5 ms·

What I have observed today on social media is that censorship has been ramped up dramatically all in one day. And I don't mean Trump. I'm seeing even posts from

What I have observed today on social media is that censorship has been ramped up dramatically all in one day. And I don't mean Trump. I'm seeing even posts from conservative accounts that unequivocally condemned the capitol raid getting deleted, and entire accounts being deleted with no notice. This to me feels a lot like a digital political genocide, the culmination of an ascendant group with significant power (progressive left allied with tech giants) suddenly unleashing it upon their political enemies. I dislike Trump, but the claim that he has incited violence is without evidence, and we see that in Twitter's blog post announcing his ban (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...), since it offers no hard evidence and only subjective leaps of the imagination. The call to delete his account because of the current political context is unacceptable, and it is also total hypocrisy given that this logic was not applied when BLM riots caused billions of Dollars in damage in the last year. It's also hypocritical given that nearly identical incidents (riots at the capitol) have taken place several times before and not resulted in this type of coverage or censorship. Several of these incidents are in the past few years, such as the climate riot which AOC participated in (https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-sunrise-activists-nancy-pelosi https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/alexandria-ocasio-cortez...) or the riots concerning Brett Kavanaugh's appointment (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-su...) or the 600-person riot protesting immigration law (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens-march-protesters-call-end-family-separation-capitol/story?id=56240419 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/womens-march-protesters-call...). This isn't about riots. It isn't about violence. It isn't about a coup. It isn't about Trump even. It is only about big tech bowing down to the new incoming leaders who control their fates, and with the changing of the guard, they have become comfortable showing who they are - powerful partisans who will put the power of their monopolies to work if left unimpeded. That should scare anyone who knows where this path leads based on history. I'm genuinely worried, because as always, these changes come in response to an event that scared people and now they are naively welcoming authoritarian changes.

upbeat_general 6y ago
The other “riots” you refer to are not riots. They appear to all be sit-ins. No windows were broken or police overpowered/attacked. These types of protests are common in the Capitol (and I’m pretty sure in most other US legislatures buildings). People often enter legally, protest, refuse to leave, and then are arrested. This is not what happened on January 6th.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  You’re redefining the word “riot”, drawing an arbitrarily line between allowed/disallowed activities that constitute a riot, and also dressing up riots you agree with in favorable terms by calling them a “sit in”. The definition of “riot” is at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot and all the events I named were unequivocally riots. Their acts were clearly illegal and it’s why they were arrested. Please don’t excuse criminality that agrees with your politics. This is exactly the hypocrisy underlying the spate of censorship that was normalized today.
  - thatguy987 6y ago
    I think that a big difference to people is whether or not the event was violent. Many protests involve civil disobedience; I think very few people here would condemn all illegal protests. However, violence is where I (and I think many others) draw the line. As another data point I heard: Wednesday was the first time since 9/11/2001 that the Capitol was evacuated. Clearly, this demonstration was exceptional in a way that disturbe
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Both applicable definitions at the other poster's link literally have a form of the word 'violence' in them.
      - throwawaysea 6y ago
        The word “or” separates the qualifying conditions in the definition linked. Disorder or a disturbance of the peace is enough to qualify an incident as a “riot”. Given the quoted incidents were illegal acts that required authorities to spend time and money to respond to, they were of course a disturbance of the peace, disorderly, and therefore were indeed riots.

upbeat_general 6y ago

The other “riots” you refer to are not riots. They appear to all be sit-ins. No windows were broken or police overpowered/attacked. These types of protests are common in the Capitol (and I’m pretty sure in most other US legislatures buildings). People often enter legally, protest, refuse to leave, and then are arrested. This is not what happened on January 6th.

throwawaysea 6y ago
You’re redefining the word “riot”, drawing an arbitrarily line between allowed/disallowed activities that constitute a riot, and also dressing up riots you agree with in favorable terms by calling them a “sit in”. The definition of “riot” is at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot and all the events I named were unequivocally riots. Their acts were clearly illegal and it’s why they were arrested. Please don’t excuse criminality that agrees with your politics. This is exactly the hypocrisy underlying the spate of censorship that was normalized today.
- thatguy987 6y ago
  I think that a big difference to people is whether or not the event was violent. Many protests involve civil disobedience; I think very few people here would condemn all illegal protests. However, violence is where I (and I think many others) draw the line. As another data point I heard: Wednesday was the first time since 9/11/2001 that the Capitol was evacuated. Clearly, this demonstration was exceptional in a way that disturbe
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Both applicable definitions at the other poster's link literally have a form of the word 'violence' in them.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      The word “or” separates the qualifying conditions in the definition linked. Disorder or a disturbance of the peace is enough to qualify an incident as a “riot”. Given the quoted incidents were illegal acts that required authorities to spend time and money to respond to, they were of course a disturbance of the peace, disorderly, and therefore were indeed riots.