9 ms·

List like these must be publicly available to anyone, like credit history/score. Also, there must some justice process for getting in and out of this list. I s

List like these must be publicly available to anyone, like credit history/score. Also, there must some justice process for getting in and out of this list. I still don't understand how societies accepted no-fly list, civil forfeiture, de-banking, de-platforming people and other clearly totalitarian practices in or "democratic" and "free" countries.

giantg2 4y ago
They accept them because they think it will never happen to them (most people would be right), and think it only happens to "people who deserve it".
- anonporridge 4y ago
  The trick for these kinds of anti civil rights programs is to keep its application limited enough that not enough people are directly or indirectly affected to raise hell over it. Keep the affected individuals at <1% (I don't know the real number) and it's a small enough set of people that they'll silently fall through the cracks. Be careful to not accidentally use it against people who are part of rich and powerful families, because they'll make a stink. Use it only against the poor, immigrants, or otherwise socially disconnected and you can keep doing it in perpetuity.
  - pc86 4y ago
    Honestly even if it was "accidentally" used against someone rich and connected, they would just make a phone call and have it fixed. For something like the no fly list it would probably get corrected in time for them to make the flight.
    - Teever 4y ago
      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/09/fact-check-ted-kennedy-and-no-fly-list-myth/77030278/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/...
  - giantg2 4y ago
    The funny thing is, they are expanding it. It's still probably below the 1%, but it seems society has an appetite for expanding civil law to circumvent the (limited) protections dound in criminal law, like proof beyond a reasonable doubt or access to an attorney. Red flag laws and the TX abortion law are some recent evidence of this.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>I still don't understand how societies accepted no-fly list, civil forfeiture, de-banking, de-platforming people and other clearly totalitarian practices in or "democratic" and "free" countries. Look at all the disgusting and "inconsistent with your values" behavior you, or if not yourself then the other people who support your causes, will turn a blind eye to, minimize or at the very least object less to when it benefits your cause(s). Now scale that behavior up to all the diverse groups and causes that exist across a nation of 330+mil. That's how.
Swenrekcah 4y ago
None of the things you mention are incompatible with a free democracy, just so long as the process by which people get on (and off!) these lists are transparent. But unfortunately that is often where things break down.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  In theory the process of getting off the list is transparent. In practice you can’t be told if you are on the list in the first place.
  - jkaplowitz 4y ago
    What's the theoretically transparent process for getting off the list? DHS TRIP isn't very transparent.
    - brewdad 4y ago
      Apply for a redress number. If it's granted, you are all set. If it's denied, well you have your answer as to whether you were really on the list or not.
      - jkaplowitz 4y ago
        That may help determine if you are on the list if they reliably grant or deny redress requests based on being off or on the list (I'm not sure), but it doesn't help getting off the list if they've actually but wrongly chosen to list you, or if they aren't adequately convinced you're not the person they meant to list.
- Lev1a 4y ago
  Civil (asset) forfeiture is literally license for the executive branch to rob people for practically anything they can think of with almost no recourse [0] and pad their department/agency's pockets. [0]: "the accused is/are the asset/s not the person/entity robbed by the police/TLA"
matt3210 4y ago
People criticize China for doing this but the USA did it first but just kept it secret
- vkou 4y ago
  It's different here, only bad people end up on it.
  - shiftpgdn 4y ago
    Bad according to who?
    - tremon 4y ago
      According to the list, obviously.
- godelski 4y ago
  Americans also criticize America for this. I mean just look at this thread. Why would it then be surprising that they criticize China for it? That seems like consistent beliefs. Even before we bring in the reality that there's nuances and the two systems aren't identical and would be absurdly naive to believe they are.
lm28469 4y ago
These things are mostly abused in shady countries and the US (aka the freer of free countries). For example in France: - having a bank account is a right - civil forfeiture exists but is heavily regulated, nothing even close to the US style abuse - there is no no fly list - there is no credit score Deplatforming is a private business thing, I though freedom advocates loved the right of business to serve whoever they please ?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > there is no credit score The French consumer credit system resembles the U.S. no-fly list. Bankers have discretion on making loans and sharing consumer records, which are absolutely maintained. But consumers don’t get to look into the black box.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > But consumers don’t get to look into the black box. Nor your landlord, nor the shop in which you'll go buy a new bicycle, &c. Also, it's much harder to get a credit in France, you don't get on the list randomly. So all in all it's completely different thing since it won't impact your day to day life for simple things such as renting a flat. Ah, and you can still fly, you just can't get into more debt.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > shop in which you'll go buy a new bicycle I’ve bought bicycles in America. Nobody checks credit. > much harder to get a credit in France If you aren’t rich, yes. If you have a personal banker, credit flows. > you don't get on the list randomly You do if you’re my friend and a SocGen clown mis-reports your mortgage as in default to the BdF. Both systems, the U.S. no-fly and French consumer credit, share common impetuses. They’re necessary, particularly for the elites. But they’re ideologically distasteful. So a system is maintained, shrouded in secrecy and, ideally, kept clear of the hoi polloi.
