Platforms systematically removed a user because he made "most wanted CEO" cards(eff.org)
eff.org
Platforms systematically removed a user because he made "most wanted CEO" cards
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/01/platforms-systematically-removed-user-because-he-made-most-wanted-ceo-playing
190 comments
> It should be impossible to remove someone from banking, PayPal, Shopify, social media, etc.
As a freelancer I can choose my clients. I would hate to live in a world where a bad client could force me to continue to work with them unless they broke the law.
There is a qualitative difference between you as a freelancer, and a company like Visa that controls all consumer commerce in America. When the First Amendment was written, the idea of Visa was impossible. Protections from entities like that could be enshrined into law without harming free speech.
> When the First Amendment was written, the idea of Visa was impossible.
[Citation Needed].
Straight up, a singular company having control over something was well established at the time of the First Amendment.
1. "Monopoly" is a greek word which was used to describe a company that had a monopoly in Greece. This long pre-dates the first amendment.
2. Kings routinely gave out exclusivity of a product to a company, this is the whole backstory on the Tea Act [1].
3. Being denied access to something isn't a new concept. They could've written the first 10 amendments to address private citizens and choose not to. It's not like private citizens didn't try to surpress speech.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act
[Citation Needed].
Straight up, a singular company having control over something was well established at the time of the First Amendment.
1. "Monopoly" is a greek word which was used to describe a company that had a monopoly in Greece. This long pre-dates the first amendment.
2. Kings routinely gave out exclusivity of a product to a company, this is the whole backstory on the Tea Act [1].
3. Being denied access to something isn't a new concept. They could've written the first 10 amendments to address private citizens and choose not to. It's not like private citizens didn't try to surpress speech.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act
A single company controlling all consumer transactions was unthinkable and technologically impossible in 1789, yes. The US didn't even have standardized currency at the time. Control of tea is not analogous.
A single company controlled countries _plural_ in those days.
Times are not new. Technology is new. Every problem is old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
Times are not new. Technology is new. Every problem is old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
Corporations didn't exist at the time of the revolution, and the revolution was as much an overthrow of corporations like the Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, and the British East India Company as it was the British Empire.
The few hundred corporations that existed by 1800 were chartered by individual states, couldn't do business outside that state, weren't allowed to participate in the political process, and couldn't buy stock in other corporations.
During and after the civil war is when "modern" corporations started to show. They made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. They lobbied and bribed their way to more relaxed laws that allowed them to accrue even more money and political power, leading to the first Gilded Age.
Then in 1886, the Supreme Court decided that Corporations are People, too[1], and it went downhill from there (except for a brief blip in the 1930s).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....
The few hundred corporations that existed by 1800 were chartered by individual states, couldn't do business outside that state, weren't allowed to participate in the political process, and couldn't buy stock in other corporations.
During and after the civil war is when "modern" corporations started to show. They made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. They lobbied and bribed their way to more relaxed laws that allowed them to accrue even more money and political power, leading to the first Gilded Age.
Then in 1886, the Supreme Court decided that Corporations are People, too[1], and it went downhill from there (except for a brief blip in the 1930s).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern....
It is not reasonable to compared the chartered companies of the 18th century, which were state-sponsored entities, to commercial enterprise today. The target of the American Revolution was the British government, not capitalism.
This is the argument against allowing private ownership of utilities.
Utilities lend themselves to monopoly well.
The economy of scale allows one company to efficiently become the only source of that utility for an region.
Meanwhile, the customers of the utility are subject to the dark side of monopoly. Unjustified rate increases or cutting off service for any reason whatsoever.
It makes no sense.
This setup only works well for Power companies, airlines, water, waste, etc. when there are robust regulation around them.
Could you imagine if the power company could cut you off because of your political leanings? or the water company?
It is no different for monopolies on the internet.
Utilities lend themselves to monopoly well.
The economy of scale allows one company to efficiently become the only source of that utility for an region.
Meanwhile, the customers of the utility are subject to the dark side of monopoly. Unjustified rate increases or cutting off service for any reason whatsoever.
It makes no sense.
This setup only works well for Power companies, airlines, water, waste, etc. when there are robust regulation around them.
Could you imagine if the power company could cut you off because of your political leanings? or the water company?
It is no different for monopolies on the internet.
Private utilities are very common. There are many listed on the stock exchange.
Everything they do is heavily regulated. They cannot do things like cut off service for any reason whatsoever, or raise rates without justification.
Everything they do is heavily regulated. They cannot do things like cut off service for any reason whatsoever, or raise rates without justification.
TikTok is one thing, but it's hard for me to understand how anyone can justify a company like shopify unilaterally shutting down someone's existing store "unless they're actively breaking federal law. And even then, there should be a legal process in place to reclaim your [property]."
The article mentions disabled company accounts. I'm sure they froze some funds too, which Harr will probably never get back. This is the problem. Capital has all the power & we have no (legal) recourse.
Imagine you get to decide to stop working for a bad client, on whatever terms you want, without warning, and you still keep payment.
ETA: It looks like the shopify account was restored.
The article mentions disabled company accounts. I'm sure they froze some funds too, which Harr will probably never get back. This is the problem. Capital has all the power & we have no (legal) recourse.
Imagine you get to decide to stop working for a bad client, on whatever terms you want, without warning, and you still keep payment.
ETA: It looks like the shopify account was restored.
Do you think the electric company should be able to shut off your electricity if you say something they don't like?
The problem is that, due to lack of anti-trust enforcement, we have quasi-utility companies that run commerce. If they have the market position of a utility, they need to be regulated as such.
The problem is that, due to lack of anti-trust enforcement, we have quasi-utility companies that run commerce. If they have the market position of a utility, they need to be regulated as such.
Utility companies and common carriers have special obligations in exchange for their government granted or natural monopolies.
Certain large internet companies might eventually be considered utilities or common carriers, but I think that this would be a bad thing because it would tend to favor monopolization.
