3 ms·

I don't think the Jan 6 insurrection was OK, or even close. My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a

I don't think the Jan 6 insurrection was OK, or even close. My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. It's like fitting everyone with a shock collar and saying it will only be used against insurrectionists. The government will be a lot less worried about resistance, and the definition of "insurrectionist" is likely to move over time. It just doesn't seem like a good direction to me.

throwaway5752 6y ago
That's a really fair point, and it's a really hard problem. In this case, you had people trying to overthrow a democratic vote. So they are literally the enemies of a free society. But the same laws and infrastructure to prevent this can be misused. That's the hard stop. You can't have a governmental system that is fault tolerant to malicious misrule. You need to apply laws or laws lose power, and you need to trust those carrying out governing to obey some norms.
- chmod600 6y ago
  Trust isn't about blind, 100% trust. You can trust democracy to work without fitting yourself with a shock collar controlled by the pooular vote. You can trust government officials without assigning them blanket power of attorney. I am just saying that there are limits to trust. And when someone you 99.9% trust tries to convince you to give them 100% trust, you should pause.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
>My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. Insurrections were organized well before AWS and the like existed, and they will still be organized well after AWS and the like are gone. Limiting platforms that make it easier to radicalize large numbers of people is still a good thing.
Natfan 6y ago
If it helps, I agree with you here. This whole situation has made me a bit uneasy. While I generally agree with the decision made by these private companies in this specific instance, it does feel like there was a domino effect where one platform banned people for inciting violence, and then the rest followed suit when there was media traction on the story. The fact that a few people have this much unchecked power is a bit scary. Yes, these are private companies. Yes, they don't have to spend time, money or infrastructure on anyone they don't want on the platform, I understand all of this. What I merely want to comment on is the ubiquity of these websites. Facebook, Google, Twitter and even TikTok are increasingly becoming primary means that people around the world communicate. If I'm a racist prat that spams that we should "kill all those muslamics, innit", sure I should be warned or removed from these platforms, however that significantly diminish my means of contacting other people. I have friends that I can only really contact through Facebook. I'm trying to add them on multiple services so that I stay away from a single-point-of-failure, however some of my relatives are old and/or technologically inept, and they never check their email or SMS. While I could call them, if I were to get banned from Facebook that could reduce my ability to communicate with these people down quickly and easily to near zero. I understand that there are actions for your consequences, I just fear that with these services becoming so commonplace (see WeChat in China, for example), being locked out of these walled gardens could have severe, real world impacts to those that the platform doesn't like. I don't know, just food for thought.
- bchmod777 6y ago
  I'm surprised that no-one's dived deeper into WHY these private companies don't want these people on the platform. From the perspective of Amazon, Google, Apple, and many others, the overthrowing of the US Government negatively impacts their long-term goals in many areas, such as profit and employee retention. If the US Government were overthrown and Trump became dictator, Amazon would have to move a ton of customer data to other countries because America would be the new China. It's crazy that it took a coup attempt to open their eyes to this risk. The fact that they didn't take action sooner suggests that a lot of C-level folks throughout the tech world have been pretty complacent in regards to government stability.
Craighead 6y ago
This is what burner phones with signal on them are for. Parler isn't a tool for organizing insurrection it's a tool to push propaganda and radicalism.
avianlyric 6y ago
> My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. Don’t think this is even vaguely true. We know that one of the primary tools of activists (or insurrectionists / terrorists depending on your point of view) in other countries are WhatsApp groups, and other encrypted chat platforms. If one is organising a serious insurrection, then I believe one does not normally broadcast their plans to the enemy. That’s kinda strikes me as op-sec 101. Only in a free and open society could you possibly hope to organise an insurrection in public, on broadcast platforms, without direct and immediate consequences brought down by the state. We must be so pampered to believe that the right to organise in public is a requirement insurrection.
- chmod600 6y ago
  We can theorize and rationalize all day. But I just get a feeling this is something we will look back on as a red flag that warned us of a bad outcome.

throwaway5752 6y ago

That's a really fair point, and it's a really hard problem. In this case, you had people trying to overthrow a democratic vote. So they are literally the enemies of a free society. But the same laws and infrastructure to prevent this can be misused. That's the hard stop. You can't have a governmental system that is fault tolerant to malicious misrule. You need to apply laws or laws lose power, and you need to trust those carrying out governing to obey some norms.

chmod600 6y ago
Trust isn't about blind, 100% trust. You can trust democracy to work without fitting yourself with a shock collar controlled by the pooular vote. You can trust government officials without assigning them blanket power of attorney. I am just saying that there are limits to trust. And when someone you 99.9% trust tries to convince you to give them 100% trust, you should pause.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. Insurrections were organized well before AWS and the like existed, and they will still be organized well after AWS and the like are gone. Limiting platforms that make it easier to radicalize large numbers of people is still a good thing.

Natfan 6y ago

If it helps, I agree with you here. This whole situation has made me a bit uneasy. While I generally agree with the decision made by these private companies in this specific instance, it does feel like there was a domino effect where one platform banned people for inciting violence, and then the rest followed suit when there was media traction on the story. The fact that a few people have this much unchecked power is a bit scary. Yes, these are private companies. Yes, they don't have to spend time, money or infrastructure on anyone they don't want on the platform, I understand all of this. What I merely want to comment on is the ubiquity of these websites. Facebook, Google, Twitter and even TikTok are increasingly becoming primary means that people around the world communicate. If I'm a racist prat that spams that we should "kill all those muslamics, innit", sure I should be warned or removed from these platforms, however that significantly diminish my means of contacting other people. I have friends that I can only really contact through Facebook. I'm trying to add them on multiple services so that I stay away from a single-point-of-failure, however some of my relatives are old and/or technologically inept, and they never check their email or SMS. While I could call them, if I were to get banned from Facebook that could reduce my ability to communicate with these people down quickly and easily to near zero. I understand that there are actions for your consequences, I just fear that with these services becoming so commonplace (see WeChat in China, for example), being locked out of these walled gardens could have severe, real world impacts to those that the platform doesn't like. I don't know, just food for thought.

bchmod777 6y ago
I'm surprised that no-one's dived deeper into WHY these private companies don't want these people on the platform. From the perspective of Amazon, Google, Apple, and many others, the overthrowing of the US Government negatively impacts their long-term goals in many areas, such as profit and employee retention. If the US Government were overthrown and Trump became dictator, Amazon would have to move a ton of customer data to other countries because America would be the new China. It's crazy that it took a coup attempt to open their eyes to this risk. The fact that they didn't take action sooner suggests that a lot of C-level folks throughout the tech world have been pretty complacent in regards to government stability.

Craighead 6y ago

This is what burner phones with signal on them are for. Parler isn't a tool for organizing insurrection it's a tool to push propaganda and radicalism.

avianlyric 6y ago

> My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. Don’t think this is even vaguely true. We know that one of the primary tools of activists (or insurrectionists / terrorists depending on your point of view) in other countries are WhatsApp groups, and other encrypted chat platforms. If one is organising a serious insurrection, then I believe one does not normally broadcast their plans to the enemy. That’s kinda strikes me as op-sec 101. Only in a free and open society could you possibly hope to organise an insurrection in public, on broadcast platforms, without direct and immediate consequences brought down by the state. We must be so pampered to believe that the right to organise in public is a requirement insurrection.

chmod600 6y ago
We can theorize and rationalize all day. But I just get a feeling this is something we will look back on as a red flag that warned us of a bad outcome.