181–190 of 969 posts
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?
>The Capitol Attack 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the verifiable facts again? Do you have alternative statistics because they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying. The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. I hate to be stone cold but that's my understanding of what unfolded. We witnessed something similar in 2015.
> they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view
>The Capitol Attack 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…
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phones don't broadcast. A small group of agitators could have used a pirate radio station to call for an attack on the capitol 50 years ago and reach millions of people, which is exactly why pirate radio stations are illegal.
Pirate Radio stations & new LPFM are primarily illegal because Clear Channel/iHeartRadio cannot profit & control the flow of information as well as they do when they have competition. The things Clear Channel hosts, especially on AM, are not even very much different from calling for an attack on the Capitol, having listened to 20+ years (unfortunately) of Rush Limbaugh my grandfather was listening to. You can contact…
>The Capitol Attack 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…
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.
>The Capitol Attack 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…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's chilling how quickly radical terrorist groups have coalesced around using social media to coordinate their hatred and their attacks. A scant few years ago, America actively fought terrorists instead of encouraging and facilitating them.
Are you referring to Antifa and BLM, who also organized on FB and Twitter during 2020, too?
>The Capitol Attack 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sorry but this isn’t Reddit, you can’t just claim a platform was specifically built for terrorism because you’re upset. It has definitely attracted an alt-right crowd, but “specifically built to enable terrorism” is some ridiculous cable-news-level propaganda. I’d much rather this conversation be about free speech and where lines can be drawn — and it bothers me that platforms can be taken down everywhere because…
If you build a platform specifically to house/attract people who were banned from typical platforms because they had a tendency towards promoting violence, then I would argue that you are very much enabling (possibly even encouraging) their behavior. I believe that is a pretty logical sequence, and a clear line to draw. There are very few people who earnestly want an unmoderated place of discourse, because those serv…
You can't make those claims and expect people to take you seriously without backing them up.
> There are very few people who earnestly want an unmoderated place of discourse, because those serve very little functional purpoae.
Do you mean unmoderated or simply moderated to your specific standards? Parler was never unmoderated. You are defending deplatforming, while simultaneously telling people to go to different platforms if they want different standards of moderation. Do you see how this doesn't work?