At any rate, no one has or should have a state-enforced right to an account on a particular social media site. It’s silly how fast people jump to comparing Facebook to the electric company.
Certain large internet companies might eventually be considered utilities or common carriers, but I think that this would be a bad thing because it would tend to favor monopolization.
At any rate, no one has or should have a state-enforced right to an account on a particular social media site. It’s silly how fast people jump to comparing Facebook to the electric company.
> This also applies to businesses.
That's a very bad idea. Because then you have to create a myriad of laws that forbids discrimination on ever growing number of things. It turns ensuring everybody's basic economic freedom into a game of lagging whack-a-mole.
If a business advertises a product or a service to the public with a price they shouldn't be allowed to refuse the product or a service to anybody willing to pay the price.
That's a very bad idea. Because then you have to create a myriad of laws that forbids discrimination on ever growing number of things. It turns ensuring everybody's basic economic freedom into a game of lagging whack-a-mole.
If a business advertises a product or a service to the public with a price they shouldn't be allowed to refuse the product or a service to anybody willing to pay the price.
That's true until you become big enough that common carrier regulations apply to you.
Besides, how does the first amendment enshrine that?
Besides, how does the first amendment enshrine that?
To frame it differently, if you want people and businesses to do whatever they want, you need to make sure that the businesses they depend don't become platforms without meaningful competition. But of course the dream of every company is to be so big that they essentially own the market / space.
Quite literally the Rockefeller/Buffett/Gates playbook.
"Competition is a sin!"
> how does the first amendment enshrine [the right of association]
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALD...
>the right to choose who you associate with
how can the customer have a right to choose when there is only one option due to [de-facto] monopoly? Or say there are only 2 options and each has deplatformed the customer/user. How the right to choose would work for that customer/user?
Monopoly's right to choose their customers destroys the last remnants of the customers' right to choose (which gets already severly damaged when the monopoly forms).
how can the customer have a right to choose when there is only one option due to [de-facto] monopoly? Or say there are only 2 options and each has deplatformed the customer/user. How the right to choose would work for that customer/user?
Monopoly's right to choose their customers destroys the last remnants of the customers' right to choose (which gets already severly damaged when the monopoly forms).
Just because its legal doesn't make it right. Mega-companies, by virtue of their immense power, should - actually I'll upgrade that to 'must' - have safeguards to prevent them from abusing that power on regular people. If those laws don't currently exist, they should be.
Also, the whole idea that companies are 'people' and therefore are protected under these constitutional rights is a bullshit concept. It was never the intent of the founders, it was act of corruption of the legal system.
Also, the whole idea that companies are 'people' and therefore are protected under these constitutional rights is a bullshit concept. It was never the intent of the founders, it was act of corruption of the legal system.
Banks are obligated by a bunch of laws to do business with people they might not want to do business with. They agree on this in exchange of getting FDIC insurance for the "money" in the accounts of their customers.
During the civil rights movement, racist businesses and other associations hid behind this excuse. Some restaurants famously refused to serve people who were black, Italian, or Jewish.
But it is now pretty much settled law that people cannot weaponize their freedom of association to discriminate on these grounds. If you offer a service, you have to provide the service to the classes of people that you could be reasonably expected to serve.
But it is now pretty much settled law that people cannot weaponize their freedom of association to discriminate on these grounds. If you offer a service, you have to provide the service to the classes of people that you could be reasonably expected to serve.
The "settled law" is very specific to nine characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
You can have a "no brunettes" or "no people named Chris" rule and be entirely fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States
You can have a "no brunettes" or "no people named Chris" rule and be entirely fine.
> This also applies to businesses. It’s absurd to suggest that every company should be forced to do business with every person.
That's fine when we're talking about mom-and-pop baptist bakers that don't want to bake your gay wedding cake, or little mastodon instances that don't want Nazis coming in. (An example from both the social left and social right to choose whom they associate with - but that's not what we're debating.)
But when you're dealing with 100M MAUs or daily transaction volumes in the billions, you're no longer a person - you're infrastructure. A public square. And moreover these giant companies are few and they all move in lockstep with one another, which means you have no avenue to turn to when you get removed.
That's fine when we're talking about mom-and-pop baptist bakers that don't want to bake your gay wedding cake, or little mastodon instances that don't want Nazis coming in. (An example from both the social left and social right to choose whom they associate with - but that's not what we're debating.)
But when you're dealing with 100M MAUs or daily transaction volumes in the billions, you're no longer a person - you're infrastructure. A public square. And moreover these giant companies are few and they all move in lockstep with one another, which means you have no avenue to turn to when you get removed.
Nah, even the wedding cake was an issue. The city of Lakewood set aside that area of the market for commercial business. The citizens of Lakewood financially support the government. The government grants them access and ensures that the cakes are safe for everyone to eat not just straight people.
Make all the cakes you want for a limited clientele out of your house.
Make all the cakes you want for a limited clientele out of your house.
As a freelancer you are not a government backed legal entity. Companies shouldn't have as much freedom as you do.
This was exactly what a large and vocal contingent was arguing for when they were complaining about Twitter bans and stuff. It cuts both ways though. Big companies cause the same problems big governments do.
Quite right.
<s> Of course, I'd like to only rent hotel rooms to the sort of people that I'd like to have as my clients & guests. However, this has been illegal for me to do since 1965. </s>
<s> Of course, I'd like to only rent hotel rooms to the sort of people that I'd like to have as my clients & guests. However, this has been illegal for me to do since 1965. </s>
Like the guy who was forced to bake a cake?
The one that won their case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
This also applies to businesses.
I’m free to refuse to do business with a company for racial reasons but a company is not feee to refuse to do business with me due to my race.
EDIT: I’m pointing out one of the ways that “free association” for corporations is different than for people.
I’m free to refuse to do business with a company for racial reasons but a company is not feee to refuse to do business with me due to my race.
EDIT: I’m pointing out one of the ways that “free association” for corporations is different than for people.
