721–730 of 1001 posts
Listen to yourselves in your echo chamber of the left try to justify this. Q-tards and Antifa stormed the capital. The people you so righteously call racist and seditious are not and did nothing of the sort. What Antifa and a few Q-tards did on Jan. 6 doesn't discredit the fact the establishment politicians and our corporate overlords have sold out to China and don't want to be held accountable and would prefer to fo…
I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic. The president's followers said for weeks that "the storm" was coming Jan 6. Nobody took them seriously. Look what happened. The president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other followers incited it. Yes the execution of the…
It may be true that those companies don't want to platform sedition, but what if rightful sedition cannot be achieved without being provided a platform? In that case, is it then up to companies to pick and choose which sedition movements they support by virtue of allowing them on their platform?
It must feel pretty surreal to be someone that is constantly moving to different communication apps and instantly finding them pulled by anyone and everyone. We've seen an escalation of this from higher-level platforms (obviously Twitter can ban an account if they desire) to medium-level platforms (I suppose Apple gets to pick what I can do on my own phone even if it feels a bit wrong), but I'm curious if this will a…
I am in favor of these matters being handled and adjudicated via the courts, not by private entities with no due process, arbitrary process and limited oversight. For all we know there was a limited group of users of that service that caused this action, however we don’t know and likely will never know the facts in this matter.
The real shortcoming in these matters is a total lack of legislation that reflects the world today on the Internet. Section 230 and the rest of the CDA were passed in 1996. The world looked a lot different back then.
Until legislatures act, private companies self-policing at their own discretion is the best we get.
> For all we know there was a limited group of users of that service that caused this action, however we don’t know and likely will never know the facts in this matter.
To my knowledge Parler was in part blocked due to a total lack of a moderation policy. It was the policy of the app, not the mere action of a minority of users.
All roads lead back to about half a dozen companies. The concentration of power is astonishing and terrifying. They have all of the US, maybe even the world, checkmated. Nothing good will come from this.
There are literally thousands of web hosting options; Parler can go find a different one.
I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic. The president's followers said for weeks that "the storm" was coming Jan 6. Nobody took them seriously. Look what happened. The president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other followers incited it. Yes the execution of the…
Could you present an explanation for why?
> If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates,
Then nothing different would happen because this particular part of the vote is a formality. Well, the news would be even more one sided on this, but nothing else.
>or if the flex-cuffs guys had captured members of congress
Assuming worse case and he actually killed someone, why would it be much different than attacks in the past like the one at the soft/baseball game. As you said, that it failed is irrelevant to the intended goal.
>The western liberal value of free speech has never extended to incitement of violence.
Yes it has.
First, there is political speech which is going through the most proper channels to enact violence. If you get a law passed, you are forcing people to comply under threat of violence. Talking about changing laws is very central to free speech and includes protecting people pushing even the most cartoonishly evil laws.
But on a more general since, still sticking to US law, the courts have allowed for calls to violence in general and have been very limited in how they restrict it. For example look at all that was said during the summer that was encouraging of riots (not the things said in support of the protests, but said in support of the riots). That is still largely protected free speech.
And on an even more general scale, the concept of free speech does apply to what the founding fathers were discussing leading up to and during the revolutionary war. Sure, Britain's laws would have punished them for it, but the value of free speech that let them rebel is something that was understood and accepted by those forming the new government.
As a gen-xer all of this incessant labeling is so bizarre.
I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic. The president's followers said for weeks that "the storm" was coming Jan 6. Nobody took them seriously. Look what happened. The president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other followers incited it. Yes the execution of the…
How is this anything but serious?
I'm distressed and saddened at how many of the free speech proponents on HN are treating the events of January 6 as if it was just another protest and not an existential threat to the republic. The president's followers said for weeks that "the storm" was coming Jan 6. Nobody took them seriously. Look what happened. The president and his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and other followers incited it. Yes the execution of the…
This illogical lie get spammed here on every single news discussion about this event, yet no one has still answered why did those platforms allow leftwing/blm terrorists and other violent organizations spread their hate for years?
”Western liberal values” seem to only apply when it doesn’t harm the agenda and interests of the people who vote for the ”right” party.