> our societies need tools that can survive popular histrionics. Getting owned by some sanctimonious prick at Amazon is not pro level play.
Seems like banning communities that led directly to an insurrection in congress should be one of those tools, no? I mean, that part was a bit more than just "histrionics" by "sanctimonious pricks".
I know you won't buy this because of the environment that we find ourselves in, but I assure you that those of us on the left care JUST AS MUCH about civil liberties and free speech as you do. We do. I swear it.
We just don't think that forum moderation is really that much an infringement on them (I mean, you're posting this on a heavily moderated forum right now). And we're less willing to forgive or excuse the spillovers from speech into action that we've seen.
No one who posted on Parler should be denied a voice on other forums. They just need to do so in places where they can't get away with calling for real violence.
Those groups all got closed, so far as I know, many of them long before the 6th. Do you have specific one's you're worrying about? It's fair to argue that Facebook should have done more, or did the wrong thing, but they were pretty transparently trying to clean things up at least. Parler wasn't banned retroactively as punishment, they were banned because they were continuing to do no meaningful moderation even days after the attack.
So, the path to success for Parler would have been:
Step 1: Hire huge moderation team.
Step 2: Write draconian terms of service that incorporated every possible offensive thing that any vendor might object to.
Step 3: Build an app that explodes with all the users that are delighted with the moderation.
Step 4: Profit!
That's not how Facebook and Twitter ("the free speech wing of the free speech party") were launched, but maybe those wouldn't ever have been able to launch today anyway.
The problem is that twitter and Facebook already exist and do their jobs well enough and have moderation
Any parler type thing is only ever going to get the worst of the worst of possible users. The folks who get kicked off Facebook and Twitter aren't the people you want to build a business on
> kicked off Facebook and Twitter aren't the people you want to build a business on
They could have if they went with a provider located in another more conservative country. Or long-shot self hosted.
Not supporting Parler however, it deserves it's rightful place in the embers of eternal hell for negligently failing to protect & secure sensitive user data.
Twitter's moderation has become partisan enough that it might be desirable to build a business on people they have kicked off. Notably Trump - while he was supremely unpopular on the left, opinion polling suggests he is leaving a more popular legacy than, eg, George W Bush. Maybe even George H.W. Bush. That is a pretty decent foundation for a business.
That's also an unsettled assertion. Especially when talking about kicking off Trump, since they had been letting him break the rules for years. Removing his exemption is arguably a reduction in partisan bias.
That is a particularly difficult argument to make - Twitter put out a statement [0] when they banned him. They do not mention 'breaking the rules for years'. They take a surreal and incoherent view that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." is an incitement of violence.
Siding with a political majority is a safe strategy; but that statement is pretty much indefensible. Even if you believe they had grounds for the ban based on a history, their actual reasoning is different from your justification.
Nonpartisan moderation would involve, at some level, quotes or instances where Trump said something objectionable.
I don't think the statement reflects their full reasoning when you consider the context of how they had been putting out other statements about why they weren't banning him.
> Step 2: Write draconian terms of service that incorporated every possible offensive thing that any vendor might object to.
No, just violent rhetoric associated with a real world violent movement. I don't understand why that keeps not registering in these discussions.
I mean, even accepting your frame that we leftists have infested Big Tech and want nothing but to censor our political enemies: they've had years and years to do it, and didn't. And only when it got to the point where congress was actually attacked that a site had to be shut down. And it was just one site, and its users just moved on to Gab and such.
I mean really, if conservatives are so terribly censored... how is it you guys are so loud about it?
> And it was just one site, and its users just moved on to Gab and such.
Is this intentionally ironic? Or did you not actually know that Gab was completely deplatformed in exactly the same way, and it almost killed them by knocking them offline for months, just when they hit a big growth curve. Interesting, actually, that the timing was so similar, as well as some of the same players.
I'd argue the insurrection narrative is as much of a farce as Kim Jong Il hitting 11 hole-in-one strokes on a golf course, because if you voice doubt about the absurdity of the claim, it marks you as a dangerous subversive. Everybody knows it, and they're just too afraid to say so because they're worried they will get put on a list. Some conspicuously unarmed people trespassed and even managed to bring camera crews.
Tech companies make these grand unctuous gestures because it distracts from how awful they know they already are. Everybody knows. The Parler CEO failed to create an alternative platform because he thought he could bargain with people who are not only not-above mendacity and deception, but it is their stock in trade. He's just a coach who lost in the play-offs due to unforced errors.
Look into the history of Greek city states. A mob of civilians storming the chambers of government is quite literally how tyrants have installed themselves.
Some of those tyrants had to try multiple times, before the last attempt succeeded. They generally follow up by killing their political rivals, because people who come to power through violence rarely turn around and adopt a policy of pacifism.
Possibly even more apropos is the example of Julius Caesar. In his first consulship his supporters were able to intimidate the other consul into silence, essentially making him a temporary dictator. Once he came back from Gaul, the senate gave him unprecedented honours because they were scared of his supporters, and he effectively started ruling as a dictator (once he got around to actually declaring himself dictator for life, some senators did assassinate him).
