must be expelled from our governing bodies.
That is very much in dispute, the reports [1] have been revised [2] and it appears that the officer may have had a medical issue and was not attached by anyone
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-capitol-po...
[2] https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/us-capitol-police-a...
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-capitol-po...
[2] https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/us-capitol-police-a...
The officer being discussed in [2] is a different police officer than in [1].
It's not in dispute at all, there's video of the mob beating him!
> Setting aside for a moment the multiple orders of magnitude difference in lethality per participant
Is this really true? I’m tempted to charge the entirety of the post-summer urban bloodbath to the BLM movement. This represents an increase of 3-4000 deaths over the prior year.
> BLM is not about overthrowing the government, and has never posed a credible threat to it. Even if BLM overthrew the government, no one has been talking about mass executions.
This is sidestepping your point somewhat, but Antifa (who figured prominently in the protests) do explicitly avow both these things.
Is this really true? I’m tempted to charge the entirety of the post-summer urban bloodbath to the BLM movement. This represents an increase of 3-4000 deaths over the prior year.
> BLM is not about overthrowing the government, and has never posed a credible threat to it. Even if BLM overthrew the government, no one has been talking about mass executions.
This is sidestepping your point somewhat, but Antifa (who figured prominently in the protests) do explicitly avow both these things.
Millions (the estimate I saw was 15-26 million) of people were involved in the BLM protests, which lasted many months. 25 people are known to have been killed. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assign 3-4k deaths to it. By contrast, this was a single event with a few thousand people in which 5 people died. That’s what I mean by orders of magnitude.
I agree that there is a destroy-the-government black bloc present in some of the BLM protests. It’s a fair thing to point out, but I’ll say this: they’ve never had a chance or a credible threat. It’s really a false equivalence to compare a terrorist attack on the Capitol incited by the ruling party in an attempt to overturn a democratic election with seven months of mass protests against police violence.
I agree that there is a destroy-the-government black bloc present in some of the BLM protests. It’s a fair thing to point out, but I’ll say this: they’ve never had a chance or a credible threat. It’s really a false equivalence to compare a terrorist attack on the Capitol incited by the ruling party in an attempt to overturn a democratic election with seven months of mass protests against police violence.
The BLM protests themselves killed 20-30 people. The murder spree that immediately followed killed thousands more. The Gun Violence Archive has the whole story, but this chart for Philadelphia is indicative[1]. Note the structural break in the series in May 2020. I contend this was ex-ante predictable and should therefore be laid at BLM’s feet.
> they’ve never had a chance or a credible threat
Agreed. But neither did the Trump rioters.
[1] http://ibgvr.org/philadelphia-shooting-victims-dashboard/
> they’ve never had a chance or a credible threat
Agreed. But neither did the Trump rioters.
[1] http://ibgvr.org/philadelphia-shooting-victims-dashboard/
This is new information for me - thank you for providing it. What I’d like to understand next is - is there a causal link? This is a pretty unusual year in a lot of ways, including a record number of unemployed people and many people experiencing serious financial pressure. I did a little preliminary googling and it suggested that this is related to a large increase in gun sales in March and April, prior to the George Floyd incident. The other factor that I would think could be relevant is the increase in domestic violence during coronavirus restrictions, as people are trapped with their abusers.
I don’t agree the folks involved in the terrorist attack last week were not a credible threat. If they had succeeding in kidnapping and executing congresspeople, which was both possible and clearly the intent of at least some people who made it into the Capitol, things could have turned out very differently. Something like a third of Congress still thinks we shouldn’t do anything about this - the conditions are ripe for a coup; just because it failed doesn’t mean it didn’t have a chance.
I don’t agree the folks involved in the terrorist attack last week were not a credible threat. If they had succeeding in kidnapping and executing congresspeople, which was both possible and clearly the intent of at least some people who made it into the Capitol, things could have turned out very differently. Something like a third of Congress still thinks we shouldn’t do anything about this - the conditions are ripe for a coup; just because it failed doesn’t mean it didn’t have a chance.
Where was the "we love you, we know how you feel, please go home peacefully" rhetoric in June? Imagine the inroads that could have been made if Trump actually cared about injustice against Americans! Instead he stoked the fire, and saved his adoration for his cronies to throw them under the bus when they failed to secure him his position as unelected president.
[deleted]
When you say "coming for law enforcement", do you mean actively advocating for violence toward, or just, like, advocating for additional regulation?
Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and many other US cities saw mobs attempting (and in some cases, succeeding) in burning down police precincts and courthouses this summer.
[deleted]
You've subtly avoided answering the question I asked. As far as I know, there was one (abandoned) police precinct burned. Was the burning of an abandoned building avocation for violence against police officers?
If you need me to explain to you how mobs attempting to burn down police and court buildings is indicative of advocating violence towards police officers, then you've got bigger problems then your misreading of my response.
You've gotten a distorted version of the story. The Minneapolis Third Precinct was abandoned at the time of burning only because police could no longer defend it against the rioters who were trying to break in and hurt them.
It is honestly frightening to me the level to which so many of us are all living in different realities.
> against the rioters who were trying to break in and hurt them.
This is, we'll go with dubious. Probably true at this point, but the protests had been going, relatively peacefully for close a day, and then less peacefully, with police having repeatedly tear gassed and fired rubber bullets at protestors who weren't doing anything violent, and didn't appear to have any violent intentions. Reports obviously differ, but many concluded that the actions of the police, in attacking the protestors, are what escalated the situation to violence. Compare from [1], and I think this "who is escalating" question becomes clear and relevant.
Which is to say that while the protest ended violently, I think you'll be hard pressed to find widespread intent that it be violent from the start.[2]
So again I'll ask: do you believe that the protesting in Minneapolis was formed with the intention of committing violence against police officers?
On the other hand, do you believe the insurrection at the capitol, which had participants openly advocating for violence for days, was formed, with the intention of committing violence against elected officials?
I find the attempt to draw a parallel between a situation where it took 3 days of getting teargassed for protestors to become violent and one where it took...a speech from the President.
[1]: https://twitter.com/LiteraryMouse/status/1347873482550468609
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/police-response-black-live...
[3]: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2020/06/30/what-happened-at... is my source for the timeline, which appears to be a fairly evenhanded account, noting that some city council members had already proposed abandoning the precinct for more than a day before it ultimately was.
This is, we'll go with dubious. Probably true at this point, but the protests had been going, relatively peacefully for close a day, and then less peacefully, with police having repeatedly tear gassed and fired rubber bullets at protestors who weren't doing anything violent, and didn't appear to have any violent intentions. Reports obviously differ, but many concluded that the actions of the police, in attacking the protestors, are what escalated the situation to violence. Compare from [1], and I think this "who is escalating" question becomes clear and relevant.
Which is to say that while the protest ended violently, I think you'll be hard pressed to find widespread intent that it be violent from the start.[2]
So again I'll ask: do you believe that the protesting in Minneapolis was formed with the intention of committing violence against police officers?
