3 ms·

Yeah I'll admit I didn't follow it completely and didn't care enough to investigate. I'm sure it'll bubble up here if it does with more details just like when t

by gfodor 6y ago

Yeah I'll admit I didn't follow it completely and didn't care enough to investigate. I'm sure it'll bubble up here if it does with more details just like when they got nuked from Reddit. Arguably sites like this one are a good way to gauge the true robustness of the Internet - given the situation this week they clearly now are in the realm of law enforcement, but up until these rather insane events to me their continued presence was an existence proof that speech on the web is still in a good place. Now if they get taken down I won't judge it too harshly against that thesis since they basically fomented a theoretical insurrection by the letter of the law, even though in practice the "coup" turns out was never a real threat given how ridiculous things went once the dog caught the car.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Suppose that the only violence was caused by a group of antifa supporters wearing pro-Trump hats etc., which some eyewitnesses are now claiming. Suppose further that about 100 people actually passed the barricades (which were inexplicably opened by the police, by the way, video evidence shows) out of the estimated 40,000 at the rally. If that is the case, is it really fair to shut down major pro-Trump websites? If so, it would prove that a few instigators can pretty much undermine any organization by these kinds of tactics. I would also note that there has been terrible violence associated with BLM protests, much worse than was seen this week, with buildings burned, police cars smashed or lit on fire, dozens of police assaulted, people shot, stores looted, passersby beaten up... and to my knowledge, no effort was made to close down BLM websites. I'm all for law and order, and I was against the trespassing that happened and whatever violence did occur at that rally, but we shouldn't be so quick to just throw out freedom of speech and equal access to the internet, or it will come back to bite us, guaranteed. The Internet was established by public funding, university research, and millions of people paying into services & resources; it mustn't be turned into a private club.
- gfodor 6y ago
  You may be reading too much into what I wrote. My standard here is simply that I think if a website is literally organizing something which explicitly, literally, supports violent overthrow of the government, then I'm going to yield to the legal system to enforce whatever laws exist to properly regulate that speech. I don't have a strong opinion beyond that since I am not a lawyer. My point is that if the mechanism to enforce those laws includes SSL or CDN interference, I won't include such interference on the list of things I'd be concerned about in my bucket of "corporate interests mediating acceptable global speech."
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in the US, the current standard for free speech (Brandenburg v Ohio) holds that literally advocating for violent overthrow of the government is constitutionally-protected free speech. The bar that you have to hit is incitement to "imminent lawless action." This standard of free speech is much higher than most of the rest of the world.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      That makes sense - I appreciate the info and upon first glance that seems like a sane standard. (Beyond being ignorant on the legal aspect to this, my phrasing lacked the specificity in that what was going on on TDW, especially ex-post, was clearly organizing such imminent action at a specific time and place. I'd suspect the standard you mention would have been met.)
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      Thanks for this clarification. I am also still confused as to why Trump himself has been the target of all these tech/social media platforms. As far as I can tell he has not incited violence - imminent or otherwise. Yes he has made exaggerated/false claims about the election, yes he has not condemned the criminal acts of the capitol rioters, but as far as I can tell he has not encouraged or incited violence. And each time I have asked this question of friends or on HN, I've not received a substantive answer.
      - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
        He has repeatedly condemned the criminal acts of the rioters, but his words tend not to be broadcast on mainstream news. You can find it on OAN, RSBN, Golden State, and other conservative channels, however.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        The argument is that leaders ought to have an understanding of which way they're blowing the wind - their own personal thresholds have little bearing on how far the people they're speaking to will go unless the take a hard stance on where that threshold is. In this case, Trump at the very least failed to articulate beforehand where the line was, and it was very clear the line not being clear was a big problem. A secondary problem seems to be selective recognition of this: people are easily able to see the potential second order effects of Trump's rhetoric and react to it, but the same levers are not being pulled as actively when other people take similar rhetorical risks that have plausible deniability as contributing to violence for the reasons I mention.
- MrZongle2 6y ago
  "Suppose further that about 100 people actually passed the barricades (which were inexplicably opened by the police, by the way, video evidence shows) out of the estimated 40,000 at the rally. If that is the case, is it really fair to shut down major pro-Trump websites?" That's assuming that all parties involved are concerned about fairness.
- ezrast 6y ago
  Impressionable readers should be aware that the initial supposition ("the only violence was caused by a group of antifa...") is acutely counterfactual. Rioters have largely been unshy about documenting the experience on social media and many have been identified, including prominent alt-right community members such as Jake Angeli, the face-painted viking-looking guy known as the "QAnon Shaman", and Baked Alaska, who livestreamed the damn thing. Source: https://www.vox.com/recode/22218963/capitol-photos-legal-charges-fbi-police-facebook-twitter https://www.vox.com/recode/22218963/capitol-photos-legal-cha..., and if you don't like Vox there's confirmation of this stuff all over Twitter; just search.

