5 ms·

How can the bans (being de-platformed) be more horrific than the actual violence that's occurred?

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Easy. Tech giants have means to control all public speech and information exchange. -> they ally with political party -> ensure they win elections, fairly or whatever, no one will be able to tell the story that votes are counted unfairly -> install an unremovable authoritarian dictatorship. Which might have imitation elections & stuff, just like USSR had. And then, 'correction' camps for people that do not fully fit this new beautiful society.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  How much insurrection is acceptable before the tradeoff of a 'new beautiful society' is the better deal? Both sound like bad outcomes. Neither sounds obviously superior.
  - PHGamer 6y ago
    the insurrection is the political classes fault! if they hadnt shown the right that they were ok with burning cities the right wouldnt have had enough and actually did something. Sure the political class is going to make examples because this wasnt approved like the other but now their own words are getting thrown at them. granted a civil war will make the soviet collapse look like a cakewalk so im not preaching for that but holy damn. and it doesnt help this censorship means 40% of the country will think there is indeed a conspiracy now and will cause more unrest which will cause more more tyranny which will cause more unrest which causes a giant feedback loop. the higher ups literally are meeting their destiny by trying to avoid it. this could very well not end well.
- MrRiddle 6y ago
  That’s just the start. We’ll start seeing tech giants introduce “Partner API” for allied political parties in other countries. And soon enough there will be a world centralized government.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Such APIs already exist. You can't install Signal on iOS in China. I've been preaching this to oblivious ears here for a long time, yet, most say 'i like apple appstore monopoly'.
BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago
This is going to sound incredibly cold and callous, but the comparison needs to be made. One woman was shot. 4 others died for medical reasons. One was a heart attack. One was a police officer. Tragic deaths, to be sure. And the photos really do feel horrific. But do single digit casualties justify all this? Gang violence and crime kills way more people and police officers on a daily basis. Are we really setting the value of our liberal values that low to justify all this censorship and deplatforming? The events on the 6th, while horrific, have given a handful of big corporations control over national discourse and communication. That scares the daylights out of me. Was this all it took?
- neogodless 6y ago
  When it comes to communication channels, you choose how you get your information. Each person, individually, makes that choice. If you think that big tech is problematic for getting your information, it's not because they are making it more difficult to consume and participate on Parler. It's because it gives them too much control over information. The choice then is to your information elsewhere. People sharing disinformation on social media has been a grave issue long before the event on January 6, 2021. When it comes to that event, the real horror is not "single digit casualties" and that is a naive lens to use here. Disrupting a core institution of our representative democracy - certifying the election results for the President of the United States - in an attempt to overthrow the votes and will of the citizens is horrific and chilling.
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  While i hear you - i don't see this as an isolated incident. I see this as the inevitable result of radicalization that this President has pushed for four years. Shockingly when you flat out say that "They're only sending there criminals" (with regards to Mexico) it has affects on how some people view and thus tread Mexicans and/or brown skinned peoples. Repeatedly, examples similar to this have been expected by the left (myself included) to incite discrimination and violence to groups of people. So this is, imo, the natural outcome of the President saying that the government is broken beyond belief and that it is a literal stolen election. So, with all that said i don't entirely disagree with you - BUT, this is far from an isolated incident in my mind. This is repeated escalation.
ccleve 6y ago
That's a false choice. They're both bad. Don't be so cavalier about what's being lost here. The right to think and to speak freely is a fundamental human right.
serf 6y ago
by inciting more violence through disenfranchisement of desperate individuals. it's a pretty common occurrence, historically.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  I would be humbled by data that proved or rejected the idea that disenfranchisement of actors who organize violence from mainstream platforms actually prevents or reduces its occurrence. There's a fair point to be made that they'll move on elsewhere, but what if that slightly increased barrier friction is enough to stop them? No harm, no fowl, if that's the case. We traded a small bit of free speech for public safety, the ROI looks good, if it's so.
kortilla 6y ago
Well you get to suppress any speech that is too disruptive to the status quo, which includes all of the horrific things the government does.
lenkite 6y ago
Why is violence from one side celebrated and called "peaceful" ?
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  Violence from both sides is celebrated and called “peaceful” - by one side or the other.
brigandish 6y ago
The comparison to be made is between a society that values and supports freedom of speech with one that doesn’t. Which will contain more violence and misery? I would contend it is the latter.