- anonporridge 4y ago
jhawk28 4y ago
The eighth amendment should make the no-fly list illegal.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  "Cruel and unusual" has always been a very conceptually-flexible term. Regarding flight: nobody is assumed to have a right to fly, so the privilege of access to flight is easily revoked. A "no crossing state lines" list, in contrast, is heavily mediated by the judicial system and the burden generally only placed upon those intimately and immediately entangled in a legal action.
shadowgovt 4y ago
At least for the no-fly list (because I'm old enough to have watched the change happen): 9/11 caused an existential panic in the US public that made them willing to accept several new things in the name of safety against a threat model they did not understand. Once those things were in place, (a) burden of proof that removing them doesn't jeopardize our safety rests on those calling for their removal and (b) the average citizen can see the list doesn't impact them so they have little opinion on keeping or removing it. In short, it was a sticky-bit that once stuck, is hard to un-stick because people don't, generally, feel less free (day-to-day) with it in existence.
- slackfan 4y ago
  >existential panic in the US public that made them willing to accept several new things in the name of safety against a threat model they did not understand I'm old enough to have watched the change happen. There was no existential panic, but a straight up propaganda campaign waged by a collaborative media and government to ensure that this would be accepted, and that dissenters would be seen as "the other" to be feared and reviled, and potentially targeted for law enforcement action. Seems very familiar, but history rhymes.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It's both. There's no doubt the ruling party invested time and effort selling their solutions to the public, but the public was also buying because all of a sudden, men armed with automatic rifles standing in the airport security lines was a comforting sight, not a terrifying one, for many, many Americans. ETA: Regarding effects on the American psyche, https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/american-psyche-post-911 https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/american-psyche-post-... summarizes some of the post-9/11 research. Probably most of interest is that 21% of Americans studied by a researcher at Carnegie Mellon believed they would be the victim of a terrorist attack within a year. That number proved to be a way-outsized overestimate, but I think it's easy to see how people accept new curtailments to freedoms (especially someone else's freedoms) if 1-in-5 of them believe they'll be personally attacked.
LatteLazy 4y ago
I generally agree but... Remember: the alternative of (non-government required) deplatforming is that anyone can do anything they want on any platform. Want to flood knitting forums with porn? Well they cannot refuse you! And that just makes it impossible for anyone to actually organise anything without constant trolling...
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  That knitting forum won't exist because if you upload child porn the website owner goes to jail, so they don't let you upload anything.
pc86 4y ago
Some of these are perpetrated by a government or agent of a government and shouldn't be tolerated at all. Some of these are perpetrated by private companies and it's a much more gray area whether or not it's ok. "De-platforming" gets a lot of press but Twitter, Facebook, et al are under no obligation to let any particular person or group use their platform, nor should they be.
thepasswordis 4y ago
There are two opposing groups: 1) Power comes from the people. It is centered in churches, families, and limited local city governments. 2) Power comes from the government. The federal government has the most power and the power decreases all the way down to the local level, which has the least power. The second group, obviously, has become richer and more powerful. It has also done a good job of capturing the minds of the richest and smartest people in the country, who have been convinced that problems require government solutions. There are a lot of people who don't accept these sorts of things, but they're called racists, white nationalists, nazis, and all other sorts of horrible (and usually illogical) things. To people who aren't politically active or don't have a good understanding of political philosophy, these accusations are very effective. "What you oppose a national list of people who are standing in the way of our great society? What are you a nazi?" etc.
- PentelicoMarble 4y ago
  I’d love an example of a person from the first group who was called a white nationalist because they think power comes from the people and not the government.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    Every single person who participated in the truckers rally in Canada.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Ah, so the Nazi flag had nothing to do with it?
      - thepasswordis 4y ago
        The Nazi flag was there because somebody was calling Trudeau a nazi. As in: the thing they were there protesting they thought was similar to Nazism, and they think that is a bad thing which is why they are there protesting. There was as far as I can tell one instance of somebody doing this, and they were immediately denounced and told to stop. I agree, btw. Trudeau is an authoritarian, but he isn't a Nazi.
azov 4y ago
I honestly don’t understand the use case. Let’s imagine the list is public and the process is transparent. Who would you put on it and for what purpose? Who are those people dangerous enough to never be allowed on a plane (despite being searched, xrayed, water bottles and corkscrews taken away from them), yet not dangerous enough to roam free everywhere else?
