9 ms·

IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. The possibility that we might slide backwards from tra

IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. The possibility that we might slide backwards from traditionally liberal ideas spawned from the enlightenment is utterly terrifying. And we are rapidly heading in that direction.

bargl 6y ago
I feel like after the twin towers were blown up. It was less than 100 individuals that were the impetuous for one of the worst pieces of legislation I know of. The Patriot Act. Which was voted on in a complete state of fear. Creating an extra judicial process for people who fit into a given category. I fear the reaction to this, which I'd argue is why Twitter needed a great press release to justify banning Trump (which they can and should do as a private corporation). EDIT: I feel like we're in a reactionary state of shock where lawmakers may try to push laws that sound good to people who are in shock and fear.
- thefucnjosh 6y ago
  Let's hope they don't.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > I feel like we're in a reactionary state of shock where lawmakers may try to push laws that sound good to people who are in shock and fear. Yes, less than a year after trump allowed the patriot act to expire.
  - metabagel 6y ago
    Like a stopped clock, Trump has on a few rare occasions done the right thing, and I have been surprised and grateful whenever it has happened.
  - newen 6y ago
    Ha, what timing. Now we can make laws about domestic terrorism and give the government the same powers.
  - diydsp 6y ago
    Seems it was the House: The Senate passed a 77-day extension in March 2020, but the House of Representatives did not pass the legislation before departing for recess on March 27, 2020.[13][14][15][16] (Wikipedia)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bilbo0s 6y ago
Liberal ideas from the enlightenment are alive and well. Now if the government had banned Trump from speaking, then you would have a point. Twitter banning Trump is, at root, a business making a business decision. Here's reality, and I'm going to date myself here, but there were, long ago, enormously popular digital spaces called BBS's. You could chat, play games (MUDs mostly), etc etc. They are, by and large, no longer with us. New and admittedly better technologies came along. So will it be with Social Media. As difficult as it may be for people to believe, 40 years from now, Social Media in its current form will probably not be with us any longer. Here's the thing though, the government will still be with us. So it's the government that we need to constrict. And, using the tool of our Constitution, we do an admirable job of constricting the government's ability to restrict our free speech. That Twitter says a man can't talk on their private property is not a societal problem. That the government says a man can't talk anywhere in the country is a societal problem. There's been far too much conflating of these two issues, they are not the same.
- johnzim 6y ago
  I agree in some respects but comparing the nature of the internet today compared to the internet we remembered back in the 90s, it’s abundantly clear that consolidation and centralization are significant forces. We’re not really making the same progress on decentralizing the web that we thought we would. Is it really that difficult to see further consolidation as the most likely outcome?
  - loopz 6y ago
    Mass decentralization may bring on centralization of lies and deceit though. The ideal requires great maturity.
- hype7 6y ago
  Yeah, except for the fact that there’s no one bbs “to rule them all”. The power these platforms have mean they’re up there in terms of influence of govt. As I saw concisely said on Twitter: If you can silence a king, you are the king
sdwa 6y ago
The trespassing and sacking of the capitol is precisely a sign of backsliding on traditionally liberal ideas from the enlightenment, much more so than Twitter banning the number one inciter of the aforementioned insurrection.
- ebilgenius 6y ago
  The outrage it's generated from all corners of American society seem to run against that idea. Just because a relatively small mob of determined extremists can raid a building for an afternoon does not indicate some kind of earth-shattering, society-changing transformative event. Popular social media platforms using shaky, uneven, and arguably unjustifiable logic to ban both speech and people from their respective shares of the public sphere is, however, indicative of an ever-growing attack by monopolized social platforms on exactly those traditionally liberal ideas that makes such amazingly diverse and open-minded communities to begin with.
  - thefucnjosh 6y ago
    I don't disagree with anything you said. But terrorist violence & sedition are not protected speech. Whether they banned him for the right or wrong reason, he still needs to be banned.
    - ebilgenius 6y ago
      It's true that terrorism & sedition is not protected speech, but it's also true that the logic Twitter is invoking here to connect the tweets to terrorism & sedition is questionable at best. Regardless, why should we accept Twitter banning people for the "wrong" reasons?
      - danans 6y ago
        > why should we accept Twitter banning people for the "wrong" reasons I think this confuses "you" with "we". You shouldn't accept it if you feel it is unfair, and you should express that if you feel the need to, subject to the rules of whatever platform you use to express it. But "we" (as in the people of the United States), via the powers of government, have no right under the Constitution to compel (or if you prefer, to "not accept") Twitter to allow him to tweet on their platform.
gwright 6y ago
Thank you for saying concisely what I've been thinking.
Cullinet 6y ago
the widespread negation of facts and obliteration or information on subjects at fiat for political purposes strongly resembles to my mind only a reversal of centuries of libertarian and democratic advancement with frightening and real potential consequent potential for according reversal in social and economic development.
yongjik 6y ago
> IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. Yeah, like, some people trespassing into government buildings in the middle of officially declaring the next president, with an intention to disrupt the procedure, at the urge of the current outgoing president. Now that is some scary shit.
- beerandt 6y ago
  And occupying the Senate building for the SCOTUS confirmation, admittedly to intimidate senators to change their vote, is different how? Other than one was met with resistance and the other was given unfettered access.
  - nappy 6y ago
    Probably all of the violence, vandalism, looting, and coming in with tools to take hostages. And bombs with timers placed elsewhere.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
      HN: "Yes, but other than that stuff..." </s>
    - odessacubbage 6y ago
      where have you been for the past 8 months?
  - epakai 6y ago
    One was given access then 300 people were arrested for their civil disobedience (loud chanting, refusal to leave). Fox reported it as "[there to] protest Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and put pressure on the handful of undecided senators". I've seen no indication people carried weapons, pushed through barricades, or threatened anyone.
vkou 6y ago
> IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. Yes, like trespassing into government buildings for the purpose of preventing a peaceful, lawful democratic transfer of power. Protest is compatible with democracy. What happened two days ago is not. If you don't like the outcome of an election, you can complain about it, you can be a nuisance about it, you can talk about it. What you can't do, is try to carry out a coup.
LoSboccacc 6y ago
> slide backwards from traditionally liberal ideas spawned from the enlightenment It's not by chance that enlightenment ended in the terror the first time around, people should read more about the past.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Whilst I agree somewhat, that's a sufficiently abstract case to make that cognizablity is low. Things that are tangible and can be seen or sensed or emoted directly have impact. Crowds, sounds, death, damage, violence, mayhem.
_yhdy 6y ago
What the fuck is wrong with you?
- dang 6y ago
  Personal attacks are not ok on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. If you break the site guidelines as egregiously as this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25698892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25698892 again, we will have to ban you. We're trying to avoid hell on this site, which kind of requires not jumping straight into it.
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692834.