On the other hand, do you believe the insurrection at the capitol, which had participants openly advocating for violence for days, was formed, with the intention of committing violence against elected officials?
I find the attempt to draw a parallel between a situation where it took 3 days of getting teargassed for protestors to become violent and one where it took...a speech from the President.
[1]: https://twitter.com/LiteraryMouse/status/1347873482550468609
[2]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/police-response-black-live...
[3]: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2020/06/30/what-happened-at... is my source for the timeline, which appears to be a fairly evenhanded account, noting that some city council members had already proposed abandoning the precinct for more than a day before it ultimately was.
I believe both of those things. I'm confused by the contrast you're drawing here, because the reason I believe them is the same in both cases: many participants made angry, public declarations that violence was needed and they'd like to see it happen. Questions of how many nonviolent people were involved, how long the violence took to kick off, or who made the first escalation don't strike me as very relevant.
> public declarations that violence was needed
Can you source these in the case of BLM? That's what I'm missing. Preferably equivalently specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct" at a minimum.
> how long the violence took to kick off, or who made the first escalation don't strike me as very relevant.
I think they're highly relevant to discussing the goal of the protests. If a group of protestors shows up and demonstrates peacefully, but is eventually goaded into violence by the group they're protesting[0], that's very different from a group that essentially immediately attacks the people they're protesting.
And, of course, all of this entirely assumes that both groups have equally valid concerns, which is just plainly not true and important to realize. If you're going to take a stance that violence is absolutely never valid, that's an interesting opinion that I don't believe I share. But if you're of the opinion that violence may be an acceptable response to injustice, well, there's a whole lot more reason to believe that BLM protestors have justification for their claim of injustice than stop-the-steal protestors.
[0]: I'll reiterate the importance of this, in general, especially with police tactics that escalate and force violence, such as kettling. While I don't think that specific tactic was present at the 3rd precinct events, tactics that escalate violence are often used against BLM protestors, to predictable results. The fact that violence was reached quickly and without any of those tactics at the capitol speaks to, I think, a different mindset.
Can you source these in the case of BLM? That's what I'm missing. Preferably equivalently specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct" at a minimum.
> how long the violence took to kick off, or who made the first escalation don't strike me as very relevant.
I think they're highly relevant to discussing the goal of the protests. If a group of protestors shows up and demonstrates peacefully, but is eventually goaded into violence by the group they're protesting[0], that's very different from a group that essentially immediately attacks the people they're protesting.
And, of course, all of this entirely assumes that both groups have equally valid concerns, which is just plainly not true and important to realize. If you're going to take a stance that violence is absolutely never valid, that's an interesting opinion that I don't believe I share. But if you're of the opinion that violence may be an acceptable response to injustice, well, there's a whole lot more reason to believe that BLM protestors have justification for their claim of injustice than stop-the-steal protestors.
[0]: I'll reiterate the importance of this, in general, especially with police tactics that escalate and force violence, such as kettling. While I don't think that specific tactic was present at the 3rd precinct events, tactics that escalate violence are often used against BLM protestors, to predictable results. The fact that violence was reached quickly and without any of those tactics at the capitol speaks to, I think, a different mindset.
> Preferably equivalently specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct" at a minimum.
I'll take a crack at this. I could just site your own post where you say the following:
" If you're going to take a stance that violence is absolutely never valid, that's an interesting opinion that I don't believe I share".
It kinda seems like you are at least implying that you support the violence that happened during those riots. So your post right here would be one example of people endorsing violence.
I'll take a crack at this. I could just site your own post where you say the following:
" If you're going to take a stance that violence is absolutely never valid, that's an interesting opinion that I don't believe I share".
It kinda seems like you are at least implying that you support the violence that happened during those riots. So your post right here would be one example of people endorsing violence.
The context we're in is advocation for violence prior to the events. Are you looking for cheap rhetorical points, or are you actually trying to engage thoughtfully (as the person I'm responding to is)?
> people endorsing violence.
Note how you've shifted from "advocating for" to "endorsing" and what I asked for was 'specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct"'.
So can you explain how my statement that, hypothetically, violence may be acceptable in some situations, is a specific plan to harm police officers? With the added assumption that such people should then, you know, show up and do a violence. All of those things were present with Parler. Unless you're claiming that
1. I made statements specifically advocating for violence against in advance of the 3rd precinct protests
2. I then showed up to those protests and committed acts of violence (or, alternatively, I have a large enough following that my followers did the same)
You haven't done what I asked.
> people endorsing violence.
Note how you've shifted from "advocating for" to "endorsing" and what I asked for was 'specific plans, which amount to "our intent is to physically harm police officers and destroy a police precinct"'.
So can you explain how my statement that, hypothetically, violence may be acceptable in some situations, is a specific plan to harm police officers? With the added assumption that such people should then, you know, show up and do a violence. All of those things were present with Parler. Unless you're claiming that
1. I made statements specifically advocating for violence against in advance of the 3rd precinct protests
2. I then showed up to those protests and committed acts of violence (or, alternatively, I have a large enough following that my followers did the same)
You haven't done what I asked.
Would you consider throwing IEDs at cops while hundreds of people chant "pigs in a blanket fry em' like bacon" and try to set fire to the building the police are in violent?
Or howabout permanently blinding some of the cops with lasers? Is that violent, or is that just asking for a funding change in the police department?
Or howabout permanently blinding some of the cops with lasers? Is that violent, or is that just asking for a funding change in the police department?
Those statements, one from William Barr and one from trump, turned out to be false.
The pigs in blankets quote is from a peaceful 2015 protest. Trump lied about it in a Presidential debate.
The officers sight returned.
Edit: in response to this, you provided a video that doesn't include
> throwing IEDs at cops while hundreds of people chant "pigs in a blanket fry em' like bacon" and try to set fire to the building the police are in violent?
As far as I can tell, it's someone throwing a firework at the side of a stone building, which while not a great idea isn't endangering anyone. And "fry em like bacon" no where to be found.
Please don't spread lies.
The pigs in blankets quote is from a peaceful 2015 protest. Trump lied about it in a Presidential debate.
The officers sight returned.
Edit: in response to this, you provided a video that doesn't include
> throwing IEDs at cops while hundreds of people chant "pigs in a blanket fry em' like bacon" and try to set fire to the building the police are in violent?
As far as I can tell, it's someone throwing a firework at the side of a stone building, which while not a great idea isn't endangering anyone. And "fry em like bacon" no where to be found.
Please don't spread lies.
What are you talking about? There are videos of this:
IED: https://youtu.be/dm_lZxmPxUU
As for that chants: go to any of the videos of the various occupations from the summer. If that really does come from a 2015 march instead of 2020, fine, but go to any video and find the same activity (arson, assault, IEDs, lasers) and chants like "no justice no peace".
IED: https://youtu.be/dm_lZxmPxUU
As for that chants: go to any of the videos of the various occupations from the summer. If that really does come from a 2015 march instead of 2020, fine, but go to any video and find the same activity (arson, assault, IEDs, lasers) and chants like "no justice no peace".
