7 ms·
Why does it feel more murky than that? There are actual threats being posted against lawmakers, and then we had a violent storming of the capital by those peopl
by lostcolony 6y ago
Why does it feel more murky than that? There are actual threats being posted against lawmakers, and then we had a violent storming of the capital by those people, many of them armed, asking where those lawmakers are.
I mean...that image alone. "Violence works. Make them afraid", accompanied with text then saying "How about make them hang?", and showing lawmakers hiding in the Capital.
The fact it's a third party forum that these terrorist threats and planning are taking place doesn't really change the fact it's still facilitating terrorism.
- briantakita 6y ago"violent storming of the capital"...I don't know where you are from but this was not violent. It's far less violent that your typical BLM/Antifa demonstration destroying peoples' livelihoods & definitely less violent than what the Cartels do to unfriendly politicians & journalists in Mexico. I get it, the political establishment controls the narrative & the politicians got scared (with hilarious photos) that the unwashed masses entered their hallowed halls in "The Peoples' Building", but this was not nearly as violent as the media has hyped this up to be. The idiots who "stormed the capital" are going to be arrested, shamed, etc. It's taken care of, there is no insurrection. This is a shot across the bow & I don't think it's wise to crack down & punish a large portion of the population. If you think this was bad, it could get much worse. Let's not make this worse...please.
- DJPocari 6y agoBut this isn't the same as ISIS recruiting off of Twitter where the FBI/CIA/NSA monitors that discourse and contacts the respective platforms. This is a company deciding what should and shouldn't be censored. There's a difference between protected speech and yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. But with the way things are moving, more and more speech is being classified as "hate speech." The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky. I think there needs to be clear standards and clear enforcement.
- lostcolony 6y ago'The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky.' So do you think Amazon is falling on the wrong side of it here? Because even if it's more murky, if they're waiting until it's -very clearly violent-, egregiously so, with real physical criminal acts occurring because of it, I'm pretty sure no matter how murky the line is, they're well on the side of "violent words", not "offensive speech". Your concern only applies if they're trying to draw the line in an area that is murky. I'd contend this is not.
- leeoniya 6y ago> This is a company deciding what should and shouldn't be censored. are you saying that platforms cannot choose what to moderate because of a right to free speech? that's nonsense. you want free speech, go outside with a bullhorn, no one will arrest you - that's all that means.
- DJPocari 6y agoEven if it is okay for Facebook and Twitter to impose strict moderation policies, is it okay for AWS, Verizon, or GoDaddy? I just think it's a slippery slope, and we desperately need to cement our feet in the ground and draw a line somewhere. Also, when an overwhelming majority of public discourse takes place online (thanks 2020), the people choosing who does and does not get access to the centralized systems have a CRAZY amount of power. Yelling in a public square isn't how ideas spread anymore.
- santoshalper 6y agoIs it Ok to force owners of a private company to host content they find objectionable? Gay porn on the Hobby Lobby forums? AWS is a private business, they don't have to host anything they don't want to. Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with. I think a way more interest question is this - what about modern US conservatism makes violence so attractive to it? You cannot have a conservative forum that will not rapidly devolve into violent threats. Even /r/conservative, the more mainstream and mature conservative subreddit is absolutely full of people threatening revolution, backs against the wall, etc. The reality is that we as a society are getting numb to this and are actually being far too tolerant.
- throwaway201103 6y agoYou see the same unhinged types on left leaning platforms. Online forums attract the fringe loudmouths. Parler is not representative of modern US conservatism. I call myself conservative and I've never in my life visited the site. https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most_of_what_you_read_on_the_internet_is_written/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most... Edit: to be clear, in context, I am saying that these nutjob posters on Parler are not representative. I understand that mainstream conservatives may also have a presence there.
- drak0n1c 6y agoRegarding the "FIRE!" analogy - there are journalists such as Glenn Greenwald arguing that media and politicians fearmongering the specter of right wing terrorism are the becoming the ones yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, and the mass deplatforming of regular conservative groups and proposed Patriot Act 2.0 measures that will ensue is the movie theater suffering disproportionate and unnecessary harm as a result.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoIs there actually mass deplatforming of regular conservative groups? Where is this happening?
- drak0n1c 6y agoOn Facebook, “WalkAway” a community that was devoted to compiling hundreds of thousands of ex-Democrat video and text testimonials was banned. It was not about Q and didn’t advocate breaking into government buildings. It was the most wholesome right wing space I’ve ever seen on the internet. People sharing their experiences being alienated by either how they saw media manipulate a story they knew about or by how divisive partisanship and cancel culture personally affected them. Welcoming each other in the comments regardless of their sexual orientation or race. It would have been a useful place to learn from but now it’s gone.
