41–50 of 106 posts
I fully believe the flip side of this is. Had social networks not, over the last 10 years, been consistently banning anyone and everyone they could for everything ranging from simply slightly disagreeable speech all the way to flat out illegal speech, you would not have needed a massive analysis of data from one-off sites. The crowd sourcing and eyes on the information of regular people could have predicted it. By cr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My point still is, if you force these people into places like that, where their plans are easily observable, and 99% of people wont go there then it will fester in silence. Good. Better they fester in silence in a place where they can be observed and reported to authorities when they cross the line. Without a popular, legitimate, high traffic platform that allows them to influence a mass audience the cancer doesn't…
Please read a history book, preferably one written in the last century. Human societies are cyclical, repeatable, and to some degree, predictable. At least 75,000,000 people think one way. Deny them the right to speak openly and what might you have? I gather, as a late night estimate, 75,000,000 people talking to about another 55,000,000 people why they are right. And you want to force them all into darkness, unable…
I've read quite a few, and they don't bear out your description at all.
> Human societies are cyclical, repeatable, and to some degree, predictable.
Not really, not really, and really not.
> At least 75,000,000 people think one way
74,222,593 people conclude, for a wide variety of different reasons, at a particular point in time, to vote for a particular candidate. But even those 74,222,593 people don't “think one way”; if that wasn't obvious from, oh, actually listening to them at the time or having a basic understanding of humans, it's pretty damn obvious right now, when in defeat the Republican Party which was, if nothing else, pretty unified in electoral support for Trump, (much less the broader group of Trump voters which necessarily included a substantial number of non-Republicans) has been turned against itself with great intensity by Trump’s post-election actions, starting with the election challenges and escalating through the Trumpist attack on the Capitol.
> Deny them the right to speak openly and what might you have?
No one is interested in denying the vast majority of the people who supported Trump in the last election the right to speak openly. You are railing against a strawman.
I fully believe the flip side of this is. Had social networks not, over the last 10 years, been consistently banning anyone and everyone they could for everything ranging from simply slightly disagreeable speech all the way to flat out illegal speech, you would not have needed a massive analysis of data from one-off sites. The crowd sourcing and eyes on the information of regular people could have predicted it. By cr…
the crowd sourcing and eyes of regular people could have predicted it anyhow, and many people did in fact do just that simply by reading Parler or 4chan and taking threats seriously. See for example Arieh Kovler, 21 December 2020: "On January 6, armed Trumpist militias will be rallying in DC, at Trump's orders. It's highly likely that they'll try to storm the Capitol after it certifies Joe Biden's win. I don't think…
Gallows are a time-honoured protest prop (eg, [0]), one being present isn't really the manifestation of gross negligence that this post wants to make it out to be [1]. This is not a very interesting post. Yeah you could predict that there was going to be a protest from Parler. There would have been people saying "hey, there is a rally on the 6th, lets go there and show our support". [0] https://www.victoriabuzz.com/2…
It's a disgusting practice. I don't care how time-honoured it is. Real people are involved here. Real violence. Real death. Showing someone a guillotine or a gallows or making threats to use deadly violence as part of a political protest is just plain wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the crowd sourcing and eyes of regular people could have predicted it anyhow, and many people did in fact do just that simply by reading Parler or 4chan and taking threats seriously. See for example Arieh Kovler, 21 December 2020: "On January 6, armed Trumpist militias will be rallying in DC, at Trump's orders. It's highly likely that they'll try to storm the Capitol after it certifies Joe Biden's win. I don't think…
gas-lightning, now thats something that might be cool The Internet is not real life, just because someone wrote something somewhere means nothing. It could just as well be russian bloggers writing the same inflaming crap . We need to be able to know whats what.
sure but how is letting them on twitter helping with that, are there fewer russian trolls on twitter? These dedicated sites are literally 100% concentrated insight into these communities
Authorities in particular, I'm supposed to believe the folks at Homeland Security can't go to Parler and do some open-source intelligence and we need to let the trolls on Facebook instead? It's not like we accidentally pushed the perps into the scary darknet and need the IT guys from CSI, they were literally announcing this stunt proudly to the world, I just don't follow the argument at all.
