Actually, Parler has been use to literally plan an overthrow of the US government. That's why it's banned.

So far, Parler and its associates have come a lot closer to dismantling American democracy than Iran ever has. That's why they get taken more seriously. Neither Twitter, nor Apple, nor Amazon want to be responsible for the rise of a fascist regime in the US.

Too often, you can't see the rise of authoritarianism until its too late. This time, we saw it in time. I commend these companies for taking a stand, despite the obvious backlash they'll suffer as a result.

Respectfully, I think you missed the point. There are many voices on parler not out to overthrow anything. You may disagree with them, but they are within the mainstream of political debate. The power of a tech oligarchy to take out its competitor is a serious violation of anti-trust law. There are less ham-fisted approaches to dealing with illegal activity. The DOJ and FBI have effective means to do it.

Now that the Parler dataset has been harvested - we may actually get to see how many of those voices were rational.

If you're within the mainstream of political debate, you have no problem existing on mainstream social networks.

But, as a consumer, they have the right to choose the platform they want to be on. Twitter and Facebook have their problems. The element of user choice should be a constant incentive to improve.

Of course, I was responding to the sentiment of "You can't discuss conservative views on (platform x)!" which is generally untrue.

Whether or not there are some rational voices on Parler is beside the point: Parler is not moderating the voices that support and plan actual violence. That means that any company that supports Parler, including Apple and AWS until recently, is potentially also complicit in that violence. Those companies have warned Parler that they need to moderate, and Parler has not acquiesced.

Apple and Amazon absolutely have the legal right to not do business with anyone, for any reason; and they have the ethical obligation to not do business with anyone openly proposing violence.

They are not objective arbiters of the content on Parler, since they are competitors. They do not have the right to oust a competitor. There's similarly very nasty comments on twitter that they let stand.

I've read that Twitter and Facebook were used more than Parler to orchestarate the capital takeover. But, being founding members of the high tech corporate cartel, they will never get banned.

Your right though -- you often can't see the rise of authoritarianism until its too late. Sometimes it comes from the place you least expect.

You're the only one who's confused. BLM is both a sentiment and a real political organization. The sentiment is overwhelmingly popular whereas the actual political movement is not. You're attempting to lump them together in a way that most people don't

It's really hard to argue that conservative voices are completely silenced when the have the largest network news television station in the country. Take a look at the New York Times best seller list sometime and look at how many conservative authors make the list.

Yes, you can't spread fake bullshit on Twitter anymore about how the election was stolen but even that would've been ok until 5 people died trying to overthrow the capital.

Actions have consequences, and unfortunately for conservatives those consequences are a purge from social media as big business seeks to distance itself from radical right-wing politics.

Democracy won here, sorry.

If you read your first sentence, you might see how funny it actually is:

"You're the only one who's confused. BLM is both a sentiment and a real political organization. The sentiment is overwhelmingly popular whereas the actual political movement is not."

Yeah, that's not confusing at all. Kind of like "Hey, 'Defund the Police' doesn't mean defund the police" Maybe the organizers should hire (better) PR firms.

BLM has fantastic PR for an organization that has pretty far left views. That was exactly my point. People are generally positive towards to main stated goals of the organization, preventing police abuse against black people. It resonates with their own experience and the experience of black people they know.

You're trying to conflate the detailed political views of an organization with people who tend to agree that Black people need to be treated like human beings by police officers.

I also agree, 'Defund the Police' is a shit term for Police Reform.

