6 ms·
I generally agree that information from here related to the attack is in the public interest. But this is going to also reveal people who had no part of it. I
by swalsh 6y ago
I generally agree that information from here related to the attack is in the public interest. But this is going to also reveal people who had no part of it. I don't think it's fair to justify revealing innocent peoples data.
- newacct583 6y agoHow many "innocent" people were actually on Parler? It was a brand new service. It really was "Twitter for conservatives who got banned from Twitter". Almost literally everyone there was one of: 1. Someone who got banned from Twitter 2. Someone who wants to follow someone who got banned from Twitter 3. Someone (e.g. journalists) who want to follow all those people At what point does an online community become a danger to everyone? I'll note we had similar questions about much simpler services back in the days after 9/11, and the consensus opinion was very different then.
- redflame8 6y agoYou sound like the kid that couldnt understand why no one hungout with them
- BlueTemplar 6y agoThis is because the situation is also very different from 9/11 ?
- throwaway3699 6y agoYou can't be serious. There were literally millions of users on the platform.
- newacct583 6y agoPer Wikipedia, the count of active users was 4M. And that's about right for the community of active "MAGA head" republicans in question. A lot of the horror and cognitive dissonance of this moment is that the mob the President aimed at Congress on Wednesday was not a weird or fringe group. They were just his fans. Look at the crowd, along with the armored people smashing windows and beating cops were smiling grandparents with flags. It's all the same group. The overlap between "mainstream republican" and "right wing terrorist" in our society has become horrifyingly blurred. So a lot of sincere attempts to address extremism look like "censoring republicans".
- yanderekko 6y agoAnd a lot of insincere attempts to address extremism look like "censoring Republicans".
- TomSwirly 6y agoRepublicans have a perfectly good voice on conventional social media. No one's censoring people on social media for quoting William F. Buckley, but for actively planning and encouraging a violent insurrection.
- yanderekko 6y agoMost people being banned did not do that, including Trump himself, and in fact the rapidly-expanding domain of speech that is being pretextually construed of as "actively planning and encouraging a violent insurrection" is in fact a large part of the problem here.
- esc_colon_q 6y agoLiterally declaring yourself the winner of an election that you solidly lost and then repeating that claim over and over again as your supporters rile themselves up and prepare for violence abso-fucking-lutely qualifies. If the election really was stolen (it wasn't), then violence on a grand scale would be more than justified (it's not), so pushing a false claim to that effect when you have as much power to make it stick is one of the most directly violent acts that can be committed. "This election was stolen" is way more dangerous than "Fire!" in a crowded theater because if the bullshit sticks then you actually end up with war.
- cyberdelica 6y agoYour comment really could do double duty, describing the last four years, where we've been told ad nauseum "Russian Hackers" armed with Facebook ads, kept Hillary Clinton out of the Whitehouse. Essentially, stealing "her turn".
- ceejayoz 6y agohttps://www.news10.com/news/us-capitol-coverage/poll-one-fifth-of-voters-almost-half-of-republicans-agree-with-storming-of-us-capitol/ https://www.news10.com/news/us-capitol-coverage/poll-one-fif... > Poll: One-fifth of voters, almost half of Republicans, agree with storming of US Capitol
- themaninthedark 6y agoData is from: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/06/US-capitol-trump-poll?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=snap_US_capitol_poll https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20... The question asked was: "Supporters of President Trump have stormed the US Capitol to protest lawmakers certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. Based on what you have read or heard about this, do you support or oppose these actions? (%)" Breakdown groups were: Strongly or somewhat support, Don't know, N/A - Unaware of the story, Strongly or somewhat oppose I would be interested in seeing the strongly and somewhat support breakdowns. I have no problem with groups protesting elections, I think that the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol building did the worst thing for their cause.
- TomSwirly 6y agoLiterally tens of millions of people strongly supported the attack on the Capitol. And instead of realizing that this is a bad idea, they are doubling down.
- cactus2093 6y agoI guess that depends if you see Parker as a general purpose social media site, which seems like a stretch. It’s a site dedicated to one cause, Trumpism, which is now a movement that is responsible for terrorism and an insurrection attempt on the US. Did the people cheering at hitler’s rallies but who never actually murdered anybody themselves have “no part in” the Holocaust?
- djtriptych 6y agoThe rules are different when the democracy is at stake, as this country's history should have taught you.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- salawat 6y agoYeahhh... No. A good half the problems in the world are created when we try to force oversized round pegs through undersized square holes. Besides which, was Parler not the site that required excessive amounts of personal info just to sign up? That means if authentication failed open, that could mean that this researcher has obtained access to reams of PII. Which they'll deny or state that of courae they didn't collect or look at, but the potential breach is large enough that doing something like this is so unconscionably reckless and stupid, it ranks right up there with the event that even has this site in the public eye in the first place. Another brick through the stained glass windows of American civil discourse. We don't even need other country's help to push us to the brink because of reckless moves like this.
- djtriptych 6y agoYeah, yes. Look at literally any time the democracy was seriously threatened and what happened to domestic liberty during that time.
- swalsh 6y agoWas it okay to place Japanese in internment camps? Not going to wait for an answer, because the answer should clearly be no. Curtailing domestic liberties is not okay regardless the circumstances.
- djtriptych 6y agoNever OK but sometimes necessary. I'm sure you can at least imagine a scenario where it's appropriate to curtail speech to save lives, e.g. taking away an enemy combatant's comms, even if they're American. Liberty is always opposed to security. How free we are depends on how worried we are. That's always the case.
- TomSwirly 6y agoWhy are we always asked to care about awful people who would happily see us all dead?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]