Shouldn't people be held accountable for their own actions at some point? Everyone should know that murder is illegal, even if <insert popular figure> says to kills someone, you should know not to.
Damorian(1)
"I don’t know if you were paying attention last week, but the mob literally came for the members of Congress."
A couple of hundred people attacked the capitol in a crowd of 500,000+. Do you remember the phrase 'mostly peaceful protesters'? We've been hearing it for 8+ months after violent riots in major cities which resulted in 30+deaths, hundreds of innocent people attacked, and 1 billion+ in property damage.
"There are wrong opinions, and then there is “six million Jews were not enough” and “hang the Vice President”, and a violent mob attacking the Capitol. No one is under any obligation to tolerate such actions in a civil society."
Antifa and BLM have taken over multiple state and federal buildings over the past 8 months. In June, for instance, multiple fires were set all over DC. A church was nearly burnt to the ground and the President had to go to an underground bunker as a result of the threats outside the white house.
Unlike the protests in January 6th (which was an unorganized mess of random people), BLM and Antifa are professional rioters/criminals. They wear masks to protect themselves and have corporate backing from large left-leaning organizations.
Instead of concern, local leaders painted BLM and named a major street after them.
I'm not sure why you only seem to care when it's Trump supporters. Political violence is wrong on both sides, but only one political not only supported it, but paid the bail of rioters and continue to deny that it even exists. The real criminals are about to get into office.
"If I advocate for your murder, am I just expressing an opinion that should be consequence free if someone kills you? Does that change if enough people agree with me that you should be killed?"
You do realize Trump never said any of this, right? Him and his entire campaign have denounced the violence repeatedly. If you listened to the speech before the capitol was attacked, it was not full of any sort of energy. He basically said that it was all in Pence's hands. Supporters were actually angry because he sounded so defeated. This doesn't sound like the actions of someone trying to storm the Capitol.
The media+tech companies+incoming administration are censoring and destroying their political opponents for things they themselves have been supporting and instigating for 4 years.
If it wasn't so scary, I would call it pathetic actions from limp-dick journalists.
A couple of hundred people attacked the capitol in a crowd of 500,000+. Do you remember the phrase 'mostly peaceful protesters'? We've been hearing it for 8+ months after violent riots in major cities which resulted in 30+deaths, hundreds of innocent people attacked, and 1 billion+ in property damage.
"There are wrong opinions, and then there is “six million Jews were not enough” and “hang the Vice President”, and a violent mob attacking the Capitol. No one is under any obligation to tolerate such actions in a civil society."
Antifa and BLM have taken over multiple state and federal buildings over the past 8 months. In June, for instance, multiple fires were set all over DC. A church was nearly burnt to the ground and the President had to go to an underground bunker as a result of the threats outside the white house.
Unlike the protests in January 6th (which was an unorganized mess of random people), BLM and Antifa are professional rioters/criminals. They wear masks to protect themselves and have corporate backing from large left-leaning organizations.
Instead of concern, local leaders painted BLM and named a major street after them.
I'm not sure why you only seem to care when it's Trump supporters. Political violence is wrong on both sides, but only one political not only supported it, but paid the bail of rioters and continue to deny that it even exists. The real criminals are about to get into office.
"If I advocate for your murder, am I just expressing an opinion that should be consequence free if someone kills you? Does that change if enough people agree with me that you should be killed?"
You do realize Trump never said any of this, right? Him and his entire campaign have denounced the violence repeatedly. If you listened to the speech before the capitol was attacked, it was not full of any sort of energy. He basically said that it was all in Pence's hands. Supporters were actually angry because he sounded so defeated. This doesn't sound like the actions of someone trying to storm the Capitol.
The media+tech companies+incoming administration are censoring and destroying their political opponents for things they themselves have been supporting and instigating for 4 years.
If it wasn't so scary, I would call it pathetic actions from limp-dick journalists.
There is a difference between eight months of protests in which 15-26 million people participated across the entire country resulting in significant property damage and some loss of life (~25 people), and what happened last week.
Let’s call what happened last week what it was: a terrorist attack against the seat of government perpetrated by the ruling party in an attempt to overturn a democratic election.
You need to take a serious look in the mirror and ask if you’re the bad guy. As arch-conservative a figure as Mitch McConnell describes this as a failed insurrection and you make excuses for it.
Let’s call what happened last week what it was: a terrorist attack against the seat of government perpetrated by the ruling party in an attempt to overturn a democratic election.
You need to take a serious look in the mirror and ask if you’re the bad guy. As arch-conservative a figure as Mitch McConnell describes this as a failed insurrection and you make excuses for it.
Spare us your outrage. A literal mob just overran the Capitol. Attempting to talk about “the mob” in opposition to the actual mobs that are continuing to take over Capitol buildings is frankly so tone deaf it’s almost insulting to our intelligence.
I'm tired of people who have only read one book in their entire lives (1984) trying to explain to me how banning Trump is going to lead to an angry leftist mob throwing me in jail (because leftists have power right?) for speaking.
Poor Orwell must be rolling in his grave. Maybe we should wrap him in copper for free power?
For the record, Orwell was a leftist. Yes, 1984 was a warning about the USSR, which he hated, but the idea that he was warning about creeping leftism in general turning into authoritarianism is to really misunderstand him.
For the record, he hated the authoritarian right just as hard as he hated the authoritarian left, possibly more so. He participated in the Spanish civil war, following his own advice that everyone pick up a rifle and shoot a fascist. He was wounded in action by a sniper bullet to the throat.
By the terms of his place and time, he considered himself a libertarian (that word later came to be a right wing phenomenon in America, self consciously co-opted from the left). We’d typically call him a democratic socialist; someone who wanted the government to help solve the “social problem” (where the term “socialism” partially comes from) of poverty and what not, but he was also wary about giving too much power of the government to control people.
He was a complex guy with even more complex political opinions. Sadly our Cold War fueled reading of 1984 has flattened out a lot of his nuance from him.
For the record, Orwell was a leftist. Yes, 1984 was a warning about the USSR, which he hated, but the idea that he was warning about creeping leftism in general turning into authoritarianism is to really misunderstand him.
For the record, he hated the authoritarian right just as hard as he hated the authoritarian left, possibly more so. He participated in the Spanish civil war, following his own advice that everyone pick up a rifle and shoot a fascist. He was wounded in action by a sniper bullet to the throat.
By the terms of his place and time, he considered himself a libertarian (that word later came to be a right wing phenomenon in America, self consciously co-opted from the left). We’d typically call him a democratic socialist; someone who wanted the government to help solve the “social problem” (where the term “socialism” partially comes from) of poverty and what not, but he was also wary about giving too much power of the government to control people.
He was a complex guy with even more complex political opinions. Sadly our Cold War fueled reading of 1984 has flattened out a lot of his nuance from him.
incrudible(1)
The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you.
The facile sophistry of comments like yours is becoming obnoxious. An actual fascist mob already came for us last week and we were not protected, get it?
