[dagmx]

It's also the day there was an insurrection/invasion of the capitol to prevent the Democratic process. This was fueled by the unfettered calls to violence on Parler.

If you're going to pick the events of the day, it's best to mention both.

[QuizzicalCarbon]

To elevate that mob of miscreants and their raid to an insurrection or invasion will only give them more legitimacy and notoriety. They are criminals, period, who never had a chance to cause fundamental damage to the function of government (by their own actions, anyway). Don’t give them more power.

[throwaway201103]

After a summer of riots, looting, and violence all across the country, fueled by calls to violence on Twitter and Facebook

[ineedasername]

None what happened over the summer violently broke into the second most important building in our country and disrupted one of the most important processes fundamental to our democracy, destroying the US's record for peaceful transfer of power.

If you don't see a qualitative difference between that and the few rioters over the summer, then I don't think there's really room for discussion here.

[zo1]

That's such an arbitrary line to draw, and a convenient one at that. I guess "Some rioters are more equal than others".

[ineedasername]

Not an arbitrary line. You seem to think I wouldn't support criminal charges for the rioters over the summer. I do. I think they should all be prosecuted for any crimes committed.

But there are lines to be drawn, and It's certainly not an arbitrary line when it's drawn between the severity of crimes & their impact on society & the foundation of our government.

Are you telling me you don't see a difference between rioters that disrupt the peaceful transfer of power between Presidents? Between the a rioters that burned down a Wendy's compared to rioters that planned to assassinate the Vice President?

Sure, prosecute everyone who breaks the law, destroys property, etc. But I have no idea how you can say there is not a significant difference, a clear line to be drawn, between the impact of the Capitol rioters and those over the Summer.

It's the equivalent of you saying that a thief breaking into the house next door is no different than a thief breaking into the second most important building in the country. The later has a much larger implication for society, undermines society at a deeper level.

[three_seagrass]

Which were moderated, or at least attempted to be moderated, by Twitter and Facebook.

Parler openly allowed the planning of this violent anti-democratic insurrection and has been deemed bad faith in their moderation.

[s__s]

Genuinely curious if you can source that in any substantial way?

Would also be curios if Facebook or Twitter was used in any way to plan or facilitate communication leading up to the event.

[dagmx]

Facebook and Twitter provide accountable moderation. Parler doesn't and instead claims to assign moderation to random unaccountable users instead. This is according to their CEOs own interview earlier this week.

You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.

[s__s]

Thanks I’ll read in to it.

Doesn’t 230 protect websites from moderation because it would be completely untenable?

Some of the most extreme speech I’ve seen have been on Facebook and Twitter. However I don’t hold them responsible since they’re providing communication infrastructure.

[dagmx]

I'd have to read up on the exact extents of 230, but it's largely related to lawsuits and does not preclude platform TOS from holding things to a higher code of conduct.

Additionally I believe that 230 doesn't apply to knowledgeable hosting of illegal content. So if inciting violence is a known element on a site, and the owners are aware, then I believe (not a lawyer) that they can't hide behind 230.

Also I do not believe 230 prevents lawsuits against hosting services necessarily. It may make tech companies liable for providing a platform to a service that is behind 230 but they themselves can't claim that.

With regards to Facebook and Twitter, they have significantly larger user bases and active moderation. So definitely not perfect but they can remove content that violates all the ToS they may be beholden to. Parler does not provide such a thing, and doubles down on not doing so. So a lot of content gets removed from FB/Twitter, and if stuff doesn't due to slipping through the cracks, they still abide when notified of transgressions.

Additionally, as noted elsewhere, parler does moderate by removing content that the community dissaproves of, but that is legally in the clear, white leaving up what is largely considered discussion of illegal activity. Therefore they are tacit in those conspiring events.

[kamranjon]

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/05/how-the-...

[dagmx]

What calls for violence, that weren't moderated? What organized looting? What riots that weren't instigated by police brutality? Did any of these try and overthrow the Democratic process?

Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.

[lliamander]

Politicians, including the incoming VP, did encourage and even bailed out the rioters, and did nothing to curb the violence directed at innocent civilians.

Let me be clear, even if you believe police brutality is a real problem, there can be no justification for the torching of homes and livelihoods done last summer.

Escalating to violence at the capitol was wrong, but I have little sympathy for the politicians that did not use their influence to curb that massive harm done communities across the country by the riots.

[dagmx]

The rioters that were bailed out, were they involved in said looting and violence? What were they guilty of? Do you have links to people who took part in criminal activities that were bailed out by the VP or other politicians?

Did the VP encourage and incite violence?

[lliamander]

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-crimin...

This information is not hard to find.

[dagmx]

Two of the three listed people are for crimes unrelated to the protest.

The only one related to the protest has no body cam footage made available. It's currently an allegation and should be treated as such, especially given the protests revolve around police brutality and several events of police fabricating events (Breonna Taylor).

Regardless, you claim the VP encouraged rioters. Did she encourage them to commit violence? Did she or any of her close affiliates say to hang other members of government? Did they say there should be trial by combat?

This is a clear shifting of goalposts and false equivalencies between a (then senator) donating to a charity and a current president and his affiliates fomenting violence.

Did Kamala tell the rioters that they're special and she loves them after they stormed a government building with pipe bombs and zip ties?

[diveanon]

So you decided to go with the both sides argument?

Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?

[concordDance]

Neither Biden nor Trump actively incited riots. Though both were wishy washy about their respective riots, generally supporting "protestors" and giving generic statements disavowing violence.

[Nathanba]

there is only one side with a president. If you had asked differently, you couldnt be so biased anymore because many many democrat politicians were quite explicitly encouraging more riots and even harassment of politicians. While police stations were burned down. Meanwhile a bunch of Trump supporters casually walked into the senate laughing and smiling and giving thumbs up to the camera. If you cant see which one is worse, nobody can help you

[diveanon]

Are you fucking kidding me?

They were chanting "Hang Pence", they had guns, they killed a police officer, they setup a fucking gallows. They were seeking hostages and a few guards and chair barricade were the only thing preventing them from stopping the certification process for the the first time in our countries history.

Are you really this disconnected from what is actually happening right now or do you have you head so far up your ass that you can't see the difference between civil rights protests and an armed coup at the capitol of the United States?