In 1954 a Puerto Rican group fired shots into Congress - there was no social media back then. Jimmy Carter pardoned them. The suggestion now is that social med

In 1954 a Puerto Rican group fired shots into Congress - there was no social media back then. Jimmy Carter pardoned them. The suggestion now is that social media is ok to use as a tool to organize the kind of looting and arson that results in the killing of people like David Dorn, but not organize a protest that results in vandalism of the hallowed halls of insider trading. A few years ago, Steve Scalise was shot at a congressional baseball game. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook did not see themselves as responsible for the online hate that led to it. Was it MSNBC that radicalized the shooter then? Where was he getting his information from? The fact of the matter is that violent language against specific political figures is acceptable, and violence from others is not acceptable. This is further proved in specific cases like the Kathy Griffin decapitation video, the drawing of Trump's head being cut off (Facebook sent a specific memo to Cognizant that this was a valid exception). This is being done because the vast majority of people working at these companies see fit to lecture the world on topics like unconscious bias, and then selectively apply their policies when it aligns with their personal politics - completely oblivious to the other cases where enforcement should be equal. This will be seen as an escalation and further undermine the credibility of these companies in the eyes of millions. If at all they stay it will be because of prevailing trends and network effects only. I guarantee you that at this very second you could search twitter and find folks freely expressing their admiration for Rand Paul's neighbour, who attacked him so violently that he was critically hospitalized. There is a sickness in political discourse that is being selectively attended to by people suffering from the very same sickness.