All: I know this is a little late, but those of you posting ideological flamewar comments to this thread are breaking the site guidelines. We're trying to avoid hellfire here, and we're banning accounts that feed it. Please don't feed it.
HN is not for all types of discussion. It is specifically for curious conversation. Here's a test you can apply: curiosity is equally open to what's true, false, or interesting about anything. If your position is that your side is right about everything while the opposing side is wrong about everything, you have left the spectrum of curiosity gratification and are functioning in the spectrum of political battle. Those do not overlap.
It was planned for months, openly on Facebook in plain view of everybody. Remember that when politicians call for more intrusive surveillance in response.
I'm sure public support for removing Facebook from app stores wouldn't be too different than Parler. If we are principled people, and FB is failing to moderate, then any reasonable person who supported Parler's removal would support Facebook's. What would be different between the two decisions is the sheer magnitude of money on the line, in the case of Facebook's removal -- in capital markets, in employment, etc.
That's because this stuff was a tiny fraction of the activity on Facebook (it's HUGE, and still mostly for baby pictures), but a substantial fraction of the content on Parler and Gab (they're tiny, and mostly for the stuff that Facebook and Twitter ban).
A lot of people who object to Parler's treatment want this conceived as a simple binary, but it's more of a matter of degree an proportion.
To me it seems like the real reason Parler was removed was because of the risk that Donal Trump would move there after being banned from Twitter, Facebook and Youtube.
This would undoubtedly bring a lot of attention and legitimacy to that platform that could create a rift in the tech sector and a new era of actual competition.
2. By far smaller user base, with that base overwhelmingly participating in fear mongering fake news. There are people I know convinced of entirely fabricated stories that contributed to the violence at the capitol.
3. It's clear the admins of parler explicitly allowed content that encouraged the riots and violence therein.
Facebook does admin all of these things. They're also significantly larger. Don't be dishonest.
The government should fear its people and not the other way around. The gun of the public's ire should also be focused on class instead of in-class fighting over race.
Who would rather be poor and white over rich and black? Exactly. Privilege comes from class, not skin.
FB has said it is too big to moderate effectively, ergo in principle it is unmoderated just like Parler.
FB has a point, for example, in Myanmar the platform is being used to organize genocide. There is no way FB could hire enough local moderators to deal with this without turning off the service.
I honestly doubt that is the case. Movements like this are going to have a small number of popular leaders. Ban people, rather than just removing some posts, and you can disrupt that social graph pretty quick.
Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?
Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
On one hand we have hooligans using a crowd as cover to get away with property damage.
On the other we have hooligans organized for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election.
In the case of BLM, the crimes don't reflect on the movement's overall purpose. Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform -- it's an argument for more police presence, if anything. In the case of the capitol riots, not only are the crimes worse (storming the capitol >> property damage), but the criminal acts absolutely do reflect on the movement's agenda. Intimidating congress is a plausible vehicle for obtaining the votes they needed that day to overturn the election. Trump's pre-riot speech emphasized that this was the goal. These factors increase the culpability of platforms and leadership in the capitol riots as compared to BLM.
- The BLM movement is, while poorly framed and easily co-opted by other people, about genuine problems with policing in the United States. Problems that are backed up with verifiable facts rather than scummy used car salesmen and the Inventor of Email™.
- The BLM movement, while the source of many large large scale protests (several of which turned into riots and outstayed their welcome) never, at any point, even pretended to stage a coup or murder a member of the Capitol Police.
This is a disingenuous false equivalence. Local protests that turn violent based on political grievances regarding police violence are not the same as storming the nation's capitol with the goal of overturning a democratic election.
> Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001,[5] his final day in office.[6][7]
She was charged, served some of her time (16 years of 58 years is 27.586%), and then a president pardoned her.
>Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?
Blessing? The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned.
>Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
And served 15 years in prison for it with a 58 YEAR sentence. Clinton faced plenty of criticism for the pardon too. That being said, are you suggesting someone who has served their time should... permanently be ostracized by society? Prison is meant to punish not reform?
If you're suggesting she's still supporting violence, provide the evidence. Her book seems to indicate she has a different world view after spending time in prison. Literally the outcome we SHOULD want from people being arrested and imprisoned.
Thank you for the first legitimate critique of the Black Lives Matter organization that I've seen.
I don't think it invalidates all of the points of the platform of BLM, but it does make me question the sanity and legitimacy of the organization's leadership.
BLM is fighting to end police violence against the Black community. Antifa is fighting to stop white supremacists from gaining power in the streets and in government.
The people who attacked the Capitol were fighting to end democracy and keep an unelected would-be dictator in power.