morpheuskafka 4y ago
Here's what I don't get: 1) At some point, if you are on the list, they will have to tell you. If you were on the Selectee list, they could try to pretend that the additional screening was random/risk-based, but if they don't let you fly at all, they have to tell you that. 2) Aren't most of the people on the KST (know/suspected terrorist) list non-US citizens? If so, they have no chance of legally entering the US, so if they are flying here, they must be using a false identity. I'm not sure what the point of even having them on the list.
- spuz 4y ago
  > Aren't most of the people on the KST (know/suspected terrorist) list non-US citizens? If so, they have no chance of legally entering the US. I'm not following here. Why would being a non-US citizen give you no chance to enter the US?
  - post-it 4y ago
    They can just get turned away at customs when their passport is scanned.
  - morpheuskafka 4y ago
    Because if the government even thinks you might be a terrorist, they are not going to give you a visa/allow you to enter. And those checks are far more thorough than the checks to board a plane. The only exceptions I could see would be some of those people might be allowed in as representatives of a foreign government, and there might be a few people who already have green cards and the US doesn't have enough evidence to remove them.
    - spuz 4y ago
      This is assuming anyone you might want to add to the no-fly list is not already a US citizen.
breadbreadbread 4y ago
de-platforming isn't a state operation. it is a community moderation and liability management tool among private entities in a shared space. I think its a false equivalency to say that "not being allowed to spew hate speech on twitter" is the same as "having your house stolen by the government". Also twitter has an appeal process and most of the time they just ask you to delete a tweet.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  This was shown to be false in the twitter files
  - greenhorn360 4y ago
    You're going to need to be more specific than that. I read them and you're making this up.
    - ChickenNugger 4y ago
      I guess you missed this one: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932017716195329 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932017716195329
      - darkarmani 4y ago
        Didn't that tweet say that twitter refused to take it down?
      - greenhorn360 4y ago
        A staffer of one politician asked Twitter to take content down and they refused. That sure doesn't look like a state level operation to me.
        ChickenNugger 4y ago
        >6.Even when Twitter didn’t suspend an account, that didn’t mean they didn’t act. Schiff’s office repeatedly complained about “QAnon related activity” that were often tweets about other matters, like the identity of the Ukraine “whistleblower” or the Steele dossier: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400 >7.Twitter policy at the time didn’t ban QAnon, but “deamplified” such accounts. About the batch of tweets that included those above, Twitter execs wrote: “We can internally confirm that a number of the accounts flagged are already included in this deamplification.” https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400
exabrial 4y ago
> Also, there must some justice process for getting in and out of this list. This is backwards: there should be a justice process _for getting onto_ said list in the first place. The US Government has 0 authority to remove a right from a US citizen without a trial. The US Constitution is silent on whether or not this applies to non-citizens unfortunately, but my recommendation is handcuff the government's power whenever possible.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  Is flying a right?
  - exabrial 4y ago
    I mean, breathing or eating isn't listed in the constitution... are those rights?
    - Hamuko 4y ago
      Would the "right to eat" also mean the "right to food"?
      - notch898a 4y ago
        Positive right to be given food is different than negative right to not be stopped from obtaining food. Blocking someone from riding in a common carrier ordinarily open to the public falls under the "negative right" which is the variety of rights usually ascribed.
  - simple-thoughts 4y ago
    Yes, freedom of movement is a human right.
    - Hamuko 4y ago
      I feel like people have tried to use this as justification for operating a motor vehicle without a government-mandated license without much success.
Animats 4y ago
In one area, they don't, at least in the US. It was proposed at one point that the "no fly" list also be used as a "no gun" list. The gun nuts screamed.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  The gun nuts scream at everything, anything, and sometimes when it's nothing. The no fly list still shouldn't be used for gun control. If we want gun control, we should look to do it in a way that doesn't further entrench the horse shit the USA implemented after 9/11
com2kid 4y ago
> List like these must be publicly available to anyone, like credit history/score. Devil's advocate, but the point of the no fly list is to stop someone carrying a flagged ID->person mapping from getting onboard an airplane. (Because fake IDs exist, IDs are not 1:1 to people!) If the no fly list was public, then people who wanted to get on an airplane and cause devastation would see if their current ID is blacklisted, and if so, go get a new ID under a different name. Hard but not impossible, especially with RealID constantly being delayed. If America had verified identifying documents that couldn't be easily forged, this wouldn't be a problem, but that isn't the infrastructure we have right now, and it really wasn't the infrastructure we had when the no fly list was implemented. Without biometric IDs, the no fly list is essentially a blacklist of IDs. How the list is used in practice is a separate discussion from the threat modeling exercise of should the list be public.
lamontcg 4y ago
Animal Farm was Orwell's critique of communism. 1984 was Orwell's critique of liberal democratic capitalism.

