4 ms·

Well if you squint and look closely I don’t think I said anything other than it’s better to make these platforms self policing as a way to stop illegal content

Well if you squint and look closely I don’t think I said anything other than it’s better to make these platforms self policing as a way to stop illegal content from appearing. Personally, the only thing I would ban is child pornography, and probably insightment to terrorism from right wing and islamists as well.

naasking 8y ago
I don't even know why you would qualify "incitement to terrorism" with right wing. Have you never heard of left wing terrorists? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism
- ModernMech 8y ago
  From your link: "Incidents of left-wing terrorism dropped off at the end of the Cold War (circa 1989), partly due to the loss of support for communism.[14]" Conversely, there was an incident of right wing terrorism just last week. This follows a trend of increasing right-wing terrorist activity: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsO... Yes, left wing terrorism exists, but today people are increasingly associating terrorism with right-wing ideologies because it's in our face and happening with increasing frequency. It's the same reason one might associate terrorism with Islam in 2001.
  - naasking 8y ago
    I fail to see what any of this has to do with the other post. Should incitement to left wing terrorism somehow be ok on this new platform just because it may not currently be common? Furthermore, from your own link, the 2000s saw a flood of left wing terror attacks. That was not that long ago.
    - ModernMech 8y ago
      It answers the question as to the qualification: because it is on people's mind due to recency and prevalence. If I asked you to name the first thing that comes to you mind when I say "Boeing" most would probably say the recent crash, not that they are headquartered in Washington.
      - naasking 8y ago
        It doesn't though, because the question wasn't about why they thought of right wing terrorism, the question is why they would limit it to right wing terrorism. Just say "terrorism".
        ModernMech 8y ago
        I think it still does. The topic at hand was censoring content on the Internet. The original parent referred to "Islamic" and "right-wing" terrorism because those are the two most prevalent and growing sources of terrorist activity that foment on the Internet. Did the Weather Underground grow because of the Internet? Did left-wing communist terrorist grow because of the Internet? Even in the early 2000s the Internet wasn't that big of a thing, not like today. Today, ISIS and right-wing terrorism follow a strikingly similar pattern: attract disaffected males on the Internet to communities where promises of former glory will be recaptured through the creation of an ethno-state. For ISIS, they coalesce behind the perceived dominance of the Muslim religion. For the alt-right they coalesce behind white supremacy. Anyway, I thought this debate about calling out terrorism was had in the early 2010s. The left wanted to call ISIS simply "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. But the right insisted that it be called "radical Islamic terrorism" because in the words of my family member "you have to call it what it is to defeat it". I agreed with that then, and I agree with it now. The left lost that debate and everyone started calling it "radical Islamic terrorism". Now all of a sudden the right wants to go back to blanket calling it "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism? I'm confused.
        leereeves 8y ago

naasking 8y ago

I don't even know why you would qualify "incitement to terrorism" with right wing. Have you never heard of left wing terrorists? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism

ModernMech 8y ago
From your link: "Incidents of left-wing terrorism dropped off at the end of the Cold War (circa 1989), partly due to the loss of support for communism.[14]" Conversely, there was an incident of right wing terrorism just last week. This follows a trend of increasing right-wing terrorist activity: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsO... Yes, left wing terrorism exists, but today people are increasingly associating terrorism with right-wing ideologies because it's in our face and happening with increasing frequency. It's the same reason one might associate terrorism with Islam in 2001.
- naasking 8y ago
  I fail to see what any of this has to do with the other post. Should incitement to left wing terrorism somehow be ok on this new platform just because it may not currently be common? Furthermore, from your own link, the 2000s saw a flood of left wing terror attacks. That was not that long ago.
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    It answers the question as to the qualification: because it is on people's mind due to recency and prevalence. If I asked you to name the first thing that comes to you mind when I say "Boeing" most would probably say the recent crash, not that they are headquartered in Washington.
    - naasking 8y ago
      It doesn't though, because the question wasn't about why they thought of right wing terrorism, the question is why they would limit it to right wing terrorism. Just say "terrorism".
      - ModernMech 8y ago
        I think it still does. The topic at hand was censoring content on the Internet. The original parent referred to "Islamic" and "right-wing" terrorism because those are the two most prevalent and growing sources of terrorist activity that foment on the Internet. Did the Weather Underground grow because of the Internet? Did left-wing communist terrorist grow because of the Internet? Even in the early 2000s the Internet wasn't that big of a thing, not like today. Today, ISIS and right-wing terrorism follow a strikingly similar pattern: attract disaffected males on the Internet to communities where promises of former glory will be recaptured through the creation of an ethno-state. For ISIS, they coalesce behind the perceived dominance of the Muslim religion. For the alt-right they coalesce behind white supremacy. Anyway, I thought this debate about calling out terrorism was had in the early 2010s. The left wanted to call ISIS simply "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. But the right insisted that it be called "radical Islamic terrorism" because in the words of my family member "you have to call it what it is to defeat it". I agreed with that then, and I agree with it now. The left lost that debate and everyone started calling it "radical Islamic terrorism". Now all of a sudden the right wants to go back to blanket calling it "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism? I'm confused.
        leereeves 8y ago