Can't reply to davewritescode but... BLM as a political movement believes that American law enforcement disproportionately targets black citizens with violence disproportionate to the alleged crimes or situations in which the violence occurs. This is not a far left view in my opinion, as someone who hold "far-left"/left-libertarian views on a variety of subjects. "Defund the police" has been proposed by some people who share this core beliefs proposed by the BLM movement as a way to reduce the disproportionate violence against black citizens in the US. Unfortunately, I think it is a vaguely and poorly phrased slogan because I have seen that for some it means abolishment of law enforcement and for many others it means restructuring the funding of law enforcement to provide alternative public services to people who are having a mental health crisis, for example. The idea of reducing law enforcement budgets or redirecting some of the resources currently budgeted for law enforcement to alternative public services doesn't seem to me to necessarily consist of a "far-left" policy either, though that is because I think the notion of reducing law enforcement violence when unwarranted should and is a concern of people of most citizens other than a distinct minority. Of course we are all awash in the propaganda and media messaging of disparate groups with various agendas so understanding all of this in a shared and cohesive manner as a society is messy and somewhat difficult, but well-worth trying.

I just wanted to be clear that the “far-left” parts of the Black Lives Matter movement I was referring to wasn’t demanding police treat of people of color equally, more about some of the economic justice and reparations policies advocated for by the Movement for Black Lives. I’m not saying I disagree with any of them, just acknowledging they’re further left than the most well known policies of the group. They’re also the reason a lot of right wing people denounce the movement as ‘Marxist’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_Black_Lives

Demanding that people all be treated equally by law enforcement isn’t far left, I thought that was important to state that.

A private company cannot be authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a form of government. BLM is not anti-democracy, while those who invaded the Capitol obviously are.

If you consider the silencing of organized threats to overthrow the US government by neo-Nazis and Confederates to be acts against "conservative voices," this tells us a lot about what "conservatism" means now.

When a private company acts in union with, on behalf of, and/or in support of the regime and its political objectives, it is part of the authoritarian system. I think you'd say the same of Twitter were it aligned with the right instead of the left.

> A private company cannot be authoritarian.

Almost all private companies are authoritarian. Examples of non-authoritarian companies might include co-ops.

> Parler and its associates have come a lot closer to dismantling American democracy than Iran ever has

The USA isn't really a democracy. For it to be democratic it would have to use more democratic voting systems than FPTP and the electoral college.

It's an oligarchy, but by the ruling class, which includes the big tech companies.

> Neither Twitter, nor Apple, nor Amazon want to be responsible for the rise of a fascist regime in the US.

Unless it's one where they are in charge.

It's self-evidently impossible for Trump and the red tribe to overthrow the US system of government, they simply don't have control of enough of the levers of power.

It would be a lot easier for Biden/Harris and the blue tribe to do so, as they control a lot more of the levers of power (e.g. academia, journalism, big tech).

An armed mob very nearly did succeed in overthrowing the government. And I suspect we haven't seen the last of them.

We have the closest thing to a democracy that any country has. I'm not going to split hairs about what a "real" democracy is. The fact is, our democracy is good enough that we, the people, (barely) stopped a fascist leader from maintaining power for the indefinite future, despite his very sincere desire to hold on to that power.

> We have the closest thing to a democracy that any country has.

Your overall point is reasonable, but this is a reach there are many countries now that are at least as democratic as the US by any reasonable definition, and some pretty supportable arguments that some of them are meaningfully more democratic.

It's not that interesting to argue about I think though, because the differences are pretty small, and there is a huge gulf between all of the democratic countries and the non-democratic ones.

>very nearly did succeed in overthrowing the government

Is there any historical precedent for such a weakly armed group of people[1] overthrowing a heavily armed government?

Seems like hyperbole suggest they almost succeeded in overthrowing the most heavily armed government in the world.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706437

Not by themselves. In coordinating with politicians who absolutely were trying to overthrow the government, yes. They were all part of the same movement.

I agree theres a lot of people who want to overthrow the government, and that politicians are trying to incite them to do so, and that we me yet see a real attempt to do so.

But its naive to think the most heavily armed and powerful government in the world was nearly overthrown by a mob of people armed with fire extinguishers, zip ties, pepper spray, and little to no guns.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706437

Here is the scenario I’m thinking of: suppose the violence scared enough legislators into going along with the efforts to throw out electoral slates from those five states. That seems like something that very well could have happened.

> An armed mob very nearly did succeed in overthrowing the government

No they didn't. Ransacking a building isn't overthrowing a government.