giantg2 4y ago

They accept them because they think it will never happen to them (most people would be right), and think it only happens to "people who deserve it".

anonporridge 4y ago
The trick for these kinds of anti civil rights programs is to keep its application limited enough that not enough people are directly or indirectly affected to raise hell over it. Keep the affected individuals at <1% (I don't know the real number) and it's a small enough set of people that they'll silently fall through the cracks. Be careful to not accidentally use it against people who are part of rich and powerful families, because they'll make a stink. Use it only against the poor, immigrants, or otherwise socially disconnected and you can keep doing it in perpetuity.
- pc86 4y ago
  Honestly even if it was "accidentally" used against someone rich and connected, they would just make a phone call and have it fixed. For something like the no fly list it would probably get corrected in time for them to make the flight.
  - Teever 4y ago
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/09/fact-check-ted-kennedy-and-no-fly-list-myth/77030278/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/...
- giantg2 4y ago
  The funny thing is, they are expanding it. It's still probably below the 1%, but it seems society has an appetite for expanding civil law to circumvent the (limited) protections dound in criminal law, like proof beyond a reasonable doubt or access to an attorney. Red flag laws and the TX abortion law are some recent evidence of this.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>I still don't understand how societies accepted no-fly list, civil forfeiture, de-banking, de-platforming people and other clearly totalitarian practices in or "democratic" and "free" countries. Look at all the disgusting and "inconsistent with your values" behavior you, or if not yourself then the other people who support your causes, will turn a blind eye to, minimize or at the very least object less to when it benefits your cause(s). Now scale that behavior up to all the diverse groups and causes that exist across a nation of 330+mil. That's how.

