[swift532]

I would disagree in the case of platforms which are monopolies. Or in this case let's call it a triopoly because they collaborate on things like this.

Same like how public utility companies cannot shut off your power or water because they don't like you.

[sh1989]

If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you.

There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term.

This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.

[jsiepkes]

> If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you.

You got it backwards. The Internet was build in such a way everyone could easily host their own platform. However due to companies like Amazon using questionable and monopolistic tactics the Internet is now build in such a way it's going to be very hard to go around these companies.

> This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.

While a disgrace, riots and pillaging can hardly be called a coup. Read about the 2016 Turkish coup attempt to see what a real coup (attempt) looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... . Just like hard wind is not a hurricane, this wasn't a coup.

[wilsynet]

Wait.

The President of the United States has spent the past several weeks trying to get anyone and everyone to: throw our legitimate votes, conjure new illegal votes, getting the Vice President to reject electors, getting the Senate to reject electors, sharing doctored videos, telling his supporters that they need to hold traitors accountable, telling his supporters to March in the capital and show strength.

Yeah, those rioters did not effect a coup, or even come close. But it is definitely true that someone is attempting a coup.

[krzyk]

I think you didn't read the article mentioned by the poster above. Basically to have a coup you need some kind of force and I don't mean thousands of guys with pitchforks I mean a large part of military with real soldiers that have experience and are trained to use guns.

Just because Trump is not capable of seeing that he lost doesn't mean he tried a coup, like the gp said, it is just a stronger wind, not a hurricane.

[sh1989]

You're describing a very specific form of coup, a military coup.

But they did have some kind of force. Enough to storm the capitol. With a noose, zip ties and cries to hang people in the line of succession.

While the President agitated them and then watched on monitors.

[bob33212]

One police officer was murdered and congress had to stop their work. Why don't you tell us where the line should be drawn. If they had murdered 100 cops would that be enough? 5 senators? The vice president?

[jsiepkes]

Even outlets like CNN are back-pedalling on calling this thing a coup: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/insurrection-coup-sedi... . Besides opinion pieces (which are clearly marked as such) and some quotes CNN doen't call it a coup (anymore).

> A "coup," shorthand for "coup d'état," is broadly characterized by Merriam-Webster as a "sudden decisive exercise of force in politics," but particularly the "violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group."

Civil unrest definitely does not qualify as "sudden decisive exercise of force". Now if Trump had declared a state of emergency because of the unrest and then use the emergency laws to arrest political opponents, now that would have been a coup.

[wilsynet]

So somewhere between a military coup and a bloodless coup [1] is what’s being attempted by the current President.

I think we can all agree that if Trump succeeded, a large number of people would call it a coup and they would be right.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution#

[krzyk]

There are many bloodless coups that are also military coups [1], the possibility of using a force has almost the same power as using a force.

Revelotion != coup.

Coups is done by a small but capable force, they would need to take both Capitol and Pentagon at least (and I mean not just shoot everyone there, but persuade those in control to give it up or turn them).

How do you envision those that raided capitol could take power of US? All they could do is just sit there and wait for special forces shoot them one by one.

Coup wasn't even considered, most probably what they did is plant malicious software on laptops/servers there and I think the real threat will be seen only few months later.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...

[sh1989]

They built a noose, went in with zipties and were chanting "hang pence". That it was botched doesn't make it any less of a coup. And there was a clear and present threat from the services that have been closed down.

But sure, ignore all the stuff that contradicts your argument to minimise the impact of an assault on democratic institutions.

[krisoft]

Why would you bring zip ties to pillaging? Were they prepared to fix the lectern in case it slips from their hands? Or more likely they were prepared to take hostages? The crowd was chanting their wish to hang the vice president.

You are right. It was a disgrace and a very unserious attempt, but the aim was clearly a coup.

Winds don’t have aims and goals. That crowd went there to stop the process of congress affirming President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. That’s what makes it a coup attempt. If only successfull and well organized coups would count what would be the meaning of the term “coup attempt”?

[dash2]

There's room for some nuance here. A bunch of fairly confused people with fairly confused goals, and no clear plan to achieve them, wouldn't normally count as a coup. There may have been actors who had more of a plan. It's not a 0-1 binary thing.

[sh1989]

They were quite literally seconds away from something incredibly more serious happening.

Just because they botched the implementation doesn't lessen the intent.

[NicoJuicy]

> what a real coup (attempt) looks like

While I agree the physical attempt was weak. Parler was literally hyping up about killing multiple politicians ( eg. Planting the head of the VP on a tree).

Additionally, they got really far, up to the chamber where they hid. If they would have breached that chamber, the coup could have succeeded ( eg. No Pelosi/Pence/Biden/..)

I severely underestimated the talks on Parler until I saw the evidence and Amazon banned them.

As a reference, the coup on 06/01 is very similar to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch

Also, the 50 lawsuits without any sufficient evidence to throw out legitimate votes and trying to win by in person peer pressure doesn't belong in any western democracy.

This was a coup. A failed coup is still a coup.

( Belgian )

[kingaillas]

And I disagree, platforms are not monopolies. Your public utility is a different category because they are PHYSICAL infrastructure - you can't easily compete among providers for service due to real world physical limits.

But you can make your own software stack, from the ground up if needed.

I mean this is HN, where people think dropbox is easily cloned over a weekend (it's just rsync and tftp), twitter employs 10 times as many people as needed since it really only take a few dozen, etc. And, the free market plus private corporations are part of the natural order of the world, why weren't they the 11th commandment God etched on the tablets given to Abraham?

Quit moaning on a web forum about how a non-government entity must accommodate your chat needs, and actually make your own. Or go old school and print all the crap you want to distribute. Last I checked the Constitution didn't guarantee your access to social media. Can't really say the Founding Fathers original intent was that you can hit the like button on some post hosted by a private corporation, no matter what.

[FranzFerdiNaN]

Without water you die. You will be totally fine even if you no longer can post insane conspiracy theories about microchipped pedophiles who want to eat your brains on Twitter. Because you can still make a sign and stand outside city hall to protest it.

[lordnacho]

Just like you need water, you need to participate in society. For instance you need to know that there's a virus out there that experts think is quite serious, and you need to know what everyone else thinks the right response is.

[jonathanstrange]

You're not answering to his point, though. Anyone can know all this without posting "...insane conspiracy theories about microchipped pedophiles who want to eat your brains."

[lordnacho]

No, you can't. Someone's gotta make all that news for you to read, and they have to be able to disseminate it in a way that makes it louder than all the conspiracies, or else you will also not know the truth from the lies.

Without water you'll die. Without the facts that lady got herself killed the other day.

[jonathanstrange]

Your answer does not address what I wrote or OP's point.

[wilsynet]

You can watch the news and read a newspaper. You don’t need Twitter to tell you there’s a virus out there.

[josefx]

The first COVID news spread over wechat, while the chinese government was still claiming that there was nothing to worry about. So yes we needed twitter and its alternatives to know about it.

[mensetmanusman]

The news told these people they need to go fight in the middle east and ‘Defend Freedom’ because Saddam