>you might get silenced for questioning the origins of a virus
I think we sped past that mile marker a long time ago.
We have been warning that speech moderation and rules about "distasteful speech" and the like would end up hurting those who were advocating for it but I guess it requires a generational learning event.
I guess until it gets bad enough that we decide that ideas regarding free speech and censorship should apply to corporations we are left with what Mr. Munroe had to say: https://xkcd.com/1357/
I think we sped past that mile marker a long time ago.
We have been warning that speech moderation and rules about "distasteful speech" and the like would end up hurting those who were advocating for it but I guess it requires a generational learning event.
I guess until it gets bad enough that we decide that ideas regarding free speech and censorship should apply to corporations we are left with what Mr. Munroe had to say: https://xkcd.com/1357/
I don't disagree with your message, but man... I disagree with the idea that putting together a hit-list in the style popularized by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq is protected speech. There's a MASSIVE and obvious 1st amendment issue here, but in the sense of "Incitement to murder isn't covered under the 1st amendment" sense.
So yes, our reliance on platforms which can cut us off is a problem, the chilling effect on online speech is a problem. But not over this.
So yes, our reliance on platforms which can cut us off is a problem, the chilling effect on online speech is a problem. But not over this.
> There's a MASSIVE and obvious 1st amendment issue here, but in the sense of "Incitement to murder isn't covered under the 1st amendment" sense.
It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound, and that's why the Brandenburg test is such an important concept: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
> The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
> The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Imminent is the keyword there. Saying "let's go kill that CEO" at the head of a mob outside their home isn't protected, as it passes the test - it is genuinely likely to result in the mob storming the house, as the mob is positioned to be able to do so as an immediate reaction to the speech telling them to, and the speaker knows it.
In contrast, consider some of the speech found to be protected by this standard:
> a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that “it's possible that there might have to be some vengeance [sic] taken.”
> In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co . (1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected : “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
Advocating violence in the abstract doesn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Unless there's a direct connection in time and place between the speaker and the lawless actor, it's protected.
It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound, and that's why the Brandenburg test is such an important concept: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
> The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
> The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Imminent is the keyword there. Saying "let's go kill that CEO" at the head of a mob outside their home isn't protected, as it passes the test - it is genuinely likely to result in the mob storming the house, as the mob is positioned to be able to do so as an immediate reaction to the speech telling them to, and the speaker knows it.
In contrast, consider some of the speech found to be protected by this standard:
> a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that “it's possible that there might have to be some vengeance [sic] taken.”
> In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co . (1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected : “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
Advocating violence in the abstract doesn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Unless there's a direct connection in time and place between the speaker and the lawless actor, it's protected.
Thank you for this great post. I've noticed over time people seem to be absorbing notions of the limits of the 1A that just aren't true; I think a lot of it is stories exactly like this. The longer that goes on, and the more widespread, the more likely in the future 1A protections will be weakened - because everyone will assume "oh, that was illegal anyway" or "wow, that's not illegal? seems like common sense it should be."
A separate, but related issue is people assuming "free speech" and the First Amendment are equal; that you have "free speech" as long as you have a First Amendment, and only that. But obviously, a society where you can be totally ostracized from all markets and common society on the basis of your speech is not a free society, even if the government doesn't put you in jail. To live in a free society and to have free speech doesn't mean only the government tolerates speech, it extends to us.
A separate, but related issue is people assuming "free speech" and the First Amendment are equal; that you have "free speech" as long as you have a First Amendment, and only that. But obviously, a society where you can be totally ostracized from all markets and common society on the basis of your speech is not a free society, even if the government doesn't put you in jail. To live in a free society and to have free speech doesn't mean only the government tolerates speech, it extends to us.
If that KKK leader then handed out a list of people a list of people to kill, I suspect it would be a VERY different situation than vague and non-specific talk of vengeance. Specifying targets, especially in the wake of a highly publicized assassination, is not abstract.
Adding in what Idlewords posted below:
"The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram."
Provisioning a hit-list in the context of a call to murder the people described isn't abstract or vague either. At best it's a terroristic threat.
Adding in what Idlewords posted below:
"The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram."
Provisioning a hit-list in the context of a call to murder the people described isn't abstract or vague either. At best it's a terroristic threat.
I don't think that it being a specific list makes any difference, because the lawless action theoretically incited by this speech is still not imminent; it's abstract in the sense that there's not a direct link between the actor and the speaker. The guy making these cards doesn't know that someone will see them and choose go kill the named CEO. It's possible, sure, but that's not the standard (and if it was, saying something like "Trump is a threat to democracy" would be incitement - it's naming a specific individual target, and it's entirely possible some deranged individual would take that statement as an instruction to carry out an assassination). The Brandenburg test requires that the speaker hold specific knowledge that their speech will result in lawless action; merely knowing that it is possible that the speech inspires lawless action isn't enough. If the guy were handing the cards out to a squad of hitmen, then that wouldn't be protected - such an act would be specific instruction to commit lawless action, not just inspiration as we see here.
And actually, regarding the Brandenburg case itself, this is what was said:
> We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.
So, actually, the speech was specifically directed against a named group of individuals - "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court" - but is still protected because of the lack of imminence. I'll note that there is a distinction between "the President should be killed" and "I will kill the President" - the latter is a true threat, the former is not.
As the ruling says: "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."
And actually, regarding the Brandenburg case itself, this is what was said:
> We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.
So, actually, the speech was specifically directed against a named group of individuals - "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court" - but is still protected because of the lack of imminence. I'll note that there is a distinction between "the President should be killed" and "I will kill the President" - the latter is a true threat, the former is not.
As the ruling says: "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."
That's the standard the government needs to meet before it regulates your speech, not the standard a platform needs to reasonably infer that you're calling for murder and terrorism. I should probably have ignored the 1st amendment bait and focused on that.
Normally to be covered under "incitement", it has to be a call for imminent unlawful behavior.