bargl 6y ago

I feel like after the twin towers were blown up. It was less than 100 individuals that were the impetuous for one of the worst pieces of legislation I know of. The Patriot Act. Which was voted on in a complete state of fear. Creating an extra judicial process for people who fit into a given category. I fear the reaction to this, which I'd argue is why Twitter needed a great press release to justify banning Trump (which they can and should do as a private corporation). EDIT: I feel like we're in a reactionary state of shock where lawmakers may try to push laws that sound good to people who are in shock and fear.

thefucnjosh 6y ago
Let's hope they don't.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> I feel like we're in a reactionary state of shock where lawmakers may try to push laws that sound good to people who are in shock and fear. Yes, less than a year after trump allowed the patriot act to expire.
- metabagel 6y ago
  Like a stopped clock, Trump has on a few rare occasions done the right thing, and I have been surprised and grateful whenever it has happened.
- newen 6y ago
  Ha, what timing. Now we can make laws about domestic terrorism and give the government the same powers.
- diydsp 6y ago
  Seems it was the House: The Senate passed a 77-day extension in March 2020, but the House of Representatives did not pass the legislation before departing for recess on March 27, 2020.[13][14][15][16] (Wikipedia)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bilbo0s 6y ago

Liberal ideas from the enlightenment are alive and well. Now if the government had banned Trump from speaking, then you would have a point. Twitter banning Trump is, at root, a business making a business decision. Here's reality, and I'm going to date myself here, but there were, long ago, enormously popular digital spaces called BBS's. You could chat, play games (MUDs mostly), etc etc. They are, by and large, no longer with us. New and admittedly better technologies came along. So will it be with Social Media. As difficult as it may be for people to believe, 40 years from now, Social Media in its current form will probably not be with us any longer. Here's the thing though, the government will still be with us. So it's the government that we need to constrict. And, using the tool of our Constitution, we do an admirable job of constricting the government's ability to restrict our free speech. That Twitter says a man can't talk on their private property is not a societal problem. That the government says a man can't talk anywhere in the country is a societal problem. There's been far too much conflating of these two issues, they are not the same.

