Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#671

Post by indigochill » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:00 AM UTC

Railsify wrote: post #540

asdfk-12 wrote: post #438

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. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2019/04/30/how-the-...

Members of Congress will use this event as a catalyst for fundraising, soon after the election they will draft legislation that threatens to control and/or regulate the tech giants. Shortly after that the lobbyists representing Big Tech get wind of this new legislation on the horizon and donations will flow like a river to the PACs and re-election campaigns, then the proposed legislation will be shelved.

> then the proposed legislation will be shelved

My bet is when legislation appears it will pass and subtly entrench the incumbents. Win-win!

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#672

Post by CivBase » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:06 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #564

zionic wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you call CHAZ? Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

You mean that thing[1] > The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands: > 1. cut Seattle's $409 million police budget by 50 percent, > 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and > 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes. Is that what you meant? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hi…

None of those points take away from it being "a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government".

If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified? I certainly don't think so.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#673

Post by throwaway762 » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:07 AM UTC

tessierashpool wrote: post #208

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #112

>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…

Where was this rhetoric when Antifa and BLM burned and looted for months with the blessings of all corporations and the mainstream media? This is incendiary and false.

Is it?

https://slate.com/podcasts/what-next/2020/06/protests-blm-mo... - "Violence Has Been An Important Tool For Protests"

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/riots-ar... - "The Double Standard of the American Riot"

https://time.com/5849679/history-protest-debate/ - "History Shows the Problem With Focusing on Whether a Protest Is Nonviolent"

https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote... - "In Defense of Destroying Property"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/30/if-vio... - "If Violence Isn't the Way To End Racism In America, Then What Is?"

https://qz.com/1863651/violence-and-extreme-actions-shouldnt... - "Why Extreme Actions Shouldn’t Delegitimize A Protest"

Here's the now VP-elect fundraising for the rioters' bail fund: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1267555018128965643

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#674

Post by Izkata » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:10 AM UTC

abduhl wrote: post #574

akiselev wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

93% of the BLM protests were peaceful [1] despite protestors numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions - compared to the tens of thousands at the capitol. The most notable violence during the BLM protests was an incident where far right extremists, members of Bugaloo boys group involved in the capitol attack, used the protests as cover to murder cops [2]. To compare the two is disingenuous. [1] https://acled…

Sorry man, but the most notable violence during the BLM protests was the gangland style execution of two black teens after the "movement" had taken over six city blocks. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/shooting-at-... https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2020/07/seattle-times-rep... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8471219/One-man-dea...

If we're still talking comparisons, then also setting things on fire all over the capitol (including attempting to burn down multiple buildings): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#675

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:10 AM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #656

alsetmusic wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are you not mentioning any Republicans? That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.

Trump didn't make money off of the presidency, if anything he spent (2016-2017) or lost (2020) wealth: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-tr...

His tax returns show he didn’t make any to start with - or possibly more accurately, he just avoided saying he made any money and thereby didn’t pay any tax.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#676

Post by notacoward » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:11 AM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #74

seattle_spring wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn't, but ok. Facebook has a huge moderation team. Just because some things get through that cause damage doesn't put it in the same category as a platform specifically built to enable terrorism.

Let me paint a hypothetical. I create a new social network startup. Early on, most of the people it attracts are those banned from Twitter and Facebook - since they don't have a lot of other options. In addition to normal social network things, they post some questionable and inciting content. Since I'm a startup, I have a small moderation team and no fancy AI moderation so most of it slips through the cracks. Is my…

> seems ideal for securing a monopoly

Seems like a bit of a catch-22, doesn't it? If we set moderation standards too low, then big social-media companies are evil because they're not doing anything about harmful content. If we set those standards too high, then big social-media companies are evil because monopoly. And there never seems to be any space in between. We need something better than just an excuse to hate on Facebook/Twitter/YouTube/etc.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#677

Post by Izkata » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

bernulli wrote: post #660

Izkata wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump didn't make money off of the presidency, if anything he spent (2016-2017) or lost (2020) wealth: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/forbes-400-donald-tr...

That’s not what the article says at all. It says that his hotel businesses went south due to COVID. That’s orthogonal to the myriad ways he extracted money from being a president.

...incorrect, that's the second dip only. The virus wasn't around for the first.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#678

Post by jlawson » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:17 AM UTC

ruanmed wrote: post #555

tomcam wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By explicitly telling people to “be peaceful“?

Maybe be telling people for weeks that the election was a fraud (without providing proof, and presenting "bogus" proof), that he actually had won, and saying the result would not be accepted? P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.

If "telling people that the election was a fraud" is equivalent to encouraging insurrection, you'd need to convict everyone who pushed the Trump/Russia narrative for years. So basically every leftist media entity and person and many of the politicians too.

Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth.

People are allowed to question election integrity.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#679

Post by jlawson » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:19 AM UTC

esperent wrote: post #649

throwaway316943 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a bit loose. Terrorism aims to inspire terror, those violent acts have to be extreme and indiscriminate to do so.

For example, missiles from unmanned drones hitting civilian targets like schools and hospitals. Note the statistics here [0] - of course the numbers are very fuzzy but at the worst case scenario it's 1:2.5 civilians: military targets. So for every 2.5 military targets, 1 civilian. That fits the bill for extreme and indiscriminate. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

Hitting is not the same as targeting, so no.

Also, one needs to indicate the difference between e.g. a hospital building acting as nothing but a hospital, and one that has been evacuated of patients and used as a militant staging post.

Re: Capitol Attack Was Months in the Making on Facebook

#680

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #668

hooande wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions of Americans watched the Capitol insurrection play out live on tv. That has an impact on the national psyche that's very similar to a terrorist attack. People aren't going to forget about it because we all witnessed it together. It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not

> It's going to be the defining event of trump's presidency, whether you think that's fair or not Trump's approval is not the lowest it's been during his presidency - it was lower in Dec 2017 [0], and even now at 39.2% it's almost twice that of Congress [1] at 20%. It doesn't seem to have hurt him all that much. If you look at favorability rather than job approval, it even seems to be almost unchanged [2], only havin…

> Trump's approval is not the lowest it's been during his presidency

In the Gallup poll it is [0], in the particular weighting and aggregation used by 538 it is not.

> it's almost twice that of Congress

Congress isn't a person, it's an aggregate, for which any voter will not have had a voice in selecting 532 of 535 voting members. Comparison of Congress’s approval ratings to the President’s are meaningless, and only ever resorted to by people trying to make horrendously unpopular Presidents look more popular than they are.

> if you give any weight to Rasmussen,

You probably shouldn't; they've always had a pro-Republican house effect as a pollster matching their editorial tilt, which isn't too worrying, but they’ve pretty overtly gone into hyperpartisan mode since the election.

[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/328637/last-trump-job-approval-...