Swenrekcah 4y ago

None of the things you mention are incompatible with a free democracy, just so long as the process by which people get on (and off!) these lists are transparent. But unfortunately that is often where things break down.

tinus_hn 4y ago
In theory the process of getting off the list is transparent. In practice you can’t be told if you are on the list in the first place.
- jkaplowitz 4y ago
  What's the theoretically transparent process for getting off the list? DHS TRIP isn't very transparent.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Apply for a redress number. If it's granted, you are all set. If it's denied, well you have your answer as to whether you were really on the list or not.
    - jkaplowitz 4y ago
      That may help determine if you are on the list if they reliably grant or deny redress requests based on being off or on the list (I'm not sure), but it doesn't help getting off the list if they've actually but wrongly chosen to list you, or if they aren't adequately convinced you're not the person they meant to list.
Lev1a 4y ago
Civil (asset) forfeiture is literally license for the executive branch to rob people for practically anything they can think of with almost no recourse [0] and pad their department/agency's pockets. [0]: "the accused is/are the asset/s not the person/entity robbed by the police/TLA"

matt3210 4y ago

People criticize China for doing this but the USA did it first but just kept it secret

vkou 4y ago
It's different here, only bad people end up on it.
- shiftpgdn 4y ago
  Bad according to who?
  - tremon 4y ago
    According to the list, obviously.
godelski 4y ago
Americans also criticize America for this. I mean just look at this thread. Why would it then be surprising that they criticize China for it? That seems like consistent beliefs. Even before we bring in the reality that there's nuances and the two systems aren't identical and would be absurdly naive to believe they are.

lm28469 4y ago

These things are mostly abused in shady countries and the US (aka the freer of free countries). For example in France: - having a bank account is a right - civil forfeiture exists but is heavily regulated, nothing even close to the US style abuse - there is no no fly list - there is no credit score Deplatforming is a private business thing, I though freedom advocates loved the right of business to serve whoever they please ?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> there is no credit score The French consumer credit system resembles the U.S. no-fly list. Bankers have discretion on making loans and sharing consumer records, which are absolutely maintained. But consumers don’t get to look into the black box.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > But consumers don’t get to look into the black box. Nor your landlord, nor the shop in which you'll go buy a new bicycle, &c. Also, it's much harder to get a credit in France, you don't get on the list randomly. So all in all it's completely different thing since it won't impact your day to day life for simple things such as renting a flat. Ah, and you can still fly, you just can't get into more debt.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > shop in which you'll go buy a new bicycle I’ve bought bicycles in America. Nobody checks credit. > much harder to get a credit in France If you aren’t rich, yes. If you have a personal banker, credit flows. > you don't get on the list randomly You do if you’re my friend and a SocGen clown mis-reports your mortgage as in default to the BdF. Both systems, the U.S. no-fly and French consumer credit, share common impetuses. They’re necessary, particularly for the elites. But they’re ideologically distasteful. So a system is maintained, shrouded in secrecy and, ideally, kept clear of the hoi polloi.
anonporridge 4y ago

jhawk28 4y ago

The eighth amendment should make the no-fly list illegal.

shadowgovt 4y ago
"Cruel and unusual" has always been a very conceptually-flexible term. Regarding flight: nobody is assumed to have a right to fly, so the privilege of access to flight is easily revoked. A "no crossing state lines" list, in contrast, is heavily mediated by the judicial system and the burden generally only placed upon those intimately and immediately entangled in a legal action.

shadowgovt 4y ago

At least for the no-fly list (because I'm old enough to have watched the change happen): 9/11 caused an existential panic in the US public that made them willing to accept several new things in the name of safety against a threat model they did not understand. Once those things were in place, (a) burden of proof that removing them doesn't jeopardize our safety rests on those calling for their removal and (b) the average citizen can see the list doesn't impact them so they have little opinion on keeping or removing it. In short, it was a sticky-bit that once stuck, is hard to un-stick because people don't, generally, feel less free (day-to-day) with it in existence.