> We have the closest thing to a democracy that any country has.

Ha ha ha -- good joke, I could do with a laugh

> I'm not going to split hairs about what a "real" democracy is.

It's one where the government does what the people want.

> we, the people, (barely) stopped a fascist leader

Trump isn't a fascist. To be a fascist he would have to be more intelligent and have more coherent beliefs.

> despite his very sincere desire to hold on to that power

Nor does Trump want power. He wants attention -- narcissistic supply.

Trump's actually to lazy to exercise power (as well as being too stupid); that's why he refuses to read memos more than a page long.

Two party system the closest thing to a democracy... Perhaps you should re-evaluate and study other democracies.

LOL - That crowd wasn't anywhere near "overthrowing the government." Don't be ridiculous. And armed insurrection or coup looks very, very different than that. More guns and explosives. Fewer selfies.

To be fair here, they didn't come anywhere near overthrowing anything. One woman protestor got shot by a CP officer. Three had medical emergencies (e.g. heart attacks). A CP officer died from a heart attack after getting hit in the head. A tragedy, yes, that never should have happened, but it wasn't organized enough to take over anything.

Five minutes difference and they could have captured or killed half of congress.

Then it becomes martial law time, with Trump retaining power.

How close is that?

They could have just talked to half of congress as well. Do you have any proof they were planning to hurt any members of congress?

They were chanting about hanging Mike Pence and several were carrying flexicuffs. But I'm sure they were just planning to peacefully air their grievances.

I think it was hyperbolic about Pence betraying Trump. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any proof that any of them were planning on hurting congress.

They were literally chanting "Where's Pelosi" and "Where's Pence". They were carrying flexicuffs. They made a beeline for the Speaker and Majority Whip's unmarked offices. They broke windows, barricades, and one of them got shot trying to enter a hallway not a minute before was filled with Congresspeople.

What in the hell do you think would have happened if they had caught up to any member of Congress? Seriously. Even if you foolishly assume the most charitable and peaceful of intentions, the size of the mob and physical violence on display going through the halls of the Capitol should make it painfully obvious that any Democratic member of Congress they happened upon would have ended up seriously injured. The mob beat a cop to death.

There's simply no way a rational person could come to the conclusion that the mob wouldn't have injured or killed Congresspeople. If you can't see the mob's intent you're either being willfully obtuse or disastrously ignorant. There's not a charitable middle ground as these people documented themselves during the riot and months leading up to it.

I am not saying that the rioters would not have done violence towards congress people. I am saying I would like to see evidence they were intending to do violence. It is possible most were being hyperbolic with their words.

Do you believe that BLM rioters who chanted at politicians and cops and had various weapons intended to murder them? BLM rioters broke through barricades and smashed windows as well. Some BLM rioters killed multiple cops as well.

If I saw a BLM riot break into a building with politicians I would hold the same view I hold with these people. They may do violence, but we don't know for sure.

When people broke into the Wisconsin capital years ago over act 10 I didn't assume they were going to murder people.

I don't like to assume entire groups are going to do violence. When some individuals do violence in a group I don't assume the entire group wants to do violence.

Your right. Carrying zip ties, knives, guns and planting pipe bombs is how you start a peaceful dialog.

I mean after you beat numerous police officers and murder one.

Can you show me any proof any of them had guns? Also, we don't know who planted the bombs.

One person killing a cop doesn't mean the whole group was going to use violence.

Now you are denying the large number of photos of heavily armed insurrectionists there?

And they weren’t stopping their co-“protestors” from beating cops, there were more assaulted.

And we know who planted the bombs, they already arrested multiple individuals who were armed, had pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails and who were photographed at the building.

First, I am not denying they were armed with various weapons, but asking about guns that was claimed.

I agree that people who attacked cops and watched it happen were willing to do violence. They should be in jail. They appear to be a minority of the rioters. That is all I was trying to say.

There was a van that had some molotov cocktails and bombs. These appear to belong to the rioters. I am talking about the bombs placed at the capital and at the RNC headquarters. Just because someone has a bomb doesn't mean they planted bombs nearby. I don't like assuming things like that.