A hit-list of specific individuals seems like it falls under that category, doubly so when it's clearly intended to be a "continuation" of the UHC CEO assassination.
It doesn't. Brandenburg and the related case law is clear on this. "Imminent" doesn't mean "someone else plots to assassinate a CEO and does it four months later." It means right now, like standing in the street pointing to the CEO and shouting to an armed crowd "shoot him!"
Generalized calls to violence are perfectly legal and have been a part of American political culture for centuries. Sometimes it's much hotter than others (the 1960s were pretty hot), but so it goes. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't agree with these statements or these cards, but people have a right to say it.
Generalized calls to violence are perfectly legal and have been a part of American political culture for centuries. Sometimes it's much hotter than others (the 1960s were pretty hot), but so it goes. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't agree with these statements or these cards, but people have a right to say it.
The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram.
Maybe you should apply HN comment etiquette outside of HN.
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The strongest good faith interpretation of "the CEO must die" is that it is not a call to action for murdering "the CEO". But we'll let the author clarify:
>“The CEO is more than an individual it is a figurehead of the capitalist order,” he wrote. “When we say the ceo must die, we mean the structure of capitalism must be broken.”
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The strongest good faith interpretation of "the CEO must die" is that it is not a call to action for murdering "the CEO". But we'll let the author clarify:
>“The CEO is more than an individual it is a figurehead of the capitalist order,” he wrote. “When we say the ceo must die, we mean the structure of capitalism must be broken.”
I'm pretty sure that if someone posted that here, in the context of making "most wanted" list... they'd be banned.
Good faith is for arguments, not calls to murder.
Good faith is for arguments, not calls to murder.
You can use the search bar below to see that this is in fact true: this is a quick way to get banned on HN.
the CEO must die.
And now we wait.
And now we wait.
A stunt like that is precisely why I was clear about the CONTEXT. Note that I'm not encouraging you to actually do it, far from it, but lets not pretend that you're bravely proving a point here.
In what way does the existence of these cards incite violence? A would-be malicious actor previously would not have been able to plan targets if not for this card set? It's not like this person is a public figure calling for the heads of these CEOs.
The not-so-implied message of a hit-list is, "Murder these specific people." We're talking about incitement here, not aiding and abetting, and "calling for heads" is precisely the point here.
Unless you really think it's just a deck of cards with a particularly bizarre motif, and I don't think any of us really buy that.
Unless you really think it's just a deck of cards with a particularly bizarre motif, and I don't think any of us really buy that.
It is not a hitlist but a "Most Wanted" list. Does the FBI's list of Most Wanted people incite violence? Why is this any different?
I appreciate the spirit, but unfortunately in this case the person themselves made their views and intentions abundantly clear, so we don't have to talk about anything circumstantial.
To quote IdleWorlds above (once again, thank you for this info): "The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram."
There's no "what if" here.
To quote IdleWorlds above (once again, thank you for this info): "The guy also posted "the CEO must die" to his Instagram."
There's no "what if" here.
[deleted]
The FBI has legal authority - things like warrants, which are only issued when a court has seen sufficient grounds. This dude does not have anything like that.
I can understand the decision of a platform to remove the business account, or the posts of that account, which are promoting the sale of an item that’s basically inciting terrorism. But the decision to also ban his personal account seems like an overreaction.
I absolutely detest this person's message and think they're a deeply flawed human being, but the power asymmetry and mechanisms to de-person are orders of magnitude more terrifying. This is 1984 type stuff.
The banking pieces probably fall afoul of AML/CTF rules, which is fine. But the social media bans, total wipe of accounts, no process in place for restitution, and no communication are literally mechanisms of de-personing.
The banking pieces probably fall afoul of AML/CTF rules, which is fine. But the social media bans, total wipe of accounts, no process in place for restitution, and no communication are literally mechanisms of de-personing.
I find the act of banning someone from tiktok being equated with "de-personing" them extremely interesting.
I think we have very different perspectives on what it means to be human, how much all of this (waves around hand in the general direction of social media) is worth, and what is important.
I value tiktok, and all other social media platforms, at nothing. $0.00, maximum. If you built your business on them, you fucked up. If you use them for news, you fucked up. And if you feel that they are needed or important, you DEFINITELY fucked up.
I think we have very different perspectives on what it means to be human, how much all of this (waves around hand in the general direction of social media) is worth, and what is important.
I value tiktok, and all other social media platforms, at nothing. $0.00, maximum. If you built your business on them, you fucked up. If you use them for news, you fucked up. And if you feel that they are needed or important, you DEFINITELY fucked up.
The problem is that many governments are starting use social media as official platforms.
Want to know of road closures? Better check the relevant DoTs Twitter pages.
Want to know of road closures? Better check the relevant DoTs Twitter pages.
That’s a legitimate problem, but it’s one that you should take up with DoT, not Twitter.
For critical services it may even be illegal, since you can’t access Twitter pages without logging into Twitter, and you can’t signup to Twitter without passing a CAPTCHA and other user-hostile gating mechanisms.
For critical services it may even be illegal, since you can’t access Twitter pages without logging into Twitter, and you can’t signup to Twitter without passing a CAPTCHA and other user-hostile gating mechanisms.
> literally mechanisms of de-personing
They are referring to 1984 where any hints on your existence got erased from public knowledge. And I think that there are a few cases where that happened in real life as well, IIRC under Stalin.
The cards have a human-shaped shooting target on the back. The platforms did absolutely the right thing here.
Crosshairs are a normal part of American political rhetoric that's consitutionally protected when done by Republicans. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-f...
The Constitution binds the government, not private entities, who make calls to block content that would violate 1A if done by a state all the time.
What do we do when the primary mode of monetary transaction is not strictly mediated by government (in contrast to the historical use of government-issued hard currency)?
I don't care, I'm making a narrow point about the applicability of the First Amendment to private businesses. The most important part of that point is that while stories like this are what make the news, every major social network every day filters all sorts of crazy shit that nobody wants to see (if they did, Gab would have been a success), all of which has the exact same (nonexistant) free speech implications.
