4 ms·

> We've seen things that fester online that lead to real life tragedies or to the damaging of the fabric of democracy itself. Including insurrection on the US C

> We've seen things that fester online that lead to real life tragedies or to the damaging of the fabric of democracy itself. Including insurrection on the US Capitol which took its roots on Twitter. I find your comment quite one sided and exaggerated. There was no insurrection on the Capitol because there was no guns, no widespread weapon carry, no significant violence inside and no proof of an organization to actually overthrow the government was shown in the various reports and court cases. The surveillance videos showing the protesters walking in calmly in file following the cordon is the definitive proof of that. In fact the censorship and manipulation of social media is known to cause the formation of various ideological bubbles that acts as positive feedback loops for extremism. On the other hand we saw waves of violence since last year that were instigated by actual self-proclaimed insurrectionists. News presenting the violence were minimized while news of politicians supporting the protests and news stations downright lying the violence while buildings were burning on the background. This is all due to the censorship and narrative control of big media conglomerates, not actual open conversations. > There's a spectrum between "cancel culture is bad" vs. "let domestic terrorists and CP sharers gather" Crimes are not on a spectrum, either someone is guilty or not, there is no in between. And as pointed out by Justice Thomas recently, when organizations become too big they can be subject to regulations as public utilities, which will made them unable to infringe on the first amendment of their users. > And I don't think there's a slippery slope concern. Contrary to popular belief, fascism and Nazism did not rise because of free speech, but because of speech suppression and narrative control (read propaganda) along side with a close collaboration with intelligence services that began as early as the 1920s. Given that the more we they censor the more they have power which makes them more and more successful in censorship and narrative control means that we are in a positive feedback loop, which is slippery slope. > Twitch already bans people for unexplained reasons anyways. And?

Kim_Bruning 6y ago
If you say "there was no violence"; how do you explain the deaths?
- TeeMassive 6y ago
  Natural causes, obesity, police violence and, maybe, one instance of death that could have been caused by the scuffles which was originally blamed on a fire extinguisher (the story of which was retracted by the NYT just after the vote on impeachment). This is common knowledge at this point. Also I said "significant violence", as in enough to overthrow the government.
  - darksaints 6y ago
    They tried to stop the certification of an election winner using violence and intimidation. That's an insurrection. Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government.
    - garbagetime 6y ago
      The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone (not to mention they were hardly an uprising). >Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government. There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way.
      - darksaints 6y ago
        > The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone. False. > There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way. It wasn't a war at first. The South Carolina Declaration of Secession was created and printed with significantly less violence than the insurrection at the capitol...the first shots fired didn't happen for another 4 months. The fact that only 5 people died in the insurrection doesn't mean that the would-be confederates didn't attempt an insurrection, it just means they didn't succeed, and couldn't muster up enough traction to last a single day.
PhasmaFelis 6y ago
> There was no insurrection on the Capitol because there was no guns, no widespread weapon carry, no significant violence inside and no proof of an organization to actually overthrow the government was shown in the various reports and court cases. All of these are false. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738 "No significant violence"? They murdered a police officer. And badly beat several more. Several of them are on bodycam video.
anoncake 6y ago
> Contrary to popular belief, fascism and Nazism did not rise because of free speech, but because of speech suppression and narrative control (read propaganda) along side with a close collaboration with intelligence services that began as early as the 1920s. Please cite some sources showing that the governments of the Weimar Republic – generally formed by conservative and liberal parties and frequently supported by the SPD – used propaganda and censorship to get themselves overthrown by the NSDAP.

Kim_Bruning 6y ago

If you say "there was no violence"; how do you explain the deaths?

TeeMassive 6y ago
Natural causes, obesity, police violence and, maybe, one instance of death that could have been caused by the scuffles which was originally blamed on a fire extinguisher (the story of which was retracted by the NYT just after the vote on impeachment). This is common knowledge at this point. Also I said "significant violence", as in enough to overthrow the government.
- darksaints 6y ago
  They tried to stop the certification of an election winner using violence and intimidation. That's an insurrection. Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone (not to mention they were hardly an uprising). >Your claims here are like saying that the civil war wasn't an insurrection because the confederacy didn't want to overthrow the US government, they just wanted to form a different government. There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way.
    - darksaints 6y ago
      > The word is often taken to denote a violent uprising. The Capital protests weren't particularly violent - the protesters didn't kill anyone. False. > There's not that much of a parallel. The Capital protesters wanted to show resistance to the election being stolen from what they saw as the legitimate winner. The Civil War was, like, a war, and way different in every way. It wasn't a war at first. The South Carolina Declaration of Secession was created and printed with significantly less violence than the insurrection at the capitol...the first shots fired didn't happen for another 4 months. The fact that only 5 people died in the insurrection doesn't mean that the would-be confederates didn't attempt an insurrection, it just means they didn't succeed, and couldn't muster up enough traction to last a single day.

PhasmaFelis 6y ago

> There was no insurrection on the Capitol because there was no guns, no widespread weapon carry, no significant violence inside and no proof of an organization to actually overthrow the government was shown in the various reports and court cases. All of these are false. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26734738 "No significant violence"? They murdered a police officer. And badly beat several more. Several of them are on bodycam video.

anoncake 6y ago

> Contrary to popular belief, fascism and Nazism did not rise because of free speech, but because of speech suppression and narrative control (read propaganda) along side with a close collaboration with intelligence services that began as early as the 1920s. Please cite some sources showing that the governments of the Weimar Republic – generally formed by conservative and liberal parties and frequently supported by the SPD – used propaganda and censorship to get themselves overthrown by the NSDAP.