5 ms·
I think widespread suppression of information about this planned protest would've mattered, but I don't think it was justified before the events at the capitol.
by pfisch 6y ago
I think widespread suppression of information about this planned protest would've mattered, but I don't think it was justified before the events at the capitol. Now I think it is a clear and easily foreseeable risk to allow this to continue.
- LatteLazy 6y agoI'm all for arresting anyone who plans specific violence. Before/after the events at the capital, I don't care. Go arrest them. Banning one site just moves them to another and gives them a persecution complex. 12months in prison for conspiracy to commit public disorder is a much better deterant for future planned insurrections.
- pfisch 6y agoSo we should be referring everyone making idle threats on the internet to law enforcement? That seems unrealistic and honestly way more totalitarian than just moderation and censorship. I also don't think law enforcement has the bandwidth to deal with it.
- LatteLazy 6y agoIf someone makes a specific threat, yes. Then when they get 50 referrals from r/knitting and 50mil from parlar, law enforcement can raise an eyebrow, investigate and prevent these things. To me, that seems fair and effective. The alternative is that we ban parlar. But only after the violence. And we know that banning parlar won't prevent this from happening, we're just moving the problem. Why bother? Keep parler, by now every second account should an FBI agent. It's even better than twitter/reddit/facebook: all the noise is gone, it's just the crazies planning violence...