In fact if the riot hadn't been successful I'd have said Parler is a honeypot because people registering with their ID posting openly that they're starting an insurrection is just too absurd.
I fully believe the flip side of this is. Had social networks not, over the last 10 years, been consistently banning anyone and everyone they could for everything ranging from simply slightly disagreeable speech all the way to flat out illegal speech, you would not have needed a massive analysis of data from one-off sites. The crowd sourcing and eyes on the information of regular people could have predicted it. By cr…
the crowd sourcing and eyes of regular people could have predicted it anyhow, and many people did in fact do just that simply by reading Parler or 4chan and taking threats seriously. See for example Arieh Kovler, 21 December 2020: "On January 6, armed Trumpist militias will be rallying in DC, at Trump's orders. It's highly likely that they'll try to storm the Capitol after it certifies Joe Biden's win. I don't think…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My point still is, if you force these people into places like that, where their plans are easily observable, and 99% of people wont go there then it will fester in silence. Good. Better they fester in silence in a place where they can be observed and reported to authorities when they cross the line. Without a popular, legitimate, high traffic platform that allows them to influence a mass audience the cancer doesn't…
Please read a history book, preferably one written in the last century. Human societies are cyclical, repeatable, and to some degree, predictable. At least 75,000,000 people think one way. Deny them the right to speak openly and what might you have? I gather, as a late night estimate, 75,000,000 people talking to about another 55,000,000 people why they are right. And you want to force them all into darkness, unable…
Nobody is denying these people the right to speak openly, and it's ridiculous to paint with this broad of a brush. The overwhelming majority people are perfectly decent, have normal lives, and don't go around making violent threats or spreading absurd, easily disproven conspiracy theories.
There is an infinitesimal minority who are toxic, deluded extremists. Giving them equal footing on huge platforms with global reach helps them spread their poisonous ideas to a still-minority, but vastly larger group. That subsequent small minority which they infect are able to wreak much greater havoc. Parler was a perfect example of this in action.
> Human societies are cyclical, repeatable, and to some degree, predictable.
To this point, I would direct your attention to the Rwandan genocide, a perfect example of what can happen when you give a mass media platform to people who advocate murderous extremism. The genocide was incited by extremist radio shows spouting conspiracy theories and hatred.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the crowd sourcing and eyes of regular people could have predicted it anyhow, and many people did in fact do just that simply by reading Parler or 4chan and taking threats seriously. See for example Arieh Kovler, 21 December 2020: "On January 6, armed Trumpist militias will be rallying in DC, at Trump's orders. It's highly likely that they'll try to storm the Capitol after it certifies Joe Biden's win. I don't think…
People have been saying that sort of stuff daily for as long as I've been online, 25-ish years. Of course someone will say 'but this time it's different', but I chalk this up to a broken clock being right twice a day.
Am I a broken clock, or are you just out of touch with the fragmented landscape of political commentary on the internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People self segregate based on other characteristics, too, say nationality and language. Hence all the China Towns. There are even remnants of Czech communities in places like Texas that still dance polka and bake kolaches. And Czechs abroad generally assimilate fast. Yet racial diversity at universities and in corporations is highly sought after and supported by all kinds of measures. Perhaps political diversity sho…
I always thought kolaches were Mexican, because I'd only seen them in Texas. I learned something new today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klob%C3%A1sn%C3%ADk
[1] Here are the listings for "kolaches" from HEB, a very popular grocery chain throughout most of Texas: https://www.heb.com/search/?q=kolaches
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the crowd sourcing and eyes of regular people could have predicted it anyhow, and many people did in fact do just that simply by reading Parler or 4chan and taking threats seriously. See for example Arieh Kovler, 21 December 2020: "On January 6, armed Trumpist militias will be rallying in DC, at Trump's orders. It's highly likely that they'll try to storm the Capitol after it certifies Joe Biden's win. I don't think…
Although a short phrase, "armed Trumpist militias" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Even with hindsight, he is still technically wrong. An armed militia is a very different beast from a unarmed but violent right-wing protestor.
No, he's not.
> An armed militia is a very different beast from a unarmed but violent right-wing protestor.
The groups that attacked the Capitol were armed with a variety of weapons.