Can you show any proof that the mob was armed?

"Storming the capital" had as much legitimacy as the "raid on AREA 51."

Those people dressed like Huck Finn Braveheart had as much chance of overthrowing the US government as memelords did kidnapping an alien and bringing intergalactic peace.

This feels like 9/11 all over again. You got the worst legislation in US history as a result of 9/11. (the Patriotic Act)

What's going to be the Patriotic Act for the internet now everyone is convinced we are being attacked? We know they want to get rid of Section 230. How bad is the law going to be that replaces it?

Overthrowing the government? Certainly not. But I would not think it unreasonable to say that if the mob had found the actual senate, they would have killed some of them. Let's not construct artificial goal posts about what is utterly and extremely beyond the point of acceptable behavior. They killed a cop with a fire extinguisher. I have no reason to believe they wouldn't swing weapons at Democrat political leaders. Or even Republican political leaders.

Created an account to reply: "Exactly".

When I read other comments expounding on how close we came to a coup, I can't help but roll my eyes as memories of being stuck in Egypt at the beginning of 2011 surface again. It's tough to not go on a rant about the order of magnitude of violence, uncertainty, fear, etc. between what happened with the violent nuts at the capital and a coup.

Not to say that the safety and/or lives of some political leaders weren't at risk, but once you've huddled in a dark apartment while a true overthrow is in play, you'll have no problem distinguishing between the two.

Also, these people knew exactly how to find the offices of Senators Clybourn and Pelosi. Apparently Pelosi's office is unmarked, nondescript, and pretty well hidden down a maze of offices. And Clybourn has two offices, a "public" one, with his name tag on it that he rarely uses, and his official one, which is obscured in a manner similar to that of Pelosi's. Attackers knew which one to choose. Some are suggesting that this indicates support from someone with insider knowledge of the Capitol.

Then there's the whole topic of Boebert and her obsession with carrying a gun around Congress in the days leading up to the event then tweeting their locations live during the incident. It looks like telegraphing in hindsight; like she knew what was going down.

The capitol building itself doesn't have that many offices when you get right down to it. Just wandering around and stumbling across Pelosi's office is quite plausible.

I mean, I've not been there, but according to Congresspeople affected, they feel that it would be impossible for someone unfamiliar with the building to stumble upon their offices. Especially since even members who've worked at the capitol building often still get lost in the complex.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/08/congress-democrats-...

> House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) mentioned that looters had found their way to his unmarked, third floor office and stole his iPad. He questioned how they could locate that office but not his clearly marked ceremonial office in Statuary Hall.

Let's call it a couple hundred offices in the building itself. There are hundreds of people roaming freely, checking what's behind every door. It would be strange if they didn't come across particular offices.

Three and a bit years ago, someone who'd been radicalized by Facebook actually shot at members of Congress after asking about their party affiliation. This wasn't some hypothetical, it actually happened. Not only was there not this kind of concern about Facebook radicalization back then, the House Minority Leader Pelosi and most of the press outright lied and falsely claimed that the party whose Congressman was in hospital fighting for his life were the ones who had incited the attempted murder of a member of Congress, pointing at the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. This was almost the exact, precise opposite of reality; that was inspired by a really bizarre personal disagreement with her which had nothing to do with national politics, whereas the shooting of Scalise seems to have been entirely about that. Nonetheless, the entire mainstream establishment pushed this bogus line.

Bizarrely, the FBI even concluded Scalise's shooting wasn't politically motivated because the assailant was a wife-beater whose wife had got fed up with him and left him, and everyone in the press went along with it - even though if we applied this principle to domestic terrorists in general, the US probably wouldn't have anyone who counted as a domestic terrorist.

They chanted 'hang mike pence', so yeah, also republican leaders.

How many people died in the raid of AREA 51?

None because they never reached area 51. Just like they should have reached through the barriers at the capital.