Didn't you hear? Those weren't crosshairs. Those were surveyor's marks. /s
It's not like they came up with the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_card...
This was also done in the late 90s against abortion clinics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Horsley#The_%22Nuremberg_...
And in that case:
> Horsley was named as a co-conspirator in a successful civil suit, Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists,[5] filed by Planned Parenthood over the information compiled by him and "Unwanted Posters" of doctors, which was judged by the court to constitute a threat of violence, even without an explicit call to violence.
> The case was reheard en banc, and the court determined that the files constituted "true threats" that are not constitutionally protected.
These cards are really pushing the boundary of what is legal, and I have no problem with platforms choosing not to do business with him.
> Horsley was named as a co-conspirator in a successful civil suit, Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists,[5] filed by Planned Parenthood over the information compiled by him and "Unwanted Posters" of doctors, which was judged by the court to constitute a threat of violence, even without an explicit call to violence.
> The case was reheard en banc, and the court determined that the files constituted "true threats" that are not constitutionally protected.
These cards are really pushing the boundary of what is legal, and I have no problem with platforms choosing not to do business with him.
The back of the most-wanted Iraqi playing cards showed desert camouflage. They were issued to US troops to aid in the identification and capture of prominent enemy leaders in an armed conflict.
If we're highlighting small differences between the two scenarios, I'd note that the US DoD gave out free lethal weaponry to the same folks to whom they gave the cards.
The people on those cards were, overwhelmingly, not killed be the people carrying the cards. This is easy to look up.
Two considerations make this different:
* The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp.
* The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians.
* The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp.
* The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians.
> The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp.
Whole bunch of "captured + executed/died in prison" on that list. The goal wasn't to give them a hug.
> The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war.
Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
Whole bunch of "captured + executed/died in prison" on that list. The goal wasn't to give them a hug.
> The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war.
Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
> The goal wasn't to give them a hug.
Just because we sometimes execute criminals doesn't mean there's something wrong with WANTED posters.
> Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward.
Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
Just because we sometimes execute criminals doesn't mean there's something wrong with WANTED posters.
> Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward.
Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
> If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward.
Throughout the Iraq and Afghan wars, we deemed combat actions by insurgent groups to be terrorism, even if entirely against military targets.
Hell, the guy who threw his shoe at Bush got three years in jail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_i...
> Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr.
Throughout the Iraq and Afghan wars, we deemed combat actions by insurgent groups to be terrorism, even if entirely against military targets.
Hell, the guy who threw his shoe at Bush got three years in jail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_i...
> Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr.
> I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr.
You are naive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volo...
Considering how famously paranoid Putin is, I doubt the Ukrainians get much opportunity. There's not a doubt in my mind they would take it if they could. What are the Russians going to do, invade?
You are naive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volo...
Considering how famously paranoid Putin is, I doubt the Ukrainians get much opportunity. There's not a doubt in my mind they would take it if they could. What are the Russians going to do, invade?
You’ll note that the official ones were all at the start, where a decapitation strike early might have helped. Once he became a national hero for staying that option dried up.
The Ukrainians could hit the Kremlin with current drones, having hit targets in Moscow already. That they don’t is a deliberate calculation.
No one wants to discover Putin’s genuine red line on nukes and his own personal safety.
The Ukrainians could hit the Kremlin with current drones, having hit targets in Moscow already. That they don’t is a deliberate calculation.
No one wants to discover Putin’s genuine red line on nukes and his own personal safety.
Well then it's a good thing that Putin only makes unofficial attempts on Zelensky's life now. Via the FSB, which is definitely not an official department of the government. Nope. Just a public service organization!
The Ukranians could certainly hit the Kremlin with drones. Unfortunately for them, Putin doesn't live in the Kremlin, and the drones that can reach Moscow are rather small. But I 100% guarantee you that Putin's "red lines" won't matter when he's dead.
The Ukranians could certainly hit the Kremlin with drones. Unfortunately for them, Putin doesn't live in the Kremlin, and the drones that can reach Moscow are rather small. But I 100% guarantee you that Putin's "red lines" won't matter when he's dead.
> The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians.
It's violence either way, you just find it a more acceptable violence.
It's violence either way, you just find it a more acceptable violence.
Those military targets on the cards were fully expected to do their greatest effort to kill or neutralize the card issuers and the card holders. Should I expect these CEOs to do the same thing?
Statistically, denials of medical care are highly likely to have killed more Americans than the ~2k Americans killed in Iraq by enemy fire over a ~20 year period.
By that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people. Further, under the zero-sum logic you offer here, every doctor that has ever overbilled RVUs is an accomplice to murder.
> By that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people.
Probably, but motive matters in “killed” versus “murder”. I’m much more inclined to be mad about profit-driven medical decisions of this nature.
Probably, but motive matters in “killed” versus “murder”. I’m much more inclined to be mad about profit-driven medical decisions of this nature.
If motive matters, none of these people have killed anybody.
I’m… not sure we agree on that.
This doesn't seem like so much a difference of opinion as of fact; when an insurer denies someone coverage, they aren't motivated to kill that person, nor is that their intent. Like health insurance administrators in every system in the world, they're required to make decisions about who gets what, and that implies that some people won't get what they want. In fact, by the logic you're using, administrators in the NHS are far more culpable than US insurers, since they issue categorical denials they know with certainty are going to result in preventable deaths; an insurer can at least tell themselves they're conditioning coverage situationally and based on effectiveness. Would you like some specific examples?
I think this "health care" "murder" thing is just a really bad analogy and people should stop using it.
I think this "health care" "murder" thing is just a really bad analogy and people should stop using it.
A hit man is motivated by profit. Not personal dislike of the person, but it’s still a murder.
I have a hard time seeing “we can boost profits by fighting claims until sick people give up” as all that dissimilar.
The NHS admins aren’t getting bonuses for boosting share prices.
