10 ms·

After a summer of riots, looting, and violence all across the country, fueled by calls to violence on Twitter and Facebook

by throwaway201103 6y ago

dagmx 6y ago
What calls for violence, that weren't moderated? What organized looting? What riots that weren't instigated by police brutality? Did any of these try and overthrow the Democratic process? Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.
- lliamander 6y ago
  Politicians, including the incoming VP, did encourage and even bailed out the rioters, and did nothing to curb the violence directed at innocent civilians. Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer. Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.
  - dagmx 6y ago
    The rioters that were bailed out, were they involved in said looting and violence? What were they guilty of? Do you have links to people who took part in criminal activities that were bailed out by the VP or other politicians? Did the VP encourage and incite violence?
    - lliamander 6y ago
      https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-criminals-kamala-harris-helped-bail-out-of-jail/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-crimin... This information is not hard to find.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - dagmx 6y ago
        Two of the three listed people are for crimes unrelated to the protest. The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor). Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat? This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence. Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
        lliamander 6y ago
        > Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat? She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump. > Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties? He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
        dagmx 6y ago
        You're taking Kamala's comments out of context. She has, even at the time, disavowed rioting and looting, but encouraged peaceful protest. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fac... With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well. To compare the two is highly disingenuous.
three_seagrass 6y ago
Which were moderated, or at least attempted to be moderated, by Twitter and Facebook. Parler openly allowed the planning of this violent anti-democratic insurrection and has been deemed bad faith in their moderation.
- s__s 6y ago
  Genuinely curious if you can source that in any substantial way? Would also be curios if Facebook or Twitter was used in any way to plan or facilitate communication leading up to the event.
  - dagmx 6y ago
    Facebook and Twitter provide accountable moderation. Parler doesn't and instead claims to assign moderation to random unaccountable users instead. This is according to their CEOs own interview earlier this week. You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.
    - s__s 6y ago
      Thanks I’ll read in to it. Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable? Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.
      - dagmx 6y ago
        I'd have to read up on the exact extents of 230, but it's largely related to lawsuits and does not preclude platform TOS from holding things to a higher code of conduct. Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230. Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that. With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions. Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.
diveanon 6y ago
So you decided to go with the both sides argument? Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?
- Nathanba 6y ago
  there is only one side with a president. If you had asked differently, you couldnt be so biased anymore because many many democrat politicians were quite explicitly encouraging more riots and even harassment of politicians. While police stations were burned down. Meanwhile a bunch of Trump supporters casually walked into the senate laughing and smiling and giving thumbs up to the camera. If you cant see which one is worse, nobody can help you
  - diveanon 6y ago
    Are you fucking kidding me? They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history. Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?
- concordDance 6y ago
  Neither Biden nor Trump actively incited riots. Though both were wishy washy about their respective riots, generally supporting "protestors" and giving generic statements disavowing violence.
  - diveanon 6y ago
    You're wrong. Trump and the other speakers at that rally specifically told the people there to march down to the capitol. He specifically told them to hold Pence accountable, which resulted in lynch mobs roaming the halls. Trump refused to call in the guard and his own cabinet has said that he was happy about what was happening inside the capitol. Pence and Pelosi had to override him in order to get support. Trump told the the protestors he loved them and that they were special people after restating the election was rigged and got himself suspended from Twitter. Trump didn't disavow the protests until his cabinet handed him a speach and forced him to read it in what has to be the first presidential hostage video in history. He then proceeded to back peddle and get himself banned from Twitter. You can take your both sides centrist bullshit and fuck off.
ineedasername 6y ago
None what happened over the summer violently broke into the second most important building in our country and disrupted one of the most important processes fundamental to our democracy, destroying the US's record for peaceful transfer of power. If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.
- zo1 6y ago
  That's such an arbitrary line to draw, and a convenient one at that. I guess "Some rioters are more equal than others".
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Not an arbitrary line. You seem to think I wouldn't support criminal charges for the rioters over the summer. I do. I think they should all be prosecuted for any crimes committed. But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government. Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President? Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer. It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.

