4 ms·

There are instances where government agencies have shut down communications during protests (e.g. BART). But I’m not aware of any US government orders shutting

There are instances where government agencies have shut down communications during protests (e.g. BART). But I’m not aware of any US government orders shutting down internet access on Jan. 6. Care to share some sources?

sudosysgen 5y ago
I think they refer to private companies using moderation tools to prevent communication, coordination and encouragement of riots and insurrection that effectively achieved what other governments by blocking access to apps or forcing the moderation. Depending on your ideology, it may be a good thing that the companies did it by themselves without requiring government force to do it, but I think the argument that these are similar actions in their purpose and effect is fairly accurate.
- not2b 5y ago
  No, your comparison is not accurate; the most dangerous insurrectionists' communication means were not disrupted. They were mainly using platforms that weren't moderating them and made key plans using end to end encryption and direct messaging. Only a total Internet shutdown would disrupt that. And forcing a private company to facilitate violence to keep a defeated president in office against its will would itself be totalitarian.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Not really, the most powerful tool of the insurrectionists were definitely mass-media. The attempt was to draw sympathy amongst politically receptive groups and to amass numbers, not to have a small but very well organized group conduct a coup. As far as common-carrier mandates being totalitarian, as I said, that's just one ideological viewpoints. Most European countries were quite shocked that the US allowed Trump to be banned.
commandlinefan 5y ago
He said the U.S. government didn't have to because Twitter, Facebook and Google (and AWS, when it shut down Twitter competitor Parler) did it on their behalf.

4 ms·

There are instances where government agencies have shut down communications during protests (e.g. BART). But I’m not aware of any US government orders shutting

by jdavis703 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago
I think they refer to private companies using moderation tools to prevent communication, coordination and encouragement of riots and insurrection that effectively achieved what other governments by blocking access to apps or forcing the moderation. Depending on your ideology, it may be a good thing that the companies did it by themselves without requiring government force to do it, but I think the argument that these are similar actions in their purpose and effect is fairly accurate.
- not2b 5y ago
  No, your comparison is not accurate; the most dangerous insurrectionists' communication means were not disrupted. They were mainly using platforms that weren't moderating them and made key plans using end to end encryption and direct messaging. Only a total Internet shutdown would disrupt that. And forcing a private company to facilitate violence to keep a defeated president in office against its will would itself be totalitarian.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Not really, the most powerful tool of the insurrectionists were definitely mass-media. The attempt was to draw sympathy amongst politically receptive groups and to amass numbers, not to have a small but very well organized group conduct a coup. As far as common-carrier mandates being totalitarian, as I said, that's just one ideological viewpoints. Most European countries were quite shocked that the US allowed Trump to be banned.
commandlinefan 5y ago
He said the U.S. government didn't have to because Twitter, Facebook and Google (and AWS, when it shut down Twitter competitor Parler) did it on their behalf.