I have a hard time seeing “we can boost profits by fighting claims until sick people give up” as all that dissimilar.
The NHS admins aren’t getting bonuses for boosting share prices.
What do you think they WANTED to do to them?
What do YOU think they wanted to do to them?
OK. The question is now why is it such a rare instance of doing the right thing. Facebook was the engine of the Rohingya massacre and did absolutely nothing. Some lives are clearly more precious than others.
Agreed. The guy had a lot of choices; he could have used a silhouette behind prison bars, or a stylized monopoly-man, or even peasants with pitchforks. But a shooting target is waaay too close to an explicit call for murder.
Been to a shooting range lately? Extremely common.
Well, you know, context matters. If ten days after a CEO is shot in the street you announce a card deck of CEO portraits with a shooting target on the back, and you post to your Instagram that "the CEO must die", then people are going to draw certain conclusions. Fortunately in this case some of those people were site moderators.
So when is it contextually OK to print a shooting target with a US President's face on them?
That's easy: When you think it's ok to call for the murder of a US President.
You'd better be very sure about that. The Secret Service doesn't find that kind of thing funny.
You'd better be very sure about that. The Secret Service doesn't find that kind of thing funny.
I'm not worried, there's enough gun wackos with actual malice in their hearts making a living off of selling these targets.
[deleted]
But the “Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards” were okay?
Yes. Also OK: wanted posters, and the FBI 10-most-wanted list.
[deleted]
Things like this is why I've been telling (less tech-savvy) friends to get off the internet for 5+ years now. There is just no way to stay clear of corporate control for the average person, regardless of your political opinions.
Things like this is why I've been telling (less tech-savvy) friends to get off the internet for 5+ years now.
To your knowledge, has it worked with anyone?
I find that the more I warn people about the invisible problems of the internet, the less they care to change. But perhaps you are more persuasive than I.
To your knowledge, has it worked with anyone?
I find that the more I warn people about the invisible problems of the internet, the less they care to change. But perhaps you are more persuasive than I.
No it has not! It is very scary. I have family members that grew up not caring anything about technology, never owning a computer, being indifferent and criticizing the younger generation for being so tech-addicted. Now they bring their ipad to bed every night, crow about their reddit comments, and generally act as if the internet is essential to their happiness, or is letting them make their mark on the world.
I think that if you grew up using technology pre-2000, or are generally tech-savvy you can easily see the problems and they scare you because you understand the ways that things have changed so drastically. Windows 11 (for one example) doesn't even allow you to set up your computer without being connected to the internet? That's an objectively bad decision as far as a computer product goes; the ONLY benefit is to Microsoft and their data-collection business! But if its normal to you, it's "not a big deal." "Why are you complaining?"
I can be very persuasive, ive been told. But people today are addicted. There is no doubt. You can see the fear in their faces as they try to come up with reasons why "they" are the exception, as if they are different from every other person.
I think that if you grew up using technology pre-2000, or are generally tech-savvy you can easily see the problems and they scare you because you understand the ways that things have changed so drastically. Windows 11 (for one example) doesn't even allow you to set up your computer without being connected to the internet? That's an objectively bad decision as far as a computer product goes; the ONLY benefit is to Microsoft and their data-collection business! But if its normal to you, it's "not a big deal." "Why are you complaining?"
I can be very persuasive, ive been told. But people today are addicted. There is no doubt. You can see the fear in their faces as they try to come up with reasons why "they" are the exception, as if they are different from every other person.
> the ONLY benefit is to Microsoft and their data-collection business!
Not really. The 3 letter agencies (CIA, NSA) also have a stake in this.
Although CIA put NKVD and STASI in a negative light, they learned a lot from them.
Not really. The 3 letter agencies (CIA, NSA) also have a stake in this.
Although CIA put NKVD and STASI in a negative light, they learned a lot from them.
Good point!
not to mention the irony of announcing this "on the internet"
Thankfully Hacker News isn't interested in hijacking my brain or addicting me or making money off of me. Yet it still does hijack my brain; oddly enough the only real way to steer clear of this, is to steer clear of Hacker News.
I see you engaging in good faith in this debate. I'm also heartened by your self-awareness about how HN hijacks your brain. FWIW, I'm in the same boat, and I still come back here.
I'll share something that might mitigate some of your turmoil: with any ascendant (and disruptive) technology, the only way to criticize it is by leveraging that technology.
Socrates' lament on the dangers of literacy is known today because it was written down (yes, by Plato... but it was written down).
I'll share something that might mitigate some of your turmoil: with any ascendant (and disruptive) technology, the only way to criticize it is by leveraging that technology.
Socrates' lament on the dangers of literacy is known today because it was written down (yes, by Plato... but it was written down).
"The corporations don't want me to say this on the internet, so fine, I didn't want to say it anyway!"
Not what I said.
You can not stay clear of "corporate control" outside of the internet either, probably even way less so.
So either be a hermit or teach/learn how not deal with it.
So either be a hermit or teach/learn how not deal with it.
That's a totally false dichotomy and indicative of the attitude I'm talking about. You can have a social circle that isn't subject to surveillance (let alone control) by the corporation that owns the platform you are speaking on, because REAL LIFE is not a platform!
in real life I assume you have a cell phone? no greater surveillance than that… drive a car? license readers are everywhere… etc etc
unless you move to amish country you are subject to surveillance which is only going to get worse…
unless you move to amish country you are subject to surveillance which is only going to get worse…
You know what they say about assumptions! I have no cell phone and dont own a car. I dont need either and truly feel pity for those who do, realistically or otherwise, feel they need one. Im not interested in playing a fatalistic game of race-me-to-the bottom.
Surveillance isn't even my main concern. It's the hijacking of people's attention, and the way it makes people think that they can somehow live out their life on the internet in a way that's comparable to real life, that makes me upset and has soured me on the internet.