It's hard not to see this through that lens; terrify the legislative body enough, and they'll break the constitution for you (in Caesar's case, make you sole consul, sidelining the other properly elected consul, give you a highly unusual command in Gaul, then make you effective permeant dictator; in this case, overturn the election, for starters).
If you want to be hyper-pedantic, it's maybe not a coup; it wasn't the military. Nor was Caesar's first power grab, though (and arguably not the others either; Caesar's supporters were likely a more immediate personal threat to the senators than his army).
There was no real threat to democracy here. It's not like the police and military are going to take commands from some nutjob cosplayer just because they're wielding Nancy Pelosi's lectern.
Not the mob directly, but a wicked power struggle could have ensued if they'd, say, succeeded in hanging Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi. For instance, martial law could have been declared, or an alt-right paramilitary could have formed, or the Federal government could have reacted so strongly that states defy orders and rulings. Probably the most realistic worry would be that political violence and domestic terrorism become normalized.
It really did make the US government seem far more fragile than I even expected.
I mean, it was unlikely to work. But intimidating the legislature into abandoning the constitution (in this case, overturning the election) through violent action has a long, nasty history.
Killing elected officials going through the steps of a peaceful transition of power would have been "no real threat to democracy"?
> It's not like the police and military are going to take commands from some nutjob cosplayer just because they're wielding Nancy Pelosi's lectern.
Just because the USA would not instantaneously have become a dictatorship doesn't mean that there was no threat to democracy. Do you think Joe Biden would be president right now had they succeeded in storming the building (and had none of the officials been evacuated)?
> Killing elected officials going through the steps of a peaceful transition of power would have been "no real threat to democracy"?
Yes, that is absolutely correct. Even if the rioters got hold of some legislators (highly doubtful - the only one that got close got shot, and that was the end of that), it would not have changed anything material about our government. Our institutions are far, far stronger than that.
The only difference is that we'd be adding murder charges to the docket.
> Do you think Joe Biden would be president right now had they succeeded in storming the building (and had none of the officials been evacuated)?
Without question. This is a weird right-wing fantasy that somehow occupying a building is going to change government. It didn't even work in rural Oregon.
I want to remind you that the military are supposed to take orders from their commander in chief - who, on January 6th, was Donald Trump.
Neither January 6th, nor in Athens would a mob rush the chambers of government to install God-King Billy Rando, who nobody has heard of. Coups only work when the person benefiting from them already has a large amount of civilian and political, and sometimes, but not always, military support behind him - but not large enough to win power through legitimate means.
Suppose that the mob compelled congress to affirm Trump as the winner. Do you really think the 'police' (Which police force? Would they have jurisdiction? Who'd be giving them this order? Nancy Pelosi does not give police forces orders...) would have headed to Pennsylvania avenue to arrest Trump? What if the part of the military that is supposed to put down civilian coups (Which part is that, by the way?) decided to sit this one out?
At best, events would escalate into an actual, successful coup.
> I want to remind you that the military are supposed to take orders from their commander in chief
The military (at least here in the US) swears allegiance to the Constitution, not the president. And they were very clear about broadcasting that the military was not going to interfere in domestic politics.
They don't take orders from a piece of paper, they take orders from the president.
If the sitting president were affirmed by congress, they would have to continue taking orders from him.
Militaries not interfering in domestic politics is one way that coups can succeed. They stand on the side lines, let the power struggle happen, and then take direction from the winner.
You seem to think that it would be obvious to everyone who the winner would be, regardless of what would happen. You are ignoring a very loud, heavily armed, rather large part of the population (both in the streets, and in congress) to whom it was obvious that Trump was the legitimate winner.
On January 6 it was fully obvious to everyone with any authority who the winner of the election was. All the states had certified their results. There was zero chance that this "insurrection" was going to accomplish anything.
> Everybody knows it, and they're just too afraid to say so because they're worried they will get put on a list. Some conspicuously unarmed people trespassed and even managed to bring camera crews.
Can you spell out what exactly you are implying here? I don't feel included in the "everybody knows it".
Sympathizing with people trying to literally block the constitutional duty of congress engaging in carrying out the most fundamental aspect of a democracy?
Seems like banning communities that led directly to an insurrection in congress should be one of those tools, no? I mean, that part was a bit more than just "histrionics" by "sanctimonious pricks".
I know you won't buy this because of the environment that we find ourselves in, but I assure you that those of us on the left care JUST AS MUCH about civil liberties and free speech as you do. We do. I swear it.
We just don't think that forum moderation is really that much an infringement on them (I mean, you're posting this on a heavily moderated forum right now). And we're less willing to forgive or excuse the spillovers from speech into action that we've seen.
No one who posted on Parler should be denied a voice on other forums. They just need to do so in places where they can't get away with calling for real violence.