3 ms·

> Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels more murky than t

> Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels more murky than that. No, it doesnt. Actual terrorist group sites should be banned and kicked of whatever platforms they're operating on. No one, or no company, should be required to provide service to them. I really struggle to see the issue here. If you allow calls for elected officials, or anyone, to be publically murdered, then it's free game for companys to refuse your service. It's pretty fucking simple imho.

mynameishere 6y ago
The issue [sigh] is that anything you want to call terrorism is terrorism. To me, the BLM movement had every quality of a terrorist movement--burning, looting, murdering, for months while demanding policy changes. That's textbook terrorism. But no one--absolutely no one--in the public sphere defined it that way. Nancy Pelosi literally kneeled before the BLM movement. I suspect a person won't call violent actors terrorists if one of two things are true: They are successful, or if you are on the same side. For BLM and the establishment, both conditions were met. For those on the right, just having Cletus post a comment, "Hang the bastards" is sufficient cause to destroy a company overnight.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The sufficient cause in this case was that Cletus went on to invade the Capitol, driving the entire Congress into hiding for hours, while demanding (literally - some people were chanting the exact phrase) "heads on pikes". If it were just an abstract speech issue, I'd absolutely oppose Amazon's actions here.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  BLM protesters were murdering for months? If "BLM people" were calling for murders in public in the same way these Capitol people have been, then absolutely they should be kicked off platforms. I don't think many would disagree with that.

mynameishere 6y ago

The issue [sigh] is that anything you want to call terrorism is terrorism. To me, the BLM movement had every quality of a terrorist movement--burning, looting, murdering, for months while demanding policy changes. That's textbook terrorism. But no one--absolutely no one--in the public sphere defined it that way. Nancy Pelosi literally kneeled before the BLM movement. I suspect a person won't call violent actors terrorists if one of two things are true: They are successful, or if you are on the same side. For BLM and the establishment, both conditions were met. For those on the right, just having Cletus post a comment, "Hang the bastards" is sufficient cause to destroy a company overnight.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The sufficient cause in this case was that Cletus went on to invade the Capitol, driving the entire Congress into hiding for hours, while demanding (literally - some people were chanting the exact phrase) "heads on pikes". If it were just an abstract speech issue, I'd absolutely oppose Amazon's actions here.
madeofpalk 6y ago
BLM protesters were murdering for months? If "BLM people" were calling for murders in public in the same way these Capitol people have been, then absolutely they should be kicked off platforms. I don't think many would disagree with that.