It's a police tactic called Kettling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling

I’m kind of embarrassed to say it never occurred to me that the goal of kettling was to encourage a non-violent protest to violence. Thinking on it, it makes a sort of sick sense. If the people are actually violent the rules go out the window and you can use whatever force you deem necessary. And the police always consider themselves the superior group.

The link to the Wikipedia article explicitly mentions that is was originally designed to just coop up a crowd for several hours so that they get bored and the situation de-escalates. This was seen as a more effective and humane tactic than dispersing rioting crowds using fear by doing police charges. That said, 1990s era European protests (when the theory behind kettling was developed) were rather less violent than current day American protests, helped in no small part of course by the relative prevalence of firearms in American society and their higher distrust of police forces (again, compared to Europeans. Atm distrust between police and protesters in the USA seems to be in a vicious downward spiral where the actions of both group confirm the prejudices of the other group)

Kettling is one of the less provocative tactics, but it's intended as a collective punishment of the kettled: extra-legal detention for a period of hours with no food, water or toilet facilities.

Police can and will provoke non-violent protests to violence. In a few cases (see the UK's "spycops" scandal) police infiltrators will organise protests so they can arrest dissidents.

Lots of people call it a riot if a crowd does not immediately disperse when ordered to do so. Like super immediately.

> It’s a pretty classic tactic in the history of conflict

Yes when executed by a single coherent entity.

This is not it, unless you believe there is a powerful cabal controlling twitter, facebook, robinhood, discord etc.

They are all doing it independtly to limit the legal and/or financial risks for themselves. Getting people to "strike first" is not the intent, saving $ is the intent here.

Apple, Amazon and Google killing Parler in lockstep isn't coherent enough for you?

No it's not, the moment Parler became a liability to them they dumped it. It for some reason it was to become good business again tomorrow, they would jump to host it again.

There is no intent on the part of the GAFAs to force the lower class into a revolution to get a pretext to squash them or any bigger "art of the war" plan behind those decisions than money.

Their motivation does not matter. The point is that effectively they are a single coherent entity.

Assuming no bad intentions doesn’t change the outcome of their actions.

Doesn’t need to be a grand conspiracy, merely the same reaction by multiple independent entities.

You are talking about result, I am talking about intent. Yes the result might be the same, but there is no intent to "force him to strike first, thus giving you complete justification in your disproportionate response".

Only intent here is ass covering.

Money is the greatest coordinating force in the history of civilization.

It seems preprogrammed in the brain. I can witness that in people that will gradually boil you until you snap and then benefit from the chaos as revenge almost sub-conscientiously

That tactic worked out well during the French Revolution...

Give the Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan a listen. The French revolution was not what it seems... it was elites vs. elites, not peasants vs. monarchy.

It's always elites vs. elites. The problem now is that there's plenty of elites on the outs. Elite overproduction and all that.

It's not as simple as that. I don't think any of Jean-Clément Martin books are translated to english, but its really not as simple as that.

Yeah, what a weird take. As if La Bastille was attacked by French aristocracy. This argument only holds if you hold 2 very loose claims. 1) To confuse the leaders with the whole movement. 2) To compare the rag-tag group of young lawyers, acerbic journalists, disgruntled politicians with the whole ancien regime.

Mike Duncan is an entertainer, not a professional historian.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."

Stalin empirically disproved that statement.

Fair point, so I guess if the leader gets really blatantly violent, along with enough government propaganda, it can stop a revolution.

Luddites is also a good example. Oh, you are poor and starving and protesting on the streets? They start destroying machines? Time to arrest everyone, even those who did nothing.

I'd also make the argument that it's easier to do with today's technology than when Stalin did it.

The propaganda is easier, the violence is harder. Don't know how that balances out...

That tactic backfired multiple times in history, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenestrations_of_Prague

Obligatory we are at higher inequality than immediately before the French Revolution. Wonder what that means?

Some interesting reading:

Professor Walter Scheidel examines the history of peace and economic inequality over the past 10,000 years - https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/24/stanford-historian-unco...

Revolution and the Rebirth of Inequality - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2777764?seq=1