There can be interesting intellectual arguments about whether this was the right move but breathlessly calling ToS enforcement by private companies a “mob” while ignoring an actual mob with lead pipes, guns, and bombs ain’t it.
The facile sophistry of comments like yours is becoming obnoxious. An actual fascist mob already came for us last week and we were not protected, get it?
There can be interesting intellectual arguments about whether this was the right move but breathlessly calling ToS enforcement by private companies a “mob” while ignoring an actual mob with lead pipes, guns, and bombs ain’t it.
Get back to me when they do it to someone who did not just tell a crowd of terrorists to go over to the Capitol and "save" the country from its own democratic process.
There's a big difference in wrong opinion and inciting violence. This isn't the government doing this. This is private companies taking action against the spread hate and lies. These are companies I want to do business with.
gab got de-platformed and the mob didn't come for anybody else...the world moved on. not everything is a slippery slope. tons of people criticizing it on twitter/fb and they aren't being censored.
You should probably look up what the hallmarks of fascism are sometime. It might surprise you.
Replying to Chrissnell comment which seems to be flagged.
I agree with your sentiment, and I was there on slashdot in those times. Even though I have nothing for or against the political events happening in the USA. I fear that all these companies are using what happened as a pretext to stop giving service to people with different ideas.
Twitter censoring trump is OK. Reddit censoring some channels is OK. But blocking a chat app from apple/google store? AWS? Stripe? This is exactly what a lot of us fought for ed2k, BitTorrent DeCSS and other technologies: the technology is not bad. And even if we dont like the content, we should allow people with different ideas to talk a out it.
Sure, some of the people at the capitol committed a crime. But it's the same as if companies have banned cryptography because of DeCSS.
I agree with your sentiment, and I was there on slashdot in those times. Even though I have nothing for or against the political events happening in the USA. I fear that all these companies are using what happened as a pretext to stop giving service to people with different ideas.
Twitter censoring trump is OK. Reddit censoring some channels is OK. But blocking a chat app from apple/google store? AWS? Stripe? This is exactly what a lot of us fought for ed2k, BitTorrent DeCSS and other technologies: the technology is not bad. And even if we dont like the content, we should allow people with different ideas to talk a out it.
Sure, some of the people at the capitol committed a crime. But it's the same as if companies have banned cryptography because of DeCSS.
Does anyone know why AWS hasn't kicked off Parler yet? Is this a hard decision for Bezos?
AWS laid out the timeline in their letter to Parler:
> "Because Parler cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety, we plan to suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59PM PST."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
According to my watch, it's a few minutes past 17:30 PST.
> "Because Parler cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety, we plan to suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59PM PST."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
According to my watch, it's a few minutes past 17:30 PST.
The funny thing about the mob is that it does not remember whether you cheered it on or not.
And the funny thing when there are two mobs fighting each other is that neither will exercise restraint if the other backs down.
So the smart thing to do is to be either so powerful the mob can't touch you or to be so invisible the mobs can't see you.
There is always the Kolmogorov option.
And the funny thing when there are two mobs fighting each other is that neither will exercise restraint if the other backs down.
So the smart thing to do is to be either so powerful the mob can't touch you or to be so invisible the mobs can't see you.
There is always the Kolmogorov option.
> wrong opinion
The wrong opinion being the fascist attempted coup of a democratic government
The wrong opinion being the fascist attempted coup of a democratic government
please quit equating terrorism with “differing opinion”
trump caused his followers to believe the election was a lie, and when they came to protest he egged them on to the capital building where they beat a police officer to death with an american flag while singing the anthem.
they beat him to death with an american flag and trump called them patriots after.
beat him to death sir, these patriots, our president said. wearing nazi tshirts, sir.
differing opinions? maybe you can find a better way to communicate your idea here
trump caused his followers to believe the election was a lie, and when they came to protest he egged them on to the capital building where they beat a police officer to death with an american flag while singing the anthem.
they beat him to death with an american flag and trump called them patriots after.
beat him to death sir, these patriots, our president said. wearing nazi tshirts, sir.
differing opinions? maybe you can find a better way to communicate your idea here
There's a gradation of things, it's not black or white. The gray zone in the middle is where conditions for society to prosper are.
I see where you are coming from, but I do not agree that they are being punished just for “having the wrong opinion”.
The Trump campaign just attempted a coup. As in they attempted to seize control of the government by stopping the lawful transition of power. That it failed does not make it any less serious. Should we let them continue to try until the are successful? Let’s not repeat the mistakes of 1920s Germany.[0]
I do not think it is hyperbole to say that Trump and his ilk are fascists, not unlike the Nazis.[1] They are the mob that is coming for you.[2] Do not make the mistake of failing to believe these people when they tell you who they are and what they are about.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch [1] https://images.app.goo.gl/BxMXjGz7Zjsa1G6Q8 [2] https://twitter.com/59dallas/status/1346963199778828290?s=21
The Trump campaign just attempted a coup. As in they attempted to seize control of the government by stopping the lawful transition of power. That it failed does not make it any less serious. Should we let them continue to try until the are successful? Let’s not repeat the mistakes of 1920s Germany.[0]
I do not think it is hyperbole to say that Trump and his ilk are fascists, not unlike the Nazis.[1] They are the mob that is coming for you.[2] Do not make the mistake of failing to believe these people when they tell you who they are and what they are about.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch [1] https://images.app.goo.gl/BxMXjGz7Zjsa1G6Q8 [2] https://twitter.com/59dallas/status/1346963199778828290?s=21
What mob? The one what wants to hang Mike Pence? I'm not a Trump supporter but as a Christian I admire Mike Pence as a person, even before he supported Trump.
Banks accounts? All internet presence? Neither of those things is happening. They still have websites, not to mention a press secretary with the world’s press at their feet.
Minimizing it to just wrong opinions? NAMBLA, look it up, is still around so stating this is about wrong opinions is ignorant.
I’m fairly certain that attempting to overthrow the government to get your desired election result is fascism. Saying we will have a trial by combat just before telling protestors to head to the Capitol sounds a lot like a call for violence.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giuliani-rally-speech/
Minimizing it to just wrong opinions? NAMBLA, look it up, is still around so stating this is about wrong opinions is ignorant.
I’m fairly certain that attempting to overthrow the government to get your desired election result is fascism. Saying we will have a trial by combat just before telling protestors to head to the Capitol sounds a lot like a call for violence.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giuliani-rally-speech/
"Rudy Giuliani, made a reference to the HBO drama “Game of Thrones” when he called for a “trial by combat” while talking about conspiracy theories alleging massive scale voter fraud."
Game of Thrones???
Game of Thrones???
Maybe Game of Thrones or the Germanic tradition. Either way it means blood will be spilled.
> I’m fairly certain that attempting to overthrow the government to get your desired election result is fascism.
I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments.
> The Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to claim that communists were plotting against the German government, which made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments.
> The Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to claim that communists were plotting against the German government, which made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
I’m well aware. Can you point to the government control please.
Private companies using their liberty to deny service to the leader of the United States government seems like freedom to me.
