On what ground will you stand on to prevent another crypto war? [0]
(NOTE: the following paper also covers what happens to the radicals who remain radicals post-deplatforming, which is super interesting.) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02673231209220...
Let them build their own websites and find their own audiences.
This is quarantining of ideological violence.
But do you really think that the world would be better off if they were allowed to continue on Parler? Should nothing be done?
One of the things not in the news is that a 30K user discord server was shut down this week. The community is switching to matrix.org/telegram/signal and has slick on boarding media to funnel users onto these platforms with step by step guides on how to setup accounts and get vetted. The on-boarding process is better documented by these groups than the services themselves.
I've also seen contingency comms plans in opposition groups starting to form should platforms try to cull both sides in an attempt to been seen as playing fair.
What's the end game look like for communities who want to avoid moderation? Things like decentralized immutable message ledgers with vetted in person trust chains becoming an in-demand/enabling technology. If it is mathematically possible to secure comms it will be used.
My personal take? Address the root causes of the disaffected population. Monitoring and reacting is fools game.
It seems like this argument boils down to: if the community violating the TOS is organized enough that shutting it down won't stop them, then an exception should be made to the rules.
The problem is that no one is responsible for this issue. There is no existing social construct that can address this problem.
> then an exception should be made to the rules.
By all means shut down communities. Just keep in mind that it won't solve the long term problem.
These moves successfully de-platformed and pissed off racists and terrorists, very good.
Personally, I believe that de-platforming is a useful tool when radicalization is spreading like a contagion, but only if it is applied in a consistent way and with well defined boundaries.
But de-platforming the radicalizing accounts is an effective way to de-racalize.
Taking away communication kicks the can down the road in the same way.
But we should disable radicalization immediately because they already organized to attack the capitol.
I keep hearing this, but the data shows a different story. Trump supporters (and Republicans) in general are wealthier than Democrats, and the country as a whole.
See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps...
These are terrorists we are talking about, not conservative grandparents sharing memes on facebook.
The exact same arguments were made for info wars when they were banned. There was a big jump in numbers the first couple weeks and when they could no longer recruit the susceptible they disappeared from all serious discussions of conservative view points. Elimination of bad faith arguments doesn't actually amplify those views on timescales that actually matter.
The president was basically communicating with the mob through Twitter. Ten minutes after Trump tweeted that his VP was a coward and a traitor, the mob that had invaded the Capitol started chanting, "Give us Pence". This is as the U.S. VP is also being evacuated.
I do also recall that he called out Pence during the speech leading to the riot as well.
However the thing that stood out the most to me at that speech is that his son said they would make the party the “Trump Republican Party”, which seemed to indicate a coming purge.
Now at the time, I thought it would be a nonviolent purge, but considering the riot I am not sure what was actually intended since his followers took that to mean Pence should be hanged.
Citation needed.
And what were the differences between these two protests?
What was the purpose of the protests over the summer? What was the purpose of the protest on Jan 6?
It's dishonest to equate the two. Jan 6 protest existed explicitly to overthrow the democratic transfer of power in this country.
Multiple explosive devices were found, guns were found, and the crowd came armed with pepper spray and tasers and clubs. They also were wearing body armor. Your representation of the events of Jan 6 is completely at odds with all the video evidence (and there is a lot of that) that exists.
The murdered a cop, ffs.
The "most powerful military in the history of the solar system" did not deploy for roughly 4 hours. The rioters were leaving on their own accord when the backup finally arrived.
Maybe you should reconsider your point.
It's also interesting to see how folks will use sarcasm and not speak directly about what they are defending. Do you realize what you are defending?
“Do you realize what you are defending?” is just a tactic to shut down a conversation you don’t feel like having.
Because that's what this conversation is about. A murderous mob sic'd on Congress by the President because he didn't like losing an election. So again, to all the people defending this action, do you realize what you are defending?
And I'm happy to have this conversation. Folks want to minimize Trump's lies that directly lead to the deaths of 5 people, one of which was a cop beaten to death by his mob, then yes, let's have this conversation.
These people were recruiting and planning everything on Parler, doxxing and sharing information. This is what happens when a platform goes unmoderated. People like to think that a 100% free speech platform is great, but every instance of it I've seen has devolved into child porn, doxxing and violence.