My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary.

It's like fitting everyone with a shock collar and saying it will only be used against insurrectionists. The government will be a lot less worried about resistance, and the definition of "insurrectionist" is likely to move over time.

It just doesn't seem like a good direction to me.

Yes, these are private companies. Yes, they don't have to spend time, money or infrastructure on anyone they don't want on the platform, I understand all of this.

What I merely want to comment on is the ubiquity of these websites. Facebook, Google, Twitter and even TikTok are increasingly becoming primary means that people around the world communicate. If I'm a racist prat that spams that we should "kill all those muslamics, innit", sure I should be warned or removed from these platforms, however that significantly diminish my means of contacting other people.

I have friends that I can only really contact through Facebook. I'm trying to add them on multiple services so that I stay away from a single-point-of-failure, however some of my relatives are old and/or technologically inept, and they never check their email or SMS. While I could call them, if I were to get banned from Facebook that could reduce my ability to communicate with these people down quickly and easily to near zero.

I understand that there are actions for your consequences, I just fear that with these services becoming so commonplace (see WeChat in China, for example), being locked out of these walled gardens could have severe, real world impacts to those that the platform doesn't like.

I don't know, just food for thought.

From the perspective of Amazon, Google, Apple, and many others, the overthrowing of the US Government negatively impacts their long-term goals in many areas, such as profit and employee retention. If the US Government were overthrown and Trump became dictator, Amazon would have to move a ton of customer data to other countries because America would be the new China.

It's crazy that it took a coup attempt to open their eyes to this risk. The fact that they didn't take action sooner suggests that a lot of C-level folks throughout the tech world have been pretty complacent in regards to government stability.

In this case, you had people trying to overthrow a democratic vote. So they are literally the enemies of a free society. But the same laws and infrastructure to prevent this can be misused.

That's the hard stop. You can't have a governmental system that is fault tolerant to malicious misrule. You need to apply laws or laws lose power, and you need to trust those carrying out governing to obey some norms.

I am just saying that there are limits to trust. And when someone you 99.9% trust tries to convince you to give them 100% trust, you should pause.

Don’t think this is even vaguely true. We know that one of the primary tools of activists (or insurrectionists / terrorists depending on your point of view) in other countries are WhatsApp groups, and other encrypted chat platforms.

If one is organising a serious insurrection, then I believe one does not normally broadcast their plans to the enemy. That’s kinda strikes me as op-sec 101.

Only in a free and open society could you possibly hope to organise an insurrection in public, on broadcast platforms, without direct and immediate consequences brought down by the state. We must be so pampered to believe that the right to organise in public is a requirement insurrection.

Insurrections were organized well before AWS and the like existed, and they will still be organized well after AWS and the like are gone.

Limiting platforms that make it easier to radicalize large numbers of people is still a good thing.

> AWS has rules.

Also, "we're trying to have a f'ing society here"

A few hundred people stalled the counting of electoral votes for literally a few HOURS. Hardly a "near-overthrow" of anything other than Trump himself.

That's giving WAY too much credit. The US Government is not a room or a building. A coup is considered successful if it holds power for 7 days; these jokers didn't hold power for 7 seconds.

> insurrection to overthrow an uncontested democratic result.

This is overstating from a certain point of view. It was contested in court (and soundly affirmed). Bear with me for a moment - if what Trump was saying about the election were true, we would want this kind of reaction. I think we can all agree that rigged elections are an affront to democracy. It's just that this election wasn't rigged, as affirmed by courts many times, so the mob wasn't acting righteously. This train of thought has some nuance so I'm not going to be surprised when some folks misinterpret it.

There are two things to think about:

1) how have we let misinformation get so bad that it ultimately forms insurrection? We've got Snopes, disclaimers on social media, etc - is deplatforming the only thing left to counter fake news that calls people to violent action?

2) what are the implications of giving social media & hosting platforms the power to arbitrate what's fake news and what's not? This is incredible power and without checks & balances it is probably too much for individual private companies to hold the keys.

This is an counterfactual to consider. Indeed, we should defend the integrity of the democratic system at almost any cost. However, facts matter.

Trump's statements about the election were not, in fact, true. They are lies. The votes have been counted, recounted and certified. The courts have been consulted. The media has investigated. Election observers from both campaigns watched the whole thing.

Some of the insurrectionists may have thought they were defending democracy, but that doesn't change the fact that they were actually attacking the very democracy they claimed to defend.

> how have we let misinformation get so bad that it ultimately forms insurrection?

Catastrophically bad leadership. While the individual insurrectionists must fact justice, the leaders who intentionally deluded and incited them must also be held accountable. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, a lawful democracy cannot tolerate democratically-elected leaders who use their authority to attack the core mechanisms of democracy.