After a summer of riots, looting, and violence all across the country, fueled by calls to violence on Twitter and Facebook

dagmx 6y ago

What calls for violence, that weren't moderated? What organized looting? What riots that weren't instigated by police brutality? Did any of these try and overthrow the Democratic process? Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.

lliamander 6y ago
Politicians, including the incoming VP, did encourage and even bailed out the rioters, and did nothing to curb the violence directed at innocent civilians. Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer. Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.
- dagmx 6y ago
  The rioters that were bailed out, were they involved in said looting and violence? What were they guilty of? Do you have links to people who took part in criminal activities that were bailed out by the VP or other politicians? Did the VP encourage and incite violence?
  - lliamander 6y ago
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-criminals-kamala-harris-helped-bail-out-of-jail/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-crimin... This information is not hard to find.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dagmx 6y ago
      Two of the three listed people are for crimes unrelated to the protest. The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor). Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat? This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence. Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?
      - lliamander 6y ago
        > Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat? She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump. > Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties? He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
        dagmx 6y ago
        You're taking Kamala's comments out of context. She has, even at the time, disavowed rioting and looting, but encouraged peaceful protest. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fac... With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well. To compare the two is highly disingenuous.

three_seagrass 6y ago

Which were moderated, or at least attempted to be moderated, by Twitter and Facebook. Parler openly allowed the planning of this violent anti-democratic insurrection and has been deemed bad faith in their moderation.

s__s 6y ago
Genuinely curious if you can source that in any substantial way? Would also be curios if Facebook or Twitter was used in any way to plan or facilitate communication leading up to the event.
- dagmx 6y ago
  Facebook and Twitter provide accountable moderation. Parler doesn't and instead claims to assign moderation to random unaccountable users instead. This is according to their CEOs own interview earlier this week. You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.
  - s__s 6y ago
    Thanks I’ll read in to it. Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable? Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.
    - dagmx 6y ago
      I'd have to read up on the exact extents of 230, but it's largely related to lawsuits and does not preclude platform TOS from holding things to a higher code of conduct. Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230. Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that. With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions. Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.

diveanon 6y ago

So you decided to go with the both sides argument? Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?

Nathanba 6y ago
there is only one side with a president. If you had asked differently, you couldnt be so biased anymore because many many democrat politicians were quite explicitly encouraging more riots and even harassment of politicians. While police stations were burned down. Meanwhile a bunch of Trump supporters casually walked into the senate laughing and smiling and giving thumbs up to the camera. If you cant see which one is worse, nobody can help you
- diveanon 6y ago
  Are you fucking kidding me? They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history. Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?
concordDance 6y ago
Neither Biden nor Trump actively incited riots. Though both were wishy washy about their respective riots, generally supporting "protestors" and giving generic statements disavowing violence.
- diveanon 6y ago
  You're wrong. Trump and the other speakers at that rally specifically told the people there to march down to the capitol. He specifically told them to hold Pence accountable, which resulted in lynch mobs roaming the halls. Trump refused to call in the guard and his own cabinet has said that he was happy about what was happening inside the capitol. Pence and Pelosi had to override him in order to get support. Trump told the the protestors he loved them and that they were special people after restating the election was rigged and got himself suspended from Twitter. Trump didn't disavow the protests until his cabinet handed him a speach and forced him to read it in what has to be the first presidential hostage video in history. He then proceeded to back peddle and get himself banned from Twitter. You can take your both sides centrist bullshit and fuck off.

ineedasername 6y ago

None what happened over the summer violently broke into the second most important building in our country and disrupted one of the most important processes fundamental to our democracy, destroying the US's record for peaceful transfer of power. If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.

zo1 6y ago
That's such an arbitrary line to draw, and a convenient one at that. I guess "Some rioters are more equal than others".
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Not an arbitrary line. You seem to think I wouldn't support criminal charges for the rioters over the summer. I do. I think they should all be prosecuted for any crimes committed. But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government. Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President? Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer. It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.