Coups in the 21st century may not look like coups of the 20th century. This article may interest you - https://themargins.substack.com/p/the-first-phygital-coup

Really? They overwhelmed police and entered the building. The Vice President was moved to a "secure location." If they had arrived 5 minutes earlier, they'd have entered the House full of representatives, who could have been killed or taken hostage. We were a hair's width away from losing democracy and you can't take it seriously.

We are, literally, being attacked by fascists, anarchists, and neo-Nazis.

As I said, it's hard to see these things until it's too late. What happened on Wednesday was nearly the end. If you still don't see it, you're wearing blinders.

I doubt any of the StopTheSteal group has read Kropotkin or spouts on about mutual aid. Interesting characterization there...

It was on purpose.

Like I'm saying powerful people want to convince America we are being attacked. The best way to do that is to make it look like a real threat. They basically left the front door open, where BLM protesters got tear gas immediately. Do you disagree that the response to the two groups of protesters was a little uneven?

The only difference in our opinions is that I think the response was on purpose. Huck Finn Braveheart is not a criminal mastermind. The number of protesters were miniscule compared to the BLM protesters. If the secret service and police actually wanted to stop them it would have been very easy.

Well, US institutions are being attacked. But I agree that the mob is just a mechanism in the system that was wielded poorly and got out of control.

We don't need to crack down on the mob, but we do need to address the situation which led to it's rise.

The electoral college is an outdated piece of government 'software' that has been repeatedly exploited in recent years. Through 2016, there were 58 presidential elections. In 5 of these, the popular vote didn't match the electoral vote. About 8.6% historically.

But for the last couple of decades, excluding this last election which is apparently still being argued, that percentage has been 40% instead of the 6.8% historically.

If Trump's re-election argument fails, that life number will likely drop to 33.3% in my recent subjective experience compared to 8.5% historically, or rise to 50% in recent experience compared to 10.2% historically.

Either way, these numbers mean something's wrong. "That's just a statistical variation you see in any set of data when giving it enough numbers" is not likely with 58 and 59 datapoints. Particularly with the inclusion of other data.

If you check the history logs, you'll see a technological explosion the last couple of decades that coincides with these electoral results that suggest exploitation of the system. Technology allowing fine grained microtargeting is only getting better, and it's being used to exploit the electoral system.

This time with disinformation campaigns and fine grained behavioral tracking and analysis (eg, Cambridge Analytica).

"Yes, we say we're a democracy but technically we're a republic so that means everything is fine and we don't need the numbers to always match up with the voting majority." I mean, I guess. Sure. Until we decide to push exploitation further, beyond the boundaries of the game we've set up.

This time it looks like the actors in the system missed the margin of exploitability within the game and went searching for new exploits. Instead of acknowledging the loss, they spammed every court they could find with useless lawsuits.

Like a malware bot checking every port to try to fingerprint services and check for vulnerable versions. And they turned the disinformation dial up to 11, inciting their base to keep their political machine operational since it's got a 4 year reboot cycle and it'd take time for their port scanning to finish.

This tactic led to a mob rioting. And it's unfortunate, but the mob were ultimately a system mechanic that got out of control. They were the tools or were 'acted upon' in a systems thinking perspective, rather than actors in the system. The actors were wielding them as a tool, and like any tool, irresponsible handling resulted in injury.

Twitter operates in the US so it is in its best interest to do what it can to maintain stability in its own home. To anyone working in US Government, Iran saying stupid things is common. What is not common is for US citizens to incite insurrection and chaos and then a sitting US president endorsing it.

Traditionally, the DOJ and FBI handle serious threats quite effectively. The concern is a tech oligarchy using a ham-fisted approach acting to take out its competition.

Twitter did act against a Chinese tweet about Uygurs the other day

Which one?

The one where they were trying spin forced IUDs and sterilizations as a way to promote gender equity and reproductive health[1]

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-do...

Yeah as a centrist, the double standards we are seeing is what concerns me the most. Instead of all violence and hatred is bad it's "well this is different because they are on our side", that's for "the right reasons", etc to read between the lines.