That is an utterly false comparison. Black Lives Matter is more of a slogan than an organization or a movement. Many if not most of the BLM related protests were peaceful. There were many events such as police making a show of taking the knee in front of protesters that have no comparison. Where in the capitol actions did police take the knee as a show of empathy?
And there was a great deal of push back against BLM related protests. Near me in Oakland, California the discount grocery store that serves a mostly black and largely poor neighborhood was ransacked and this caused a huge uproar and major social upheaval. There was considerable resistance against the rioting at that time.
But all we heard from the right was a wretched flow of lies. Democrats do nothing to stop violence they said, even when police were hurting from attempts to bring peace. And then the same lovers of political theater cheered on an attack on the capitol.
The magnitude of threatening the lives of national leadership is different from the property damage of the BLM movements. The implications of each are different, too. Both are bad things.
It's pretty clear what's going on. The mass-media elite who dictate the prevailing narrative are telling the masses that it's good to support BLM and Antifa, while it's bad to support the others. Simple as that. "It's only bad if it's not my group doing it".
There is nothing more disgusting than a person who applies ideals and values selectively like this, who doesn't commit to the ideals themselves (gleaned from a related comment which I love [1]):
"I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in the middle East.
Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn't like.
Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported.
This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!").
I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred.
When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group."
It's extremely dishonest to compare a QAnon fueled outright 'voter fraud' & child abduction conspiracy that lead to Congress being forcibly entered to legitimate & coherent concerns about policing, race, & the prison system in USA.
Nice way to detract from the point that people are directing violence towards politicians.
But yes a Target got looted and some fires were set because people are fucking angry about the institutional violence directed towards their communities.
This sentence fragment appears deliberately vague and it assumes the conclusion. Compare, for example, "The Capitol Attack" vs "Right Wing Violence in America". One references a specific event with specific actors, the other is a vague non-specific description of a phenomena that may or may not exist.
I'd encourage you to be more specific -- which instances of fires and looting do you feel were not adequately described as attacks? Who is failing to describe them, again, specifically.
Right now, this does not read like you are interested in discussing this in good faith.
> Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983
I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention.
It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot
Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1]
If Facebook does not face any punishment for that, even though smaller platforms did, the result cannot be good. Double standards are at least as corrosive for democracy as fringe groups organizing themselves. A lot of current political turmoil worldwide is just long shadows of the double standards of the past, these things do not have a short expiration date.
I recently found out that on May 30th, there were numerous Secret Service members injured in a BLM/antifa attack (oh, scratch that, "peaceful protest") on the White House. I briefly wondered why I hadn't heard about that, then I chuckled at my own naivete. Of course, one might ask how that was coordinated, but then it was a peaceful protest, so who cares?
If this is true, why did big tech and the mainstream media (and many of us here) focus on killing Parler, and not Facebook? It feels like Facebook is too useful to many people, so gets a pass. Parler, because it hosts our ideological opponents, must be shut.
Despite blaming Parler and the media putting free speech in scare quotes ("free speech"), the attack was planned on Facebook all along?
Half of a billion in lobbying dollars well spent by FAANG[1] - business as usual continues for facebook despite their decreasing popularity and repeated scandal and failure, from Cambridge Analytica to Libra.
Those in my immediate circle have mothballed or closed their accounts, although Instagram seems to have more holding power.
It's chilling how quickly the tech industry has coalesced around oppressive and biased social media censorship policies. A scant few years ago, the tech industry was a beacon of free expression.
You know what’s also chilling? Major tech platforms choosing to publish, amplify, and normalize: white supremacy, antisemitism, serious calls to violently overthrow democracy, conspiracies about the deep state cabal of satan-worshiping pedophiles, the health benefits of drinking bleach, denial of well understood scientific facts, etc.
These things are fine for the town square, since people have free speech, but nobody should be handing them a megaphone that reaches 7 billion people.
Free speech does not mean you are entitled to have your speech broadcast to a global audience.
A lot of people tweeted about the Trump supporters attacking Capitol, and many of them wrote variations of "shoot them". This breaches Twitter's guidelines.
I reported 30 of these "shoot them" tweets, but only about half of them were deleted.
I had a thought that came about as a result of this post and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25836503 both being on the HN front page at around roughly the same time I perused HN.
The thought is: why is GitHub so fast at taking down a potentially infringing code repository in response to a DMCA request but Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. so slow at taking down violence-promoting content?
So with all this evidence of large volumes of abuse and contributions to the Capitol riot, why aren’t Apple, Google, and Amazon banning Facebook and Twitter? It’s because banning Parler was a move for public relations and appeasement to the incoming administration. After all, the first politician to call for the ban of Parler was AOC, who is a Democrat.
