This is going to sound incredibly cold and callous, but the comparison needs to be made.

One woman was shot. 4 others died for medical reasons. One was a heart attack. One was a police officer.

Tragic deaths, to be sure. And the photos really do feel horrific. But do single digit casualties justify all this? Gang violence and crime kills way more people and police officers on a daily basis. Are we really setting the value of our liberal values that low to justify all this censorship and deplatforming?

The events on the 6th, while horrific, have given a handful of big corporations control over national discourse and communication. That scares the daylights out of me. Was this all it took?

While i hear you - i don't see this as an isolated incident. I see this as the inevitable result of radicalization that this President has pushed for four years.

Shockingly when you flat out say that "They're only sending there criminals" (with regards to Mexico) it has affects on how some people view and thus tread Mexicans and/or brown skinned peoples. Repeatedly, examples similar to this have been expected by the left (myself included) to incite discrimination and violence to groups of people.

So this is, imo, the natural outcome of the President saying that the government is broken beyond belief and that it is a literal stolen election.

So, with all that said i don't entirely disagree with you - BUT, this is far from an isolated incident in my mind. This is repeated escalation.

I think the point is that the “radicalization,” as you are calling it, actually resulted in fewer deaths than say a typical day in Chicago. The point is this is all blown out of proportion simply because law makers themselves were involved. When there 20 death in a weekend the law makers don’t give a damn, it’s not radical, it’s just the norm, but when a couple deaths are close to a lawmaker then they care. It is hardly radical at all in my opinion it just has a microscope on it. It’s completely obvious as others have said the way this is being portrayed. It’s as others have said, the same journalist who would refuse to call a BLM protests with multiple deaths and burning buildings a riot calls this one a mob or riot and not a “mostly peaceful protest.” Hell it took some digging for me to even find what they were perpetrating about since the “why” is left out of every headline and article that a big corporation doesn’t agree with. They don’t want to humanize the people there, they want to exaggerate the actions, it’s a clear and obvious agenda on some of these organizations. I’ve never seen any response more clearly show the bias.

> The point is this is all blown out of proportion simply because law makers themselves were involved.

Not entirely true. Much of it is just plain old politics. This was a massive unforced-error by the President, many of his supporters in congress, and his fanatical base.

Do you recall how many years we heard about Benghazi? How many hearings, investigations, and committees there were? This incident was objectively worse than Benghazi. If the Left were as good at offense as the right, this Jan. 6th attack on our government will be investigated, examined, dissected, and discussed incessantly for at least the next 4 years.

Look up the Portland protests from earlier this year. Hundreds literally stormed a federal building attempting to light it on fire, throwing fireworks, Molotov a, and other objects all-night. The protesters dressed up in outfits with gas masks, helmets, lasers, and much more. That building was some how protected from people but the capitol building couldn’t be? Not only that but it was literally not on any of these major news sites anywhere. The mayor literally went out to protest with them yet nothing happened to him. No bans, nothing. But some how here the death was by the police shooting the protester and some how this is violent? I’m not kidding look up Portland courthouse protest, it is mayhem for months but no one cares because it wasn’t the right party.

> That building was some how protected from people but the capitol building couldn’t be?

It could have, but the DoD and Trump by extension purposefully weakened security and delayed sending in reinforcements to help.

> The mayor literally went out to protest with them yet nothing happened to him.

Was he violent? Did he break any laws? You realize there were multiple former and current Republican elected officials among the seditionists in DC?

> But some how here the death was by the police shooting the protester and some how this is violent?

Well when you have multiple deaths by violence, yes. The below video I found uncomfortable and disturbing, but I link it to provide evidence this was not a nonviolent protest. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/09/officer-crushed-in-...

When it comes to communication channels, you choose how you get your information. Each person, individually, makes that choice. If you think that big tech is problematic for getting your information, it's not because they are making it more difficult to consume and participate on Parler. It's because it gives them too much control over information. The choice then is to your information elsewhere. People sharing disinformation on social media has been a grave issue long before the event on January 6, 2021.

When it comes to that event, the real horror is not "single digit casualties" and that is a naive lens to use here. Disrupting a core institution of our representative democracy - certifying the election results for the President of the United States - in an attempt to overthrow the votes and will of the citizens is horrific and chilling.

A handful of big corporations already controlled national discourse and communication prior to the events of January 6th. That hasn't materially changed before or after the insurrection.

Easy. Tech giants have means to control all public speech and information exchange. -> they ally with political party -> ensure they win elections, fairly or whatever, no one will be able to tell the story that votes are counted unfairly -> install an unremovable authoritarian dictatorship. Which might have imitation elections & stuff, just like USSR had.

And then, 'correction' camps for people that do not fully fit this new beautiful society.

How much insurrection is acceptable before the tradeoff of a 'new beautiful society' is the better deal? Both sound like bad outcomes. Neither sounds obviously superior.

the insurrection is the political classes fault! if they hadnt shown the right that they were ok with burning cities the right wouldnt have had enough and actually did something. Sure the political class is going to make examples because this wasnt approved like the other but now their own words are getting thrown at them. granted a civil war will make the soviet collapse look like a cakewalk so im not preaching for that but holy damn. and it doesnt help this censorship means 40% of the country will think there is indeed a conspiracy now and will cause more unrest which will cause more more tyranny which will cause more unrest which causes a giant feedback loop. the higher ups literally are meeting their destiny by trying to avoid it. this could very well not end well.

That’s just the start. We’ll start seeing tech giants introduce “Partner API” for allied political parties in other countries. And soon enough there will be a world centralized government.

Such APIs already exist. You can't install Signal on iOS in China. I've been preaching this to oblivious ears here for a long time, yet, most say 'i like apple appstore monopoly'.

The comparison to be made is between a society that values and supports freedom of speech with one that doesn’t. Which will contain more violence and misery?

I would contend it is the latter.

Well you get to suppress any speech that is too disruptive to the status quo, which includes all of the horrific things the government does.

by inciting more violence through disenfranchisement of desperate individuals.

it's a pretty common occurrence, historically.

I would be humbled by data that proved or rejected the idea that disenfranchisement of actors who organize violence from mainstream platforms actually prevents or reduces its occurrence.

There's a fair point to be made that they'll move on elsewhere, but what if that slightly increased barrier friction is enough to stop them? No harm, no fowl, if that's the case. We traded a small bit of free speech for public safety, the ROI looks good, if it's so.

Why is violence from one side celebrated and called "peaceful" ?

Violence from both sides is celebrated and called “peaceful” - by one side or the other.

That's a false choice. They're both bad.

Don't be so cavalier about what's being lost here. The right to think and to speak freely is a fundamental human right.