slackfan 4y ago
>existential panic in the US public that made them willing to accept several new things in the name of safety against a threat model they did not understand I'm old enough to have watched the change happen. There was no existential panic, but a straight up propaganda campaign waged by a collaborative media and government to ensure that this would be accepted, and that dissenters would be seen as "the other" to be feared and reviled, and potentially targeted for law enforcement action. Seems very familiar, but history rhymes.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's both. There's no doubt the ruling party invested time and effort selling their solutions to the public, but the public was also buying because all of a sudden, men armed with automatic rifles standing in the airport security lines was a comforting sight, not a terrifying one, for many, many Americans. ETA: Regarding effects on the American psyche, https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/american-psyche-post-911 https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/american-psyche-post-... summarizes some of the post-9/11 research. Probably most of interest is that 21% of Americans studied by a researcher at Carnegie Mellon believed they would be the victim of a terrorist attack within a year. That number proved to be a way-outsized overestimate, but I think it's easy to see how people accept new curtailments to freedoms (especially someone else's freedoms) if 1-in-5 of them believe they'll be personally attacked.

LatteLazy 4y ago

I generally agree but... Remember: the alternative of (non-government required) deplatforming is that anyone can do anything they want on any platform. Want to flood knitting forums with porn? Well they cannot refuse you! And that just makes it impossible for anyone to actually organise anything without constant trolling...

mrguyorama 4y ago
That knitting forum won't exist because if you upload child porn the website owner goes to jail, so they don't let you upload anything.

pc86 4y ago

Some of these are perpetrated by a government or agent of a government and shouldn't be tolerated at all. Some of these are perpetrated by private companies and it's a much more gray area whether or not it's ok. "De-platforming" gets a lot of press but Twitter, Facebook, et al are under no obligation to let any particular person or group use their platform, nor should they be.

thepasswordis 4y ago

There are two opposing groups: 1) Power comes from the people. It is centered in churches, families, and limited local city governments. 2) Power comes from the government. The federal government has the most power and the power decreases all the way down to the local level, which has the least power. The second group, obviously, has become richer and more powerful. It has also done a good job of capturing the minds of the richest and smartest people in the country, who have been convinced that problems require government solutions. There are a lot of people who don't accept these sorts of things, but they're called racists, white nationalists, nazis, and all other sorts of horrible (and usually illogical) things. To people who aren't politically active or don't have a good understanding of political philosophy, these accusations are very effective. "What you oppose a national list of people who are standing in the way of our great society? What are you a nazi?" etc.

PentelicoMarble 4y ago
I’d love an example of a person from the first group who was called a white nationalist because they think power comes from the people and not the government.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  Every single person who participated in the truckers rally in Canada.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Ah, so the Nazi flag had nothing to do with it?
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      The Nazi flag was there because somebody was calling Trudeau a nazi. As in: the thing they were there protesting they thought was similar to Nazism, and they think that is a bad thing which is why they are there protesting. There was as far as I can tell one instance of somebody doing this, and they were immediately denounced and told to stop. I agree, btw. Trudeau is an authoritarian, but he isn't a Nazi.

azov 4y ago

I honestly don’t understand the use case. Let’s imagine the list is public and the process is transparent. Who would you put on it and for what purpose? Who are those people dangerous enough to never be allowed on a plane (despite being searched, xrayed, water bottles and corkscrews taken away from them), yet not dangerous enough to roam free everywhere else?

morpheuskafka 4y ago

Here's what I don't get: 1) At some point, if you are on the list, they will have to tell you. If you were on the Selectee list, they could try to pretend that the additional screening was random/risk-based, but if they don't let you fly at all, they have to tell you that. 2) Aren't most of the people on the KST (know/suspected terrorist) list non-US citizens? If so, they have no chance of legally entering the US, so if they are flying here, they must be using a false identity. I'm not sure what the point of even having them on the list.