Surveillance isn't even my main concern. It's the hijacking of people's attention, and the way it makes people think that they can somehow live out their life on the internet in a way that's comparable to real life, that makes me upset and has soured me on the internet.
gospeed mate! if you own no car and no mobile big thumbs up!
[deleted]
> You can have a social circle that isn't subject to surveillance
Your phone knows where and who you are, your (new) car knows where you are. Same for your friends.
Your phone knows where and who you are, your (new) car knows where you are. Same for your friends.
Can your phone or your car remove you from real life? Are you required, by definition, to use a car or a phone to talk to people, in real life?
[deleted]
Cue Streisand effect in 3...2...
It's not the classic case of Streisand effect, because I don't think the tech platforms (to the extent that they can be anthropomorphized) care one way or another about the popularity of these cards. They just don't want the liability of being involved in their production and dissemenation. If someone else wants to take that on, it's somebody else's problem.
Either way, removing the cards from _their_ platform accomplishes their goal.
Either way, removing the cards from _their_ platform accomplishes their goal.
I would never heard of these cards except for they got the creator banned and ended up on Hacker news because of that. Seems pretty Streisandy to me.
Streisand tried to stop the publication of a photograph, and consequently the photograph became more widely disseminated.
The tech platforms just don't want the content on their platform. Removing it from their platform accomplished the goal. Unlike Streisand, it's unlikely they care if the content is widely distributed on someone else's platform. Not their problem.
The tech platforms just don't want the content on their platform. Removing it from their platform accomplished the goal. Unlike Streisand, it's unlikely they care if the content is widely distributed on someone else's platform. Not their problem.
What liability are you referring to?
Maybe you don't remember this?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Or this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/21/how-misin...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb...
Or this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/21/how-misin...
Facebook never paid any reparations for the Rohingya genocide, and that was a genocide organized on their platform.
So I don't see how one could think some "most wanted" playing cards could create a liability?
So I don't see how one could think some "most wanted" playing cards could create a liability?
Facebook took an enormous reputational hit over those events. They still receive bad press about them to this day. They Do. Not. Want. stuff like that on their platform.
Goodwill is literally an accounting line item.
And do you really think, if something like that happened in the US, that Facebook wouldn't get sued? Maybe they win, maybe not, but someone would definitely try.
Goodwill is literally an accounting line item.
And do you really think, if something like that happened in the US, that Facebook wouldn't get sued? Maybe they win, maybe not, but someone would definitely try.
We're talking about a deck of cards that satirize the USDIA Iraqi "most wanted". A deck of playing cards.
Think about all of the things you see on Facebook. Where does a deck of satirical playing cards fall on the spectrum of causing liability in your mind?
Think about all of the things you see on Facebook. Where does a deck of satirical playing cards fall on the spectrum of causing liability in your mind?
We're talking about a deck of cards that have US business executives one one side, a QR code explaining why they're evil, and a shooting target on the other side. Launched shortly after the murder of a CEO. This is an explicit call for murder.
If one of those executives ends up dead and the killer is found with this pack of cards in the pocket, everyone involved in the distribution chain is getting sued. Some may be criminally prosecuted. You might think it's funny, but judges and juries will not. Nor will grieving families.
Until recently, I ran a print-on-demand company. No way in hell I would touch something like this.
If one of those executives ends up dead and the killer is found with this pack of cards in the pocket, everyone involved in the distribution chain is getting sued. Some may be criminally prosecuted. You might think it's funny, but judges and juries will not. Nor will grieving families.
Until recently, I ran a print-on-demand company. No way in hell I would touch something like this.
If you'd still like to follow him, I'm told by reliable sources that he is now on REDNote (Xiaohongshu).
Of course, a lot of these platforms have no problem with such things against minorities or people without power. But if you're a CEO you've gotta be protected at all costs, you poor thing.
I wonder if they even realize they're responsible for this environment they've festered.
I wonder if they even realize they're responsible for this environment they've festered.
Besides these cards, ComradeWorkwear also has some great shirt designs. I got this one for the gym[1].
[1]: https://www.comradeworkwear.com/products/swoletariat-tee
[1]: https://www.comradeworkwear.com/products/swoletariat-tee
who owns these seevices?
yup! the 0,001, even have great influence what's removed from tiktok
It sounds like these CEOs are as tired of peaceful activism as we are of them. They are stopping all soft attempts thus making it clear that they want hard action to be taken.
I don't think this case is a meaningful test of speech codes.
The cards and culture-jammer stuff in general are tactics from a simpler time. Imagine if they released card decks for the DNC, NGOs, political staffers, the EU, etc. The world has changed. If someone put your face on a card, you would use what ever means of recourse was available as well.
Where can I purchase the cards?
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"
Billionaires sure do love their free speech when it lets them flood us with blatant misinformation to their benefit. But as soon as it's used to criticize them they throw a massive fit.
And the right wants us all to believe THEY'RE the ones unfairly being deplatformed for what they say...
I usually agree with EFF, but this clearly crosses a limit of promoting and glorifying violence. In this case the user is clearly in violation platform TOS.
Those rules are always applied inconsistently. Nearly all political statements are violent or are calls to violence, but if the violence is deemed acceptable violence then it probably wouldn't even register as violent by a person reading them.
For example, "we need to deport illegal immigrants" is a call for violence if you think about it, it's just violence through one of the acceptable channels - law enforcement.
The same is true of statements about war, whether it be in support of Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, etc. Maybe the violence is self-defense, but doesn't change the fact it is violence.
You don't see platforms removing these violent statements, because it's "acceptable" violence, but what violence acceptable is malleable. It changes in society over time, and it's different depending on who you ask.
For example, "we need to deport illegal immigrants" is a call for violence if you think about it, it's just violence through one of the acceptable channels - law enforcement.
The same is true of statements about war, whether it be in support of Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, etc. Maybe the violence is self-defense, but doesn't change the fact it is violence.
You don't see platforms removing these violent statements, because it's "acceptable" violence, but what violence acceptable is malleable. It changes in society over time, and it's different depending on who you ask.