- chasd00 6y agokathy griffen posted a photo of herself with a severed donald trump head. i mean cnn did ask her not to attend a new years Eve party but shouldn't she be deplatformed? the deplatforming policy is impossible to define and will be enforced arbitrarily. it's going to satisfy no one.
- lostcolony 6y agoI think "accompanied by actual physical acts of violence related to said speech" is a pretty decently high bar, that this incident clears. Until you have an incident you actually, rather than hypothetically, object to, why do you assume Amazon is going to aggressively deplatform software platforms? They have a pretty clear financial incentive not to.
- nemothekid 6y ago>kathy griffen posted a photo of herself with a severed donald trump head And she was suspended for that.
- mahastore 6y agoExactly ,,, you use a platform to call for murdering people in the name of second civil war .. well you get banned. That is the least a civilized society can do.
- macinjosh 6y agoWhen did Trump encourage murder? This is hyperbole.
- mahastore 6y agoWho said anything about Trump? Just so you haven't noticed Trump is not that important anymore.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- macinjosh 6y agoWho said anything about Trump being important?
- mahastore 6y agoLets agree to agree on this.
- jimmydorry 6y agoAgreed, but like it or not, he is the flagship of this wave of censorship. His ban was the first shot over the bow by the social media giants, if you will.
- kristofferR 6y agoHe tweeted that he wouldn't be at Biden's inauguration, a clear sign that it was okay to attack it. /s Seriously, that was Twitter's argument for why they banned him... https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- Ajedi32 6y agoThe parent comment was not asking where to draw the line on _what_ to censor. The question was "where do we draw the line on _how_ we censor the internet?" E.g. If your ISP decides that something you posted on Twitter violates some standard of their own devise, should they be allowed to disconnect you?
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoISPs should be common carriers. Unfortunately the current administration disagrees.
- throwaway201103 6y agoAt what point should something like AWS be a "common carrier" though?
- lostcolony 6y agoWhen it's transporting goods (data) to the general public without discrimination, for the public good and necessity. Since that's the definition of a common carrier. AWS isn't fundamentally transporting goods but providing a service (the transmission of data happens via a common carrier between you and it). It's not clear that AWS access is a public necessity. And it's never attempted to claim it does so without discrimination.
- lostcolony 6y agoAccording to the GOP, yes. -I- personally support net neutrality however. As well as the net being a need to operate in society. But the ability to run a workload on AWS? They're a business. I'm totally okay with them deciding to stop doing business with me. That also has a GOP precedent, what with that whole "You don't have to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple" thing.
- Ajedi32 6y agoISPs are businesses too, so that's not really the relevant distinction here. Why would you be okay with AWS deciding not to do business with you based on something you said, but not your ISP? Seems rather arbitrary to me.
- meragrin 6y ago> many of them armed I haven't heard of more than 5 firearms. No mention of where those were. Videos I have seen just show flags, signs, cameras, and mobile phones. What were these "many" armed with?
- _qwfv 6y agoOne guy rolled up with a truck off molotov cocktails and firearms. Several IEDs were discovered and detonated by bomb squads.
- throwaway201103 6y agoSo like CHAZ?
- _qwfv 6y agoI'm not aware of a truckload of molotov cocktails, or IEDs in CHOP. In either case, that's whataboutism. If the same thing happened in CHOP, yes, it would also be bad. Are you seriously suggesting this is acceptable behavior?
- meragrin 6y agoSo one guy is now many?
- _qwfv 6y agoNine firearms plus one long gun, one container of molotovs, several pipe bombs, and two IEDs were seized by police. Additionally several released chemical agents at police. One beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. One was photographed with a set of zip tie restraints. And that's just what was captured obviously. Presumably for everything found there were several more things concealed.
- throwaway201103 6y agoIs the guy in custody? Who is he? What's his background?
- joebidenforprez 6y agoRight, and BLM chanting kill the police, that should be encouraged by twitter and facebook???? Your logic defies me. Keep on voting for pelosi so she could continue becoming rich off the backs of hardworking americans and eating 10k dollar ice cream
- dang 6y agoCreating accounts to break HN's guidelines like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- s1artibartfast 6y agoIf real threats are being posted against lawmakers, there should be a legal process to resolve the situation.