The one thing that DIDN'T happen in a widespread fashion, as far as I can tell, was the threat of militant groups "backing up" police as election security. Of course there are always isolated incidents, but my impression is that election day itself was surprisingly free of incidents of physical intimidation.
Kind of eerie that today, Inauguration Day, there were supposed to be demonstrations at all the state capitals and DC but, from what I can tell by the news, none of these happened. I guess the old "And I'll go with you." line only works once.
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
HN is not for all types of discussion. It is specifically for curious conversation. Here's a test you can apply: curiosity is equally open to what's true, false, or interesting about anything. If your position is that your side is right about everything while the opposing side is wrong about everything, you have left the spectrum of curiosity gratification and are functioning in the spectrum of political battle. Those do not overlap.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[+] [-] stretchcat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trident5000|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JMTQp8lwXL|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ardy42|5 years ago|reply
That's because this stuff was a tiny fraction of the activity on Facebook (it's HUGE, and still mostly for baby pictures), but a substantial fraction of the content on Parler and Gab (they're tiny, and mostly for the stuff that Facebook and Twitter ban).
A lot of people who object to Parler's treatment want this conceived as a simple binary, but it's more of a matter of degree an proportion.
[+] [-] sharperguy|5 years ago|reply
This would undoubtedly bring a lot of attention and legitimacy to that platform that could create a rift in the tech sector and a new era of actual competition.
[+] [-] mplewis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kobalsky|5 years ago|reply
The stronghold it has over world politics has more power than an atomic arsenal.
[+] [-] devwastaken|5 years ago|reply
2. By far smaller user base, with that base overwhelmingly participating in fear mongering fake news. There are people I know convinced of entirely fabricated stories that contributed to the violence at the capitol.
3. It's clear the admins of parler explicitly allowed content that encouraged the riots and violence therein.
Facebook does admin all of these things. They're also significantly larger. Don't be dishonest.
[+] [-] efwfwef|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexrustic|5 years ago|reply
“If They Won’t Hear Us, They Will Fear Us”: How The Capitol Assault Was Planned On Facebook
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-capito...
[+] [-] casefields|5 years ago|reply
Who would rather be poor and white over rich and black? Exactly. Privilege comes from class, not skin.
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
FB has said it is too big to moderate effectively, ergo in principle it is unmoderated just like Parler.
FB has a point, for example, in Myanmar the platform is being used to organize genocide. There is no way FB could hire enough local moderators to deal with this without turning off the service.
[+] [-] klmadfejno|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Red_Tarsius|5 years ago|reply
Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? Surely the Capitol Hill has an insurance policy? Or does that moronic point only apply to the common folk?
Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
[+] [-] jjoonathan|5 years ago|reply
On the other we have hooligans organized for the express purpose of overturning the results of a democratic election.
In the case of BLM, the crimes don't reflect on the movement's overall purpose. Nobody expects property damage to be a vehicle for police reform -- it's an argument for more police presence, if anything. In the case of the capitol riots, not only are the crimes worse (storming the capitol >> property damage), but the criminal acts absolutely do reflect on the movement's agenda. Intimidating congress is a plausible vehicle for obtaining the votes they needed that day to overturn the election. Trump's pre-riot speech emphasized that this was the goal. These factors increase the culpability of platforms and leadership in the capitol riots as compared to BLM.
[+] [-] dylan-m|5 years ago|reply
- The BLM movement, while the source of many large large scale protests (several of which turned into riots and outstayed their welcome) never, at any point, even pretended to stage a coup or murder a member of the Capitol Police.
[+] [-] root_axis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tareqak|5 years ago|reply
> Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment on the weapons and explosives charges. She spent 16 years in prison, during which she became a poet, author, and AIDS activist. Her sentence was commuted to time served by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001,[5] his final day in office.[6][7]
She was charged, served some of her time (16 years of 58 years is 27.586%), and then a president pardoned her.
[+] [-] tw04|5 years ago|reply
Blessing? The blessing was for peaceful protests, the rioters were universally condemned.
>Susan Rosenberg literally bombed the Capitol in 1983 and now serves as vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents, a "non-profit foundation that sponsors the fundraising and does administrative work for the Black Lives Matter global network, among other clients."
And served 15 years in prison for it with a 58 YEAR sentence. Clinton faced plenty of criticism for the pardon too. That being said, are you suggesting someone who has served their time should... permanently be ostracized by society? Prison is meant to punish not reform?
If you're suggesting she's still supporting violence, provide the evidence. Her book seems to indicate she has a different world view after spending time in prison. Literally the outcome we SHOULD want from people being arrested and imprisoned.
