It's clear that the "line" we're talking about is arbitrarily set for different groups based on some unknown criteria, and that IMO is part of the problem.
For the record, I think all extremists should be banned, including the Taliban and Iran.
Edit: ^specific plans
This is the official spokesman of the Taliban posting a propaganda video of a militant bragging about waging jihad.
https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432
This is another video (and also see part2 of the tweet, which is posted as a reply to this one) where militants holding guns talk about their plan to kill the government leaders of Afghanistan.
In the end this is all about some virtue signaling towards their own employees (so that they don't start quitting and are not unhappy) and about money.
But if your point is that government officials should be held to a higher standard than random, non-official peoples, I agree... which is why it seems like an arbitrary wrong to me that the official leaders of the Taliban are still able to post videos calling for the death of nonbelievers.
If, rather, your point is that we don't care about the Taliban because the ongoing deaths of thousands of people in Afghanistan is something that our society cares less about than the death of a handful of Americans... well, I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure how I feel about agreeing with that.
1. I’m getting mixed up vis a vis Parler vs Trump vs Twitter vs AWS vs the rest...and you’re right that it _is_ wrong for Twitter to give the Taliban a platform to spew vile shit. That said, I think the conduct of American officials is of much greater proximate concern than the Taliban off in Afghanistan...
2. ...but that doesn’t excuse senseless deaths of foreign people. It’s not surprising that Twitter aws et al are more responsive to active threats to American lives than Afghani lives, though it is disappointing—if it’s the case. But I’m not under the impression the Taliban is actively and publicly and widespreadly planning murder and riots on Twitter.
^at least these two, I’m not passing judgement on others.
That said, a big difference is that the taliban are not actively inciting Americans to storm the capitol en masse.*
And there’s not much domestic debate that they’re a problem. My belief is Twitter was pushed to this extent by the fact that it’s the president of the US, an inherently credible figure with huge sway among American citizens.
*edit to add: by ‘actively’ I mean ‘successfully, across thousands of Americans.’ They both incite violence in the US, but so far only Trump et al have accomplished a riot in DC that killed police...
https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/blogs/kathygriffintw...
That alone is true, but this imagery itself is so grotesque that we ought to assume it led to a change in the degree of motive to cause harm. If you don’t believe me, consider a thought exercise where the identity of the person involved is exchanged with someone who did end up assassinated this way. Would it be reasonable to conclude this influenced it?
Anyways, we probably understand each other at this point and don't need to belabor this, even if we don't agree with each other.
In any case, I stand by my claim that to say you can know the full effect on all minds of a certain image is a poor argument to make, since it's literally impossible to know. I hope you'll at least recognize that kind of claim is worth avoiding, if for no other reason that it inadvertently undermines any other point you are trying to make.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
Like many assassins, the person who fired on a congressional sports practice did appear to be motivated by political animus that on the face of it would not include shooting up the players on a ball field. But that is what the person did. This is similar to the attempted assassination of the Arizona congressperson in response to the Alaskan politician's crosshair advertisements.
As a reasonable person it is difficult to understand that folks might not share your views because as a reasonable person one's views seem logical and well grounded. That is totally understandable.
Is that so? Curious, because I was seeing a lot of guillotine memes from leftists last month.
(For the record: I think the guillotine imagery is as offensive as the Pinochet helicopter stuff, which is to say, extraordinarily offensive, and I think less of anyone who uses it. That's easy for me to say though, because I'm also not a leftist.).
Another factor is the climate: nobody is using guillotines anywhere now but mass shootings are sadly common.
Public discourse increasingly relies on these corporate platforms. I don’t think everyone quite understands the implications of normalizing this behavior, and to me that’s frightening.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction to make.
As for monitoring and throttling personal web traffic from our homes, that's long been an issue which is already an issue and not just with Verizon. EFF has brought suit in the courts, but to no avail, as of yet. So as for being far fetched, not only is it not, it's happening now. Comcast regularly throttles traffic to gaming sites/services during peak television hours. What's the difference?
i find it quite shocking how quickly this is all coming, over a drummed up hysteria.
If democracy does not beat in hearts of all and instead resides in an old building far away then truely its count of future days is not high.
But it's Parler's problem that they've hit this point with so little time to build credible moderation, not anybody else's. Me sowing, me reaping, &c &c.
(And no - it isn't free speech, they're quite happy to ban non-conservatives)
This happened to Gab.ai, too, but it happened after one of those plotters committed a mass murder, one he advertised on Gab, at the Tree of Life synagogue.