by gfodor 6y ago

blisterpeanuts 6y ago

Suppose that the only violence was caused by a group of antifa supporters wearing pro-Trump hats etc., which some eyewitnesses are now claiming. Suppose further that about 100 people actually passed the barricades (which were inexplicably opened by the police, by the way, video evidence shows) out of the estimated 40,000 at the rally. If that is the case, is it really fair to shut down major pro-Trump websites? If so, it would prove that a few instigators can pretty much undermine any organization by these kinds of tactics. I would also note that there has been terrible violence associated with BLM protests, much worse than was seen this week, with buildings burned, police cars smashed or lit on fire, dozens of police assaulted, people shot, stores looted, passersby beaten up... and to my knowledge, no effort was made to close down BLM websites. I'm all for law and order, and I was against the trespassing that happened and whatever violence did occur at that rally, but we shouldn't be so quick to just throw out freedom of speech and equal access to the internet, or it will come back to bite us, guaranteed. The Internet was established by public funding, university research, and millions of people paying into services & resources; it mustn't be turned into a private club.

gfodor 6y ago
You may be reading too much into what I wrote. My standard here is simply that I think if a website is literally organizing something which explicitly, literally, supports violent overthrow of the government, then I'm going to yield to the legal system to enforce whatever laws exist to properly regulate that speech. I don't have a strong opinion beyond that since I am not a lawyer. My point is that if the mechanism to enforce those laws includes SSL or CDN interference, I won't include such interference on the list of things I'd be concerned about in my bucket of "corporate interests mediating acceptable global speech."
- jcranmer 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in the US, the current standard for free speech (Brandenburg v Ohio) holds that literally advocating for violent overthrow of the government is constitutionally-protected free speech. The bar that you have to hit is incitement to "imminent lawless action." This standard of free speech is much higher than most of the rest of the world.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    That makes sense - I appreciate the info and upon first glance that seems like a sane standard. (Beyond being ignorant on the legal aspect to this, my phrasing lacked the specificity in that what was going on on TDW, especially ex-post, was clearly organizing such imminent action at a specific time and place. I'd suspect the standard you mention would have been met.)
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Thanks for this clarification. I am also still confused as to why Trump himself has been the target of all these tech/social media platforms. As far as I can tell he has not incited violence - imminent or otherwise. Yes he has made exaggerated/false claims about the election, yes he has not condemned the criminal acts of the capitol rioters, but as far as I can tell he has not encouraged or incited violence. And each time I have asked this question of friends or on HN, I've not received a substantive answer.
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      He has repeatedly condemned the criminal acts of the rioters, but his words tend not to be broadcast on mainstream news. You can find it on OAN, RSBN, Golden State, and other conservative channels, however.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      The argument is that leaders ought to have an understanding of which way they're blowing the wind - their own personal thresholds have little bearing on how far the people they're speaking to will go unless the take a hard stance on where that threshold is. In this case, Trump at the very least failed to articulate beforehand where the line was, and it was very clear the line not being clear was a big problem. A secondary problem seems to be selective recognition of this: people are easily able to see the potential second order effects of Trump's rhetoric and react to it, but the same levers are not being pulled as actively when other people take similar rhetorical risks that have plausible deniability as contributing to violence for the reasons I mention.
MrZongle2 6y ago
"Suppose further that about 100 people actually passed the barricades (which were inexplicably opened by the police, by the way, video evidence shows) out of the estimated 40,000 at the rally. If that is the case, is it really fair to shut down major pro-Trump websites?" That's assuming that all parties involved are concerned about fairness.
ezrast 6y ago
Impressionable readers should be aware that the initial supposition ("the only violence was caused by a group of antifa...") is acutely counterfactual. Rioters have largely been unshy about documenting the experience on social media and many have been identified, including prominent alt-right community members such as Jake Angeli, the face-painted viking-looking guy known as the "QAnon Shaman", and Baked Alaska, who livestreamed the damn thing. Source: https://www.vox.com/recode/22218963/capitol-photos-legal-charges-fbi-police-facebook-twitter https://www.vox.com/recode/22218963/capitol-photos-legal-cha..., and if you don't like Vox there's confirmation of this stuff all over Twitter; just search.