Private companies using their liberty to deny service to the leader of the United States government seems like freedom to me.
Fine, this particular action is not government control.
But the argument that taking away power from people because they're "fascists" isn't like fascism is not a strong one. These people are supposedly an existential threat to the fabric of America, and there absolutely is not a single group that hasn't simultaneously deplatformed them.
It suggests a question around who really holds the power here.
But the argument that taking away power from people because they're "fascists" isn't like fascism is not a strong one. These people are supposedly an existential threat to the fabric of America, and there absolutely is not a single group that hasn't simultaneously deplatformed them.
It suggests a question around who really holds the power here.
> I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments.
There's a bit of false equivalence here. The fire was, on one hand, a false flag (from the very link you posted), and on the other hand, a stroke of luck.
Whereas here, it was an attempt at taking human hostages (reference: the many more recent videos of insurrectionists with human zip ties and small arms) and disrupting election certification with human shields in the form of a mob of conservative protesters. Which by every definition would be an attempted coup.
And don't get me wrong, I'm saying quite explicitly that there were legitimate, Trump-believing protesters in the crowd who either got swept up into the moment or genuinely fear for the state of the country but who were not in it to overthrow a legitimately elected government. However, within the crowd were people who came equipped to overthrow leadership followed by blending right back into the crowd, and they coordinated on platforms such as Parler with impunity, which is precisely why deplatforming the platforms is the appropriate next step.
It's not because of everyday conservatives who feel duped. It's because of the conservatives who came together to enact violence and disrupt the democratic process.
There's a bit of false equivalence here. The fire was, on one hand, a false flag (from the very link you posted), and on the other hand, a stroke of luck.
Whereas here, it was an attempt at taking human hostages (reference: the many more recent videos of insurrectionists with human zip ties and small arms) and disrupting election certification with human shields in the form of a mob of conservative protesters. Which by every definition would be an attempted coup.
And don't get me wrong, I'm saying quite explicitly that there were legitimate, Trump-believing protesters in the crowd who either got swept up into the moment or genuinely fear for the state of the country but who were not in it to overthrow a legitimately elected government. However, within the crowd were people who came equipped to overthrow leadership followed by blending right back into the crowd, and they coordinated on platforms such as Parler with impunity, which is precisely why deplatforming the platforms is the appropriate next step.
It's not because of everyday conservatives who feel duped. It's because of the conservatives who came together to enact violence and disrupt the democratic process.
> It's not because of everyday conservatives who feel duped. It's because of the conservatives who came together to enact violence and disrupt the democratic process.
And those 75M voters are not able to receive communication from a person they voted for and want to hear speak. They can't buy things from stores that are selling ordinary, run of the mill political apparel. The servers and apps providing social media--protected under section 230 just like AWS, Apple, and Google--have been banned.
It is not the extremists who are receiving the brunt of this purge.
And those 75M voters are not able to receive communication from a person they voted for and want to hear speak. They can't buy things from stores that are selling ordinary, run of the mill political apparel. The servers and apps providing social media--protected under section 230 just like AWS, Apple, and Google--have been banned.
It is not the extremists who are receiving the brunt of this purge.
Someone who is not going to be relevant in 10 days.
Spare me the "poor me" act.
Spare me the "poor me" act.
>It is not the extremists who are receiving the brunt of this purge.
And if the extremists hadn't stormed the capitol and been supported (Trump literally said "we love you.") by certain folks, those who are being inconvenienced (and yes, it's just an inconvenience) wouldn't be.
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Edit: Fixed wording of old saw.
And if the extremists hadn't stormed the capitol and been supported (Trump literally said "we love you.") by certain folks, those who are being inconvenienced (and yes, it's just an inconvenience) wouldn't be.
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Edit: Fixed wording of old saw.
You are free to create your own far-right payment bank and payment system. The fact that sites like 4chan and Stormfront continue to exist is a sign that no one's speech has been stifled, only inconvenienced.
>You are free to create your own far-right payment bank and payment system.
Or just write a check to the Trump Campaign.
Or just write a check to the Trump Campaign.
[deleted]
Also, I'm not advocating for any violence, but keep in mind that the US was certainly not created peacefully either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
That is true but from the perspective of the British it was illegal. I'm not sure that British companies would've provided services to revolutionaries while they literally try to overthrow the constitutional order of their country. Sure, they succeeded, got their independence, but when someone decides to literally fight against the country from the inside they shouldn't expect any company to be friendly to them or to offer them any services. As a matter of fact not even the government will be friendly, because they will do everything in their power to maintain order from their legal and constitutional perspective.
What happened on the Capitol had elements that lead to a conclusion that the goal was to stop legal procedures in the country, perhaps even taking elected representatives as hostages. This is different from any other type of "ordinary" riot. Luckily the people there didn't seem to be particularly skillful so they didn't manage to achieve anything. But they shouldn't expect that everyone will forget what they tried just because it failed. There needs to be a serious investigation first to determine how was it organized and what were the goals. Until this is known for sure, everyone should be really careful and that includes the right of companies to ensure their tools are not used for a potential violent government overthrow. What would happen to the revolutionaries if the American Revolution had failed? I'm pretty sure that the British wouldn't just forget it and pretend it didn't happen, even if they managed to stop it quickly before it got serious.
What happened on the Capitol had elements that lead to a conclusion that the goal was to stop legal procedures in the country, perhaps even taking elected representatives as hostages. This is different from any other type of "ordinary" riot. Luckily the people there didn't seem to be particularly skillful so they didn't manage to achieve anything. But they shouldn't expect that everyone will forget what they tried just because it failed. There needs to be a serious investigation first to determine how was it organized and what were the goals. Until this is known for sure, everyone should be really careful and that includes the right of companies to ensure their tools are not used for a potential violent government overthrow. What would happen to the revolutionaries if the American Revolution had failed? I'm pretty sure that the British wouldn't just forget it and pretend it didn't happen, even if they managed to stop it quickly before it got serious.
...and after winning they promptly put down another attempted revolution, then passed laws against further violent revolution and working with foreign governments against the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_sedition_act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
>If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
Calling for the overthrow of the government through violent insurrection isn't an opinion.
Calling for the overthrow of the government through violent insurrection isn't an opinion.
Should I be worried? Probably not since I am not advocating for the violent overthrow of democracy in America.
You've been posting tons of political flamewar comments to HN, some of which have been egregious. I'm replying here because it's your most recent comment, not because it's the worst of what you've been doing on this site.
We ban accounts that use HN primarily for political battle, regardless of which politics they're battling for. We have to, because otherwise this site won't survive for its intended purpose, which is intellectual curiosity.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing this, we'd appreciate it.
We ban accounts that use HN primarily for political battle, regardless of which politics they're battling for. We have to, because otherwise this site won't survive for its intended purpose, which is intellectual curiosity.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing this, we'd appreciate it.
wikileaks was mainly attacked through denial of access to the financial system.
Would you be ok with Stripe stopping payment to the GOP?
Would you be ok with Stripe stopping payment to the GOP?