[+] [-] exmicrosoldier|5 years ago|reply
I don't think it invalidates all of the points of the platform of BLM, but it does make me question the sanity and legitimacy of the organization's leadership.
[+] [-] tessierashpool|5 years ago|reply
This is incendiary and false.
[+] [-] btamadio|5 years ago|reply
The people who attacked the Capitol were fighting to end democracy and keep an unelected would-be dictator in power.
Do you see the difference?
[+] [-] m0llusk|5 years ago|reply
And there was a great deal of push back against BLM related protests. Near me in Oakland, California the discount grocery store that serves a mostly black and largely poor neighborhood was ransacked and this caused a huge uproar and major social upheaval. There was considerable resistance against the rioting at that time.
But all we heard from the right was a wretched flow of lies. Democrats do nothing to stop violence they said, even when police were hurting from attempts to bring peace. And then the same lovers of political theater cheered on an attack on the capitol.
[+] [-] JMTQp8lwXL|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _r0fz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VoodooJuJu|5 years ago|reply
There is nothing more disgusting than a person who applies ideals and values selectively like this, who doesn't commit to the ideals themselves (gleaned from a related comment which I love [1]):
"I was part of a news and current events Facebook group a few years ago, when WikiLeaks was primarily known for leaking evidence of the US Military's abuses in the middle East.
Most of the people in this group were Democrats or otherwise on the Left. They cheered WikiLeaks and loved that it was exposing the abuses of a group they didn't like.
Fast forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks begins publishing damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The same people who cheered WikiLeaks as it published very damaging information about the US Military now condemned it because it was targeting someone they actually supported.
This was a major moment of clarity and realization for me. It showed me that those who are quick to use ideals to defend their positions ("freedom of information is good, it exposes the US' crimes!") will just as quickly discard those ideals when they stop working in their own interest ("WikiLeaks should not be publishing damaging information about Clinton!").
I was disgusted, because these people were so quick to use a moralistic position built upon high ideals to attack the US but they were themselves absolutely bereft of a true commitment to ideals. Within a few weeks the group's attitude on WikiLeaks shifted from gratitude and respect to hatred.
When I pointed this out, I was kicked out of the group."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21899476
[+] [-] erichocean|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] prions|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] efwfwef|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matchbok|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] entropea|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sevencolors|5 years ago|reply
Nice way to detract from the point that people are directing violence towards politicians.
But yes a Target got looted and some fires were set because people are fucking angry about the institutional violence directed towards their communities.
Clearly the same thing, yeah?
[+] [-] Pfhreak|5 years ago|reply
This sentence fragment appears deliberately vague and it assumes the conclusion. Compare, for example, "The Capitol Attack" vs "Right Wing Violence in America". One references a specific event with specific actors, the other is a vague non-specific description of a phenomena that may or may not exist.
I'd encourage you to be more specific -- which instances of fires and looting do you feel were not adequately described as attacks? Who is failing to describe them, again, specifically.
Right now, this does not read like you are interested in discussing this in good faith.
[+] [-] julienchastang|5 years ago|reply
I am using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not think this is true. Planned perhaps, but never carried out on account of law enforcement intervention.
It is somewhat dispiriting to see this comment at the top of HN and implies a false moral equivalence. Since you probably prefer right-wing news sources, see this editorial in the WSJ: "No Excuses for Trump and the Capitol Riot Yes, the left does bad things too. Conservatives are supposed to believe in objective moral truth." [1]
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-excuses-for-trump-and-the-ca...
[+] [-] inglor_cz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at_a_remove|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mancerayder|5 years ago|reply
Despite blaming Parler and the media putting free speech in scare quotes ("free speech"), the attack was planned on Facebook all along?
[+] [-] asdfk-12|5 years ago|reply
Those in my immediate circle have mothballed or closed their accounts, although Instagram seems to have more holding power.
1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2019/04/30/how-the-...
[+] [-] beefee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|5 years ago|reply
These things are fine for the town square, since people have free speech, but nobody should be handing them a megaphone that reaches 7 billion people.
Free speech does not mean you are entitled to have your speech broadcast to a global audience.
[+] [-] bigtex|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcf|5 years ago|reply
I reported 30 of these "shoot them" tweets, but only about half of them were deleted.
[+] [-] tareqak|5 years ago|reply
The thought is: why is GitHub so fast at taking down a potentially infringing code repository in response to a DMCA request but Google, Facebook, Twitter et al. so slow at taking down violence-promoting content?
[+] [-] traveler01|5 years ago|reply
Cool...
[+] [-] throwawaysea|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunstone|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] znpy|5 years ago|reply