If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.

But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government.

Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President?

Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer.

It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.

Parler openly allowed the planning of this violent anti-democratic insurrection and has been deemed bad faith in their moderation.

Would also be curios if Facebook or Twitter was used in any way to plan or facilitate communication leading up to the event.

You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.

Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable?

Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.

Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230.

Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that.

With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions.

Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.

Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.

Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer.

Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.

Did the VP encourage and incite violence?

This information is not hard to find.

The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor).

Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?

This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence.

Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?

She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump.

> Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?

He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.

With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well.

To compare the two is highly disingenuous.

Only after the protests had been raging for months. Nor did she call out the specific groups responsible for the violence.

And in any case, actions speak louder than words, and her bail efforts fall into that category. Now, you've questioned whether those bail funds went to the rioters. Let's be clear: the organization that she was donating to explicitly doesn't filter who they bail out based on the circumstances of the arrest. This was not an effort to merely help the peaceful protesters unlawfully arrested by authoritarian cops (which no doubt there was some of that) it was for everyone. There is no way rioters weren't included in that group. And it's clear that the politicians and celebrities who donated to that fund didn't care.

> To compare the two is highly disingenuous.

It is not at all. Democratic politicians and public figures have been providing cover for rampant criminal behavior for months. AOC brushes it off as "making people uncomfortable". Chris Cuomo of CNN asked "Where is it written that protests have to be polite or peaceful?" live on air. Joe Biden only really started condemning the violence after Don Lemon and others pointed out that the rioting was hurting the Democrats in the polls.

Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?

Also, he never disavowed the protestors, just the people who were breaking in and being violent (who were a small minority). And he certainly didn't "get himself banned from Twitter" by "back peddling" given he just said:

> The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!

And

> To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

I don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse and trolling or just really this dense.

Trump, his son, and Rudy spent hours whipping that crowd into a frenzy and then directed them towards the Capitol.

This look like a small minority to you?

https://teddit.net/r/PublicFreakout/comments/kucaz0/the_mome...

That officer was beaten to death by an American flag surrounded by thousands of trump supporters, who sang fucking songs and watched.

I don't know what disgusts me more, that video or your smarmy dismissive attitude.

> That officer was beaten to death by an American flag surrounded by thousands of trump supporters, who sang fucking songs and watched.

Most of them wouldn't have been able to see anything. And yes, 10 people is a tiny minority of a crowd of a hundred thousand.

Go and have a look at some full raw footage/stream (you're looking for videos at 40+ minutes long) to get an idea of what most people were doing.

Also, I' appreciate it if you kept the personal attacks to a minumum, they do you no favours.

We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're fighting for. We don't have a choice, because it destroys what this site is supposed to exist for.

I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've been doing this for a super long time. But please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site in the intended spirit: thoughtful, curious conversation across differences. If you can't do that, that's understandable of course, but then please don't post until you can.

HN's rules have been designed to try to preserve this place as somehow interesting, not the scorched earth that internet forums usually descend to. The rules don't stop applying because someone else is wrong or you feel they are, and it's not ok to break them because you're right or you feel you are. Actually those are the cases where they apply the most.

Honestly I just need to take a break from the web for a while.

I've been feeling pretty enraged lately, especially when dealing with people who seem dedicated to ignoring reality.

I appreciate the warning.

They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history.

Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?