4 ms·
> It’s a pretty classic tactic in the history of conflict Yes when executed by a single coherent entity. This is not it, unless you believe there is a powerfu
by Voloskaya 6y ago
> It’s a pretty classic tactic in the history of conflict
Yes when executed by a single coherent entity.
This is not it, unless you believe there is a powerful cabal controlling twitter, facebook, robinhood, discord etc.
They are all doing it independtly to limit the legal and/or financial risks for themselves. Getting people to "strike first" is not the intent, saving $ is the intent here.
- Footkerchief 6y agoMoney is the greatest coordinating force in the history of civilization.
- ceilingcorner 6y agoDoesn’t need to be a grand conspiracy, merely the same reaction by multiple independent entities.
- Voloskaya 6y agoYou are talking about result, I am talking about intent. Yes the result might be the same, but there is no intent to "force him to strike first, thus giving you complete justification in your disproportionate response". Only intent here is ass covering.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoApple, Amazon and Google killing Parler in lockstep isn't coherent enough for you?
- Voloskaya 6y agoNo it's not, the moment Parler became a liability to them they dumped it. It for some reason it was to become good business again tomorrow, they would jump to host it again. There is no intent on the part of the GAFAs to force the lower class into a revolution to get a pretext to squash them or any bigger "art of the war" plan behind those decisions than money.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoTheir motivation does not matter. The point is that effectively they are a single coherent entity. Assuming no bad intentions doesn’t change the outcome of their actions.