johnzim 6y ago
I agree in some respects but comparing the nature of the internet today compared to the internet we remembered back in the 90s, it’s abundantly clear that consolidation and centralization are significant forces. We’re not really making the same progress on decentralizing the web that we thought we would. Is it really that difficult to see further consolidation as the most likely outcome?
- loopz 6y ago
  Mass decentralization may bring on centralization of lies and deceit though. The ideal requires great maturity.
hype7 6y ago
Yeah, except for the fact that there’s no one bbs “to rule them all”. The power these platforms have mean they’re up there in terms of influence of govt. As I saw concisely said on Twitter: If you can silence a king, you are the king

sdwa 6y ago

The trespassing and sacking of the capitol is precisely a sign of backsliding on traditionally liberal ideas from the enlightenment, much more so than Twitter banning the number one inciter of the aforementioned insurrection.

ebilgenius 6y ago
The outrage it's generated from all corners of American society seem to run against that idea. Just because a relatively small mob of determined extremists can raid a building for an afternoon does not indicate some kind of earth-shattering, society-changing transformative event. Popular social media platforms using shaky, uneven, and arguably unjustifiable logic to ban both speech and people from their respective shares of the public sphere is, however, indicative of an ever-growing attack by monopolized social platforms on exactly those traditionally liberal ideas that makes such amazingly diverse and open-minded communities to begin with.
- thefucnjosh 6y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you said. But terrorist violence & sedition are not protected speech. Whether they banned him for the right or wrong reason, he still needs to be banned.
  - ebilgenius 6y ago
    It's true that terrorism & sedition is not protected speech, but it's also true that the logic Twitter is invoking here to connect the tweets to terrorism & sedition is questionable at best. Regardless, why should we accept Twitter banning people for the "wrong" reasons?
    - danans 6y ago
      > why should we accept Twitter banning people for the "wrong" reasons I think this confuses "you" with "we". You shouldn't accept it if you feel it is unfair, and you should express that if you feel the need to, subject to the rules of whatever platform you use to express it. But "we" (as in the people of the United States), via the powers of government, have no right under the Constitution to compel (or if you prefer, to "not accept") Twitter to allow him to tweet on their platform.

gwright 6y ago

Thank you for saying concisely what I've been thinking.

Cullinet 6y ago

the widespread negation of facts and obliteration or information on subjects at fiat for political purposes strongly resembles to my mind only a reversal of centuries of libertarian and democratic advancement with frightening and real potential consequent potential for according reversal in social and economic development.

yongjik 6y ago

> IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. Yeah, like, some people trespassing into government buildings in the middle of officially declaring the next president, with an intention to disrupt the procedure, at the urge of the current outgoing president. Now that is some scary shit.

beerandt 6y ago
And occupying the Senate building for the SCOTUS confirmation, admittedly to intimidate senators to change their vote, is different how? Other than one was met with resistance and the other was given unfettered access.
- nappy 6y ago
  Probably all of the violence, vandalism, looting, and coming in with tools to take hostages. And bombs with timers placed elsewhere.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    HN: "Yes, but other than that stuff..." </s>
  - odessacubbage 6y ago
    where have you been for the past 8 months?
- epakai 6y ago
  One was given access then 300 people were arrested for their civil disobedience (loud chanting, refusal to leave). Fox reported it as "[there to] protest Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court and put pressure on the handful of undecided senators". I've seen no indication people carried weapons, pushed through barricades, or threatened anyone.

vkou 6y ago

> IMHO there are things that are much more scary than some trespassing into government buildings or a riot. Yes, like trespassing into government buildings for the purpose of preventing a peaceful, lawful democratic transfer of power. Protest is compatible with democracy. What happened two days ago is not. If you don't like the outcome of an election, you can complain about it, you can be a nuisance about it, you can talk about it. What you can't do, is try to carry out a coup.

LoSboccacc 6y ago

> slide backwards from traditionally liberal ideas spawned from the enlightenment It's not by chance that enlightenment ended in the terror the first time around, people should read more about the past.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Whilst I agree somewhat, that's a sufficiently abstract case to make that cognizablity is low. Things that are tangible and can be seen or sensed or emoted directly have impact. Crowds, sounds, death, damage, violence, mayhem.

_yhdy 6y ago

What the fuck is wrong with you?

dang 6y ago
Personal attacks are not ok on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. If you break the site guidelines as egregiously as this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25698892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25698892 again, we will have to ban you. We're trying to avoid hell on this site, which kind of requires not jumping straight into it.

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25692834.