The GOP is cool with bakers denying service to gay couples, so I assume they would be ok with that, right?
> Would you be ok with Stripe stopping payment to the GOP?
Has the GOP, specifically the GOP, advocated for the violent overthrow of the United States Government?
Has the GOP, specifically the GOP, advocated for the violent overthrow of the United States Government?
They're getting there.
> My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. ~ Grover Norquest
> My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. ~ Grover Norquest
“Let’s have trial by combat!”
-Rudy Giuliani, 1/6/2021
-Rudy Giuliani, 1/6/2021
This quote is deeply misleading. It's not completely clear but I think Rudy is talking about Biden, Trump and himself staking their reputations on the outcome of a fraud investigation.
The transcript and the speech is available here: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rudy-giuliani-speech-tr...
Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat. I’m willing to stake my reputation, the President is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there. Is Joe Biden willing to stake his reputation that there’s no crime there? No.
There is also a pause around the trial by combat comment that is not evident in the transcript so its probably worth listening to the speech to get the full context.
The transcript and the speech is available here: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rudy-giuliani-speech-tr...
Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat. I’m willing to stake my reputation, the President is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there. Is Joe Biden willing to stake his reputation that there’s no crime there? No.
There is also a pause around the trial by combat comment that is not evident in the transcript so its probably worth listening to the speech to get the full context.
The RNC declared Trump to be the leader of their party after he told a crowd of armed terrorists that they should go to the Capitol and "save" the country from the politicians who were busy certifying the results of an election. They did so after that same crowd stormed the Capitol building, replaced the American flag with a Trump flag, and proudly declared to the cameras that they were there for a "revolution."
Kind of hard to know where the line is drawn between "declaring as your leader the man who advocates for a violent overthrow" and "advocating for a violent overthow."
Kind of hard to know where the line is drawn between "declaring as your leader the man who advocates for a violent overthrow" and "advocating for a violent overthow."
Trump never advocated for violent overthrow of the government.
Stripe hasn't been around that long. I'm sure they can find another payment processor.
And if they can't, well, we all know Republicans don't trust filling out documents (i.e. ballots) when it isn't done in person. So perhaps the best solution is for supporters to drive to their local GOP office and hand deliver the cash.
And if they can't, well, we all know Republicans don't trust filling out documents (i.e. ballots) when it isn't done in person. So perhaps the best solution is for supporters to drive to their local GOP office and hand deliver the cash.
[deleted]
cpursley(2)
> The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you.
> We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
Just to rebaseline, in this case a mob infiltrated the dais in the Capitol, and this mob's opinions included speech not just disagreeable to public corporations but unprotected by the United States government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
> We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
Just to rebaseline, in this case a mob infiltrated the dais in the Capitol, and this mob's opinions included speech not just disagreeable to public corporations but unprotected by the United States government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
[deleted]
If you can't ban a fascist for instigating violence and a coup attempt then your ToS are worthless and all moderation on every website must be made illegal.
Correct. While silencing him may be satisfying, this road will lead us down a dark path. It is better to suffer a little evil than to loose everything good.
There was a time when the tech community fought ferociously against corporations and government attempts to censor and silence ideas. In its early years, Slashdot was ardently libertarian, as were most of the engineers I worked with. Can you imagine 1997 Slashdot’s reaction to something like Apple removing Parler from the App Store? There would be protests, DDoSes, editorials from thought leaders, and more.
I feel very out of place with many of the younger folks working in tech today. The majority of them seem to support (or even demand) de-platforming of people and ideas that they disagree with.
This is not a good trend. As you said, the mob will eventually come for you, too.
I feel very out of place with many of the younger folks working in tech today. The majority of them seem to support (or even demand) de-platforming of people and ideas that they disagree with.
This is not a good trend. As you said, the mob will eventually come for you, too.
"It's hard to reason with someone waving a confederate flag in your face"
The models that worked in the '80s and '90s proved ineffective as the number of people online continued towards 100%.
The early denizens of the 'net were very homogeneous relative to today.
The early denizens of the 'net were very homogeneous relative to today.
[deleted]
> it's not any different than living under a fascist government
We should be celebrating Stripe's ability to do this. Do you think a Chinese company could "deplatform" Winnie The Pooh?
It's fantastic that we can still disassociate ourselves and our businesses from someone like Trump!
We should be celebrating Stripe's ability to do this. Do you think a Chinese company could "deplatform" Winnie The Pooh?
It's fantastic that we can still disassociate ourselves and our businesses from someone like Trump!
I have seen this exact phrase like 500 times in the past week. Do you guys all read the same books or something?
It's such a huge exaggeration to say that stripe's decision was motivated by a 'mob'... Wait, it was motivated by a mob, the mob of right wingers. And they DID come for me. That's why we ban them from our websites.
It's just pure fear mongering and outrage news to say that liberals are mobbing together to force companies (as if its not ultimately the choice of the company) to ban people, and that somehow this will lead to them turning on each other... and then i'll be sorry i banned Trump? I don't get it.
It's such a huge exaggeration to say that stripe's decision was motivated by a 'mob'... Wait, it was motivated by a mob, the mob of right wingers. And they DID come for me. That's why we ban them from our websites.
It's just pure fear mongering and outrage news to say that liberals are mobbing together to force companies (as if its not ultimately the choice of the company) to ban people, and that somehow this will lead to them turning on each other... and then i'll be sorry i banned Trump? I don't get it.
logicslave(1)
Other people have pointed out that Trump and much of the GOP just launched a coup, so I'll leave that aside.
Of course it's different from living under a fascist government. A totalitarian government would send you to a prison camp or kill you for saying the wrong thing. The Stasi would systematically and invisibly ruin all your relationships and your career. People who are banned from Twitter can go to another website or start their own. If they're banned from Stripe, they can use Visa or pay in cash. If they are banned from social media, they can hop on any of the numerous right-wing TV stations or write for any of the numerous right-wing newspapers.
Even if this were the government, it would be an exaggeration to say that these actions are totalitarian. There are countries today where you could get locked up for having the wrong opinion that are miles from being fascist. Germany springs to mind, since many people have been arrested for Holocaust denial. Many European countries tick along just fine despite the fact that they would instantly throw the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church in prison.
The American dedication to freedom of speech is admirable. However, it is also an aberration. Since the American approach to freedom of speech is not the norm, we should treat it as rare and precious but also recognize that things would be mostly fine with some restrictions. Cool it with the hyperbole.
Of course it's different from living under a fascist government. A totalitarian government would send you to a prison camp or kill you for saying the wrong thing. The Stasi would systematically and invisibly ruin all your relationships and your career. People who are banned from Twitter can go to another website or start their own. If they're banned from Stripe, they can use Visa or pay in cash. If they are banned from social media, they can hop on any of the numerous right-wing TV stations or write for any of the numerous right-wing newspapers.
Even if this were the government, it would be an exaggeration to say that these actions are totalitarian. There are countries today where you could get locked up for having the wrong opinion that are miles from being fascist. Germany springs to mind, since many people have been arrested for Holocaust denial. Many European countries tick along just fine despite the fact that they would instantly throw the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church in prison.