Easy. Tech giants have means to control all public speech and information exchange. -> they ally with political party -> ensure they win elections, fairly or whatever, no one will be able to tell the story that votes are counted unfairly -> install an unremovable authoritarian dictatorship. Which might have imitation elections & stuff, just like USSR had. And then, 'correction' camps for people that do not fully fit this new beautiful society.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
How much insurrection is acceptable before the tradeoff of a 'new beautiful society' is the better deal? Both sound like bad outcomes. Neither sounds obviously superior.
- PHGamer 6y ago
  the insurrection is the political classes fault! if they hadnt shown the right that they were ok with burning cities the right wouldnt have had enough and actually did something. Sure the political class is going to make examples because this wasnt approved like the other but now their own words are getting thrown at them. granted a civil war will make the soviet collapse look like a cakewalk so im not preaching for that but holy damn. and it doesnt help this censorship means 40% of the country will think there is indeed a conspiracy now and will cause more unrest which will cause more more tyranny which will cause more unrest which causes a giant feedback loop. the higher ups literally are meeting their destiny by trying to avoid it. this could very well not end well.
MrRiddle 6y ago
That’s just the start. We’ll start seeing tech giants introduce “Partner API” for allied political parties in other countries. And soon enough there will be a world centralized government.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Such APIs already exist. You can't install Signal on iOS in China. I've been preaching this to oblivious ears here for a long time, yet, most say 'i like apple appstore monopoly'.

BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago

This is going to sound incredibly cold and callous, but the comparison needs to be made. One woman was shot. 4 others died for medical reasons. One was a heart attack. One was a police officer. Tragic deaths, to be sure. And the photos really do feel horrific. But do single digit casualties justify all this? Gang violence and crime kills way more people and police officers on a daily basis. Are we really setting the value of our liberal values that low to justify all this censorship and deplatforming? The events on the 6th, while horrific, have given a handful of big corporations control over national discourse and communication. That scares the daylights out of me. Was this all it took?

neogodless 6y ago
When it comes to communication channels, you choose how you get your information. Each person, individually, makes that choice. If you think that big tech is problematic for getting your information, it's not because they are making it more difficult to consume and participate on Parler. It's because it gives them too much control over information. The choice then is to your information elsewhere. People sharing disinformation on social media has been a grave issue long before the event on January 6, 2021. When it comes to that event, the real horror is not "single digit casualties" and that is a naive lens to use here. Disrupting a core institution of our representative democracy - certifying the election results for the President of the United States - in an attempt to overthrow the votes and will of the citizens is horrific and chilling.
adkadskhj 6y ago
While i hear you - i don't see this as an isolated incident. I see this as the inevitable result of radicalization that this President has pushed for four years. Shockingly when you flat out say that "They're only sending there criminals" (with regards to Mexico) it has affects on how some people view and thus tread Mexicans and/or brown skinned peoples. Repeatedly, examples similar to this have been expected by the left (myself included) to incite discrimination and violence to groups of people. So this is, imo, the natural outcome of the President saying that the government is broken beyond belief and that it is a literal stolen election. So, with all that said i don't entirely disagree with you - BUT, this is far from an isolated incident in my mind. This is repeated escalation.

ccleve 6y ago

That's a false choice. They're both bad. Don't be so cavalier about what's being lost here. The right to think and to speak freely is a fundamental human right.

serf 6y ago

by inciting more violence through disenfranchisement of desperate individuals. it's a pretty common occurrence, historically.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
I would be humbled by data that proved or rejected the idea that disenfranchisement of actors who organize violence from mainstream platforms actually prevents or reduces its occurrence. There's a fair point to be made that they'll move on elsewhere, but what if that slightly increased barrier friction is enough to stop them? No harm, no fowl, if that's the case. We traded a small bit of free speech for public safety, the ROI looks good, if it's so.

kortilla 6y ago

Well you get to suppress any speech that is too disruptive to the status quo, which includes all of the horrific things the government does.

lenkite 6y ago

Why is violence from one side celebrated and called "peaceful" ?

Ancapistani 6y ago
Violence from both sides is celebrated and called “peaceful” - by one side or the other.

brigandish 6y ago

The comparison to be made is between a society that values and supports freedom of speech with one that doesn’t. Which will contain more violence and misery? I would contend it is the latter.