spuz 4y ago
> Aren't most of the people on the KST (know/suspected terrorist) list non-US citizens? If so, they have no chance of legally entering the US. I'm not following here. Why would being a non-US citizen give you no chance to enter the US?
- post-it 4y ago
  They can just get turned away at customs when their passport is scanned.
- morpheuskafka 4y ago
  Because if the government even thinks you might be a terrorist, they are not going to give you a visa/allow you to enter. And those checks are far more thorough than the checks to board a plane. The only exceptions I could see would be some of those people might be allowed in as representatives of a foreign government, and there might be a few people who already have green cards and the US doesn't have enough evidence to remove them.
  - spuz 4y ago
    This is assuming anyone you might want to add to the no-fly list is not already a US citizen.

breadbreadbread 4y ago

de-platforming isn't a state operation. it is a community moderation and liability management tool among private entities in a shared space. I think its a false equivalency to say that "not being allowed to spew hate speech on twitter" is the same as "having your house stolen by the government". Also twitter has an appeal process and most of the time they just ask you to delete a tweet.

imwillofficial 4y ago
This was shown to be false in the twitter files
- greenhorn360 4y ago
  You're going to need to be more specific than that. I read them and you're making this up.
  - ChickenNugger 4y ago
    I guess you missed this one: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932017716195329 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932017716195329
    - darkarmani 4y ago
      Didn't that tweet say that twitter refused to take it down?
    - greenhorn360 4y ago
      A staffer of one politician asked Twitter to take content down and they refused. That sure doesn't look like a state level operation to me.
      - ChickenNugger 4y ago
        >6.Even when Twitter didn’t suspend an account, that didn’t mean they didn’t act. Schiff’s office repeatedly complained about “QAnon related activity” that were often tweets about other matters, like the identity of the Ukraine “whistleblower” or the Steele dossier: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400 >7.Twitter policy at the time didn’t ban QAnon, but “deamplified” such accounts. About the batch of tweets that included those above, Twitter execs wrote: “We can internally confirm that a number of the accounts flagged are already included in this deamplification.” https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400

exabrial 4y ago

> Also, there must some justice process for getting in and out of this list. This is backwards: there should be a justice process _for getting onto_ said list in the first place. The US Government has 0 authority to remove a right from a US citizen without a trial. The US Constitution is silent on whether or not this applies to non-citizens unfortunately, but my recommendation is handcuff the government's power whenever possible.

Hamuko 4y ago
Is flying a right?
- exabrial 4y ago
  I mean, breathing or eating isn't listed in the constitution... are those rights?
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    Would the "right to eat" also mean the "right to food"?
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Positive right to be given food is different than negative right to not be stopped from obtaining food. Blocking someone from riding in a common carrier ordinarily open to the public falls under the "negative right" which is the variety of rights usually ascribed.
- simple-thoughts 4y ago
  Yes, freedom of movement is a human right.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    I feel like people have tried to use this as justification for operating a motor vehicle without a government-mandated license without much success.

Animats 4y ago

In one area, they don't, at least in the US. It was proposed at one point that the "no fly" list also be used as a "no gun" list. The gun nuts screamed.

mrguyorama 4y ago
The gun nuts scream at everything, anything, and sometimes when it's nothing. The no fly list still shouldn't be used for gun control. If we want gun control, we should look to do it in a way that doesn't further entrench the horse shit the USA implemented after 9/11

com2kid 4y ago

> List like these must be publicly available to anyone, like credit history/score. Devil's advocate, but the point of the no fly list is to stop someone carrying a flagged ID->person mapping from getting onboard an airplane. (Because fake IDs exist, IDs are not 1:1 to people!) If the no fly list was public, then people who wanted to get on an airplane and cause devastation would see if their current ID is blacklisted, and if so, go get a new ID under a different name. Hard but not impossible, especially with RealID constantly being delayed. If America had verified identifying documents that couldn't be easily forged, this wouldn't be a problem, but that isn't the infrastructure we have right now, and it really wasn't the infrastructure we had when the no fly list was implemented. Without biometric IDs, the no fly list is essentially a blacklist of IDs. How the list is used in practice is a separate discussion from the threat modeling exercise of should the list be public.

lamontcg 4y ago

Animal Farm was Orwell's critique of communism. 1984 was Orwell's critique of liberal democratic capitalism.