The American dedication to freedom of speech is admirable. However, it is also an aberration. Since the American approach to freedom of speech is not the norm, we should treat it as rare and precious but also recognize that things would be mostly fine with some restrictions. Cool it with the hyperbole.
The American dedication to free speech only functions when people -- especially those in power -- are acting in good faith.
Trump took the pseudonymous troll culture of the internet to the highest office of government, and this is the result. Trolls and Trump play by different rules, truth and facts are inconsequential -- all that matters is the reaction of their victims.
I have sympathy with Trump supporters that are not in on the "joke". It's not stupid to believe the president of the United States will be honest with them (at least on issues of national importance like "massive" election fraud), but he won't. If you were attracted by his other views (however distasteful), it is a bitter pill to swallow to admit he is a lier.
Americans are lucky their constitution was strong enough to ensure (at least) Trumps tactics to overturn a democratic vote failed.
Trump took the pseudonymous troll culture of the internet to the highest office of government, and this is the result. Trolls and Trump play by different rules, truth and facts are inconsequential -- all that matters is the reaction of their victims.
I have sympathy with Trump supporters that are not in on the "joke". It's not stupid to believe the president of the United States will be honest with them (at least on issues of national importance like "massive" election fraud), but he won't. If you were attracted by his other views (however distasteful), it is a bitter pill to swallow to admit he is a lier.
Americans are lucky their constitution was strong enough to ensure (at least) Trumps tactics to overturn a democratic vote failed.
>It's not stupid to believe the president of the United States will be honest with them
I think it's pretty stupid. The entire Iraq war was based on lies. Trump in particular is a terrible liar but has lied consistently for forty years.
I think it's pretty stupid. The entire Iraq war was based on lies. Trump in particular is a terrible liar but has lied consistently for forty years.
Well said.
djakaitis(1)
This sounds like a slippery slope argument[1], which can be genuine but also controversial when generalized.
Can we talk about individual instance, like those specific to the current situation with Trump or other situations, like "Operation Choke Point," separately or should something like this be only considered with generic rules that do not consider the nuisance and details of any specific circumstance?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Can we talk about individual instance, like those specific to the current situation with Trump or other situations, like "Operation Choke Point," separately or should something like this be only considered with generic rules that do not consider the nuisance and details of any specific circumstance?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
[deleted]
Does Russia or China host any payment processors? That would be my advice to Republicans or anyone who wishes to dissent against the liberal Western order.
It's going to be impossible to rely on American corporations to serve you if your opinion goes against ruling consensus.
It's going to be impossible to rely on American corporations to serve you if your opinion goes against ruling consensus.
It is getting ridiculous... the companies are getting really scared, I think.
So is google going to start censoring my email now? I have friends in islamic and other authoritarian regimes that deal with this sort of thing. So ironic in the effort to fight fascism big tech becomes fascist. Doubleplusgood doublespeak!
I feel like a lot of tech companies are walking into a trap. They are doing this to win favors from Harris-Biden administration but regulations are going to happen regardless.
In fact, the USGOV can now point to these very actions as evidence to push for tech regulation. It's very similar to how during Vietnam War, many on the South Vietnam side switched sides to fight their own.
When the smoke cleared, the first people to go were those who switched sides to help the communists come into power. Reason: once a traitor, always a traitor.
In fact, the USGOV can now point to these very actions as evidence to push for tech regulation. It's very similar to how during Vietnam War, many on the South Vietnam side switched sides to fight their own.
When the smoke cleared, the first people to go were those who switched sides to help the communists come into power. Reason: once a traitor, always a traitor.
This is more of a political statement from Stripe than a business decision.
They made their choice, we'll see the consequences of their actions now.
It's one thing to ban a normal person or business. But to ban Trump, the current sitting president, leader of GOP and the person that represent almost half the country, is tall order.
There's good reason why business should avoid politics, like Coinbase has done so far. It's a slippery slope that doesn't end well for the business.
They made their choice, we'll see the consequences of their actions now.
It's one thing to ban a normal person or business. But to ban Trump, the current sitting president, leader of GOP and the person that represent almost half the country, is tall order.
There's good reason why business should avoid politics, like Coinbase has done so far. It's a slippery slope that doesn't end well for the business.
All I ask is consistency of deplatforming by big tech. If Trump gets deplatformed for inciting violence, then BLM should get deplatformed for all the cops assassinated by BLM activists.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Damorian(1)
This is terrifying. They'll be coming for Trump supporters next. Gmail dropping anyone who receives Trump spam? Anything is possible now.
somebody should release a WWII/Cultural Revolution style poster "What did YOU do today to deplatform Trump?"
Something like this "What did you do today for the victory?" https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c2/33/2f/c2332f9706f7b768243f... or this "What did you do for the airforce?" or this http://www.sovmusic.ru/jpg/posters/ussr0550.jpg
Something like this "What did you do today for the victory?" https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c2/33/2f/c2332f9706f7b768243f... or this "What did you do for the airforce?" or this http://www.sovmusic.ru/jpg/posters/ussr0550.jpg
We’re now into “would you provide credit processing for a small terrorist organization” territory with the Trump campaign.
If they were a foreign non-state actor, it probably would be criminal offense to provide aid or transmit money for them. (For fairly obvious 1st amendment reasons it’s not possible to do that with fellow Americans, which is why the statutes specify foreign terrorist groups).
I’m not terribly surprised that everyone is dumping them.
If they were a foreign non-state actor, it probably would be criminal offense to provide aid or transmit money for them. (For fairly obvious 1st amendment reasons it’s not possible to do that with fellow Americans, which is why the statutes specify foreign terrorist groups).
I’m not terribly surprised that everyone is dumping them.
People here seem very certain that there won't be any negative externalities from tech companies deplatforming Trump and Parler. Let me raise several concerns.
If you are a politician, are you comfortable with a few tech CEOs holding the power to destroy your campaign? Especially when the CEOs live in the same region and contribute to similar causes? Wouldn't you seek to rein in the power of companies that have the power to destroy you? Or seek to use this power against your political enemies?
"Don't attempt a coup," you say. Sure. But the stated reason by the companies is generally that Trump campaign encouraged and promoted violence - are you sure that this rational will be narrowly applied going forward? Especially when there's an effort by some to redefine hurtful language as violence?
If having active/robust moderation is a hard requirement to exist as a viable app, wouldn't this prohibit new social media companies from going viral? FB/Twitter spends millions and employs an army of contractors to moderate their platforms. Can a new startup that's growing exponentially build moderation before they're shut down by Apple/Google/AWS?
On a related note, does it concern you that the last two social media apps that seriously challenged FB/IG/Twitter are Tik Tok and Parler, and the American government forced a sale of the former and private companies collectively decided to boot the latter?
Hey, I'm just being paranoid. I'm sure these monopolistic companies will use their power perfectly going forward and never make any mistakes. I'm also sure that government will respect their reasonable use of power and leave them alone.