>Nearly all political statements are violent or are calls to violence
Maybe if you only listen to extremist diatribes instead of reasonable discourse.
Maybe if you only listen to extremist diatribes instead of reasonable discourse.
Maybe I shouldn't have said nearly all, but a good amount. Nearly all laws are enforced by the threat of violence, or actual violence, so I don't think I'm too far off.
Trump ran a platform of violence. Where's the reasonable discourse at the top of the ticket?
Well, the other ticket was less unreasonable and there are other political discussions than US presidential elections.
There are other discussions but you're saying they must only feel that way because they listen to extremist diatribes. They must be paying attention to the biggest political discussion which was won on extremist diatribes. The extremism is more prominent than you may want to believe.
Yes, "political statements are violent or are calls to violence" is true in the sense that state power is ultimately based on the threat of violence. At the deepest level of analysis this violence is illegitimate too. The thing is, we are sadly not yet at the point where we can do away with the state.
The rules are reasonable as far as they prohibit glorifying illegitimate violence. Whether the platforms applies the rules in this way for other cases or not is irrelevant for this particular case, even if we know the TOS are applied pretty arbitrarily.
The rules are reasonable as far as they prohibit glorifying illegitimate violence. Whether the platforms applies the rules in this way for other cases or not is irrelevant for this particular case, even if we know the TOS are applied pretty arbitrarily.
So well put, thank you
Rounding up somebody and detaining them is not violence.
Hacker News take of the day:
Rounding up somebody and detaining them is not violence.
Would you like to expand on how you came to this conclusion? It's at odds with most interpretations of labour camps and internment camps and "re-education centres"
Would you like to expand on how you came to this conclusion? It's at odds with most interpretations of labour camps and internment camps and "re-education centres"
It might be an unjust detention, but it's not violence. There's no physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill. The force, if any, is intended to restrain.
>There's no physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill.
Weird, how do the people get to the camps then?
Weird, how do the people get to the camps then?
In a car?
What happens if they don't want to get into the car?
The agents of the state will use physical force to put them in there.
Is that violence to you?
No, because it's not physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill.
You don't think relocating someone to a camp against their will is intending to hurt?
Are you serious about that?
Are you serious about that?
Just like most other systematic issues, the "Violence" is rarely surface level. The violence in these specific cases may look more like a father and husband being gone without meaningful trace, leaving a potential family to fend for themselves without a legal or decent way to do it. It's a teenager never making it back home, leaving a family in turmoil. The act of processing someone for illegal immigration may not be violent[citation needed], but the wake of the act is undeniably violence. I'm curious now, why do degrees of separation of intent minimize fault of the perpetrator?
Denying Ruby Ridges the chance to attend an integrated school wouldn't have been violence on one hand, but the systemic chain of events inside the lack of equal opportunity could be perceived as such.
Denying Ruby Ridges the chance to attend an integrated school wouldn't have been violence on one hand, but the systemic chain of events inside the lack of equal opportunity could be perceived as such.
I think you've given some good examples of distressing or deeply undesirable situations that are not because of violence.
I think you mean Ruby Bridges. Ruby Ridge was something different and fortunately there was only the one notable event there.
Yup, what an oversight! Sorry about that.
It is. We can argue under which conditions it is legitimate, which is long debate. At some point, it seems that the TOS does make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate violence, however imperfect it may be.
For example, nobody in their right mind would consider a policeman being distinguished for stopping a shooter as "glorifying violence" even if the officer had to use violence to him down.
For example, nobody in their right mind would consider a policeman being distinguished for stopping a shooter as "glorifying violence" even if the officer had to use violence to him down.
And what happens if you refuse?
This is categorically untrue.
No, it isn't.
Forcibly relocating someone is an act of violence.
Not if it doesn't involve violence.
Now tell me, how do you forcibly relocate somebody who does not want to be relocated, without violence?
They aren’t applied inconsistently. Distinguishing between lawful and unlawful forms of violence is a perfectly consistent way to go about it.
That's fair and might be true, but not all platforms specifically say that's how they go about it. The TikTok community guidelines don't distinguish between illegal and legal violence, they ban all promotions of violence. Maybe they only enforce it against illegal violence, but then they're following their community guidelines incorrectly, albeit, maybe consistently incorrectly.
In common usage we don’t think lawful violence as violence. We don’t say that it’s violent for police to arrest bank robbers. Therefore prohibitions on violence are commonly understood to apply only to unlawful violence. No one is confused by this!
The distinction only surfaces if someone insists on describing lawful violence as violence, as in the parent comment.
The distinction only surfaces if someone insists on describing lawful violence as violence, as in the parent comment.
What do you think of the many similar decks listed in the article that got to stay up? The IDF Gaza deck posts X marks over the cards every time one is killed
Maybe they should be banned too? It doesn't subtract from my point. Still, there is a world of difference between killing people because you don't like their companies and killing combatants of a terrorist organization.
I'd note this doesn't meet the legal limit of promoting violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
(This strict standard saved Trump on Jan 6, incidentally.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
(This strict standard saved Trump on Jan 6, incidentally.)
I wholeheartedly disagree. Nowhere do these cards actually call for violence. This is clearly a case of billionaires protecting their egos and keeping the masses in line. If Trump can get away with Jan 6 then this is peanuts.
Platforms wield too much power and can wholly and totally destroy us. Run afoul of their rules just once (or maybe even not at all), and your business or identity gets totally erased with no recourse.
This is a shameful and scary state for us to be in. Serfs of the platforms.
If the political zeitgeist continues to become even more extreme, you might get silenced for questioning the origins of a virus, being LGBT, or expressing displeasure at a certain political candidate or business leader. Left or right.
It should be impossible to remove someone from banking, PayPal, Shopify, social media, etc. -- unless they're actively breaking federal law. And even then, there should be a legal process in place to reclaim your identity and real estate.
If legislation won't help us, then we need to build peer-to-peer (not federated) systems that will.