If you are a politician, are you comfortable with a few tech CEOs holding the power to destroy your campaign? Especially when the CEOs live in the same region and contribute to similar causes? Wouldn't you seek to rein in the power of companies that have the power to destroy you? Or seek to use this power against your political enemies?
"Don't attempt a coup," you say. Sure. But the stated reason by the companies is generally that Trump campaign encouraged and promoted violence - are you sure that this rational will be narrowly applied going forward? Especially when there's an effort by some to redefine hurtful language as violence?
If having active/robust moderation is a hard requirement to exist as a viable app, wouldn't this prohibit new social media companies from going viral? FB/Twitter spends millions and employs an army of contractors to moderate their platforms. Can a new startup that's growing exponentially build moderation before they're shut down by Apple/Google/AWS?
On a related note, does it concern you that the last two social media apps that seriously challenged FB/IG/Twitter are Tik Tok and Parler, and the American government forced a sale of the former and private companies collectively decided to boot the latter?
Hey, I'm just being paranoid. I'm sure these monopolistic companies will use their power perfectly going forward and never make any mistakes. I'm also sure that government will respect their reasonable use of power and leave them alone.
This isn't sitting well with me at all. Of course it had to be done, but I also think it's a scary precedent.
Also, just to clarify: I'm thinking this from the POV of the non-violent conservatives who are seeing this as an attack on their politics, and who can then use this as a justification to block BLM/"antifa" protests for "peace" if they come back in power.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Also, just to clarify: I'm thinking this from the POV of the non-violent conservatives who are seeing this as an attack on their politics, and who can then use this as a justification to block BLM/"antifa" protests for "peace" if they come back in power.
The "they" in the poem is the people who stormed the Capitol building, not Stripe. The "me" is, say, Marco Rubio or Mitch McConnel: a conservative, willing to hitch themselves to an authoritarian for a while, but who ultimately finds the authoritarian policies too distasteful (and that the leaders policies are dangerous, even to someone who was initially a moderate ally or supporter of the leader).
And I mean this quite seriously. Neimoller, the author of the poem was at least somewhat anti-Semitic and a Nazi and a supporter of Hitler until the mid 1930s.
And I mean this quite seriously. Neimoller, the author of the poem was at least somewhat anti-Semitic and a Nazi and a supporter of Hitler until the mid 1930s.
welp, guess stripe is actually evil. that sucks because i considered working for them in the future (had an offer from them before), but guess not anymore.
plus their equity vesting structure is absolute trash and doesn't allow employees to get any gains from the stock rising before vest. stay away.
plus their equity vesting structure is absolute trash and doesn't allow employees to get any gains from the stock rising before vest. stay away.
The past several years have made me aware of the vulnerability of overreliance on consolidated powers. Silicon Valley has too much influence on the world. Most of the world’s tech resides within it. The ideology of the region is vastly different than large swaths of the country. The nuance goes far beyond simply Democrats versus Republicans. California, solidly a blue state that overwhelmingly voted for Biden, voted very differently internally when it came to November’s ballots. Just a few counties away, we came to find that the rest of the state believes in fundamentally different values than the Bay Area. For example, the majority of residents within the Bay Area were in favor of Prop 16 while the rest of Californians were not. What this means is that even Democrats themselves cannot agree amongst each other on fundamental values. This should be concerning even to Democrats because one faction of their party has overt influence and control on the flow of the world’s information. This week’s events made it evidently clear that one’s presence on the web is dependent on the wills of those from a very small concentrated region. A region in which people outside struggle to even make their why into it, physically, because of prohibitive cost of living and limited housing. Are we going to live in a future in which all of those who do not bow to the Bay Area’s ideology will have the digital rug pulled under them? Hopefully not, but the point isn’t wether they will or not, but rather can they do it. We shouldn’t make ourselves so vulnerable.
No quarter.
Free speech limited by inciting violence, OK, but should be applied evenly. Anrifa, BLM, weren't deplatformed, right?
The politics of the new right are for some reason considered an existential threat by big tech, and the global security and intelligence faction.
We can't have a situation where Trump can actually deliver results and give the people hope and risk upsetting the control system, so we need to remind everyone they belong to a global control structure, introduce a virus, and coordinate an exaggerated curfew response to remind everyone to be afraid and that we're really in control, not some new fangled ideologue making promises of renewed greatness and destruction of the control system
Free speech limited by inciting violence, OK, but should be applied evenly. Anrifa, BLM, weren't deplatformed, right?
The politics of the new right are for some reason considered an existential threat by big tech, and the global security and intelligence faction.
We can't have a situation where Trump can actually deliver results and give the people hope and risk upsetting the control system, so we need to remind everyone they belong to a global control structure, introduce a virus, and coordinate an exaggerated curfew response to remind everyone to be afraid and that we're really in control, not some new fangled ideologue making promises of renewed greatness and destruction of the control system
It's pretty clear who actually wields power in America.
The government could do nothing. But businesses who are answerable to nobody can do whatever they feel is best.
Hopefully they always make the right choice.......
The government could do nothing. But businesses who are answerable to nobody can do whatever they feel is best.
Hopefully they always make the right choice.......
The real danger isn’t in what people say on a platform where everyone disagrees. It’s going to be what happens when we have divided into different social networks, payment processors, banks, social networks, films, and credit unions. Do you know what you call people you can’t talk to? Enemies. It may be satisfying, but I can’t approve of these actions when I can foresee the horrific conclusion.
I encourage everyone to enable “showdead” in this thread to see which standards are being applied for flagging.
I encourage people to use Hacker News whichever way they want to. Many people respect this forum as a place for intelligent discussion. Unfounded claims that the election was stolen is not intelligent discussion. Unfounded claims that "ANTIFA" existed in any sort of widespread, organized fashion during the black lives matter protests are not intelligent discussion. Whataboutism surrounding the treatment of occasionally violent protests during BLM versus the treatment of an attempted coup lack the nuance surrounding the psychology, sociology, and power dynamics of the two situations being drastically different. That is not intelligent discussion. Unfounded claims that the insurrectionists were either ANTIFA agitators (they weren't) or were somehow peaceful as they chanted "hang Mike Pence" and searched for Nancy Pelosi with zip ties, are not intelligent discussion.
In fact, I lost a lot of respect for this community by turning on showdead. I'm not sure I'll be staying here much longer if this momentum of misinformation continues to grow.
In fact, I lost a lot of respect for this community by turning on showdead. I'm not sure I'll be staying here much longer if this momentum of misinformation continues to grow.
Again, I encourage everyone to enable “showdead” and see for themselves to what degree your representation of what is being posted here matches what is being flagged.
@dang there is some clearly abusive use of flagging to silence opposing views in this thread. A sign of just how intolerant so many people have become. Please do something about it, like removing flag permissions from these users or making flagged comments remain visible. This behavior is toxic.
[deleted]
yeah, it's a big problem. If you're going to allow political discussions you should remove voting and flagging for those posts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25722027&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25722027&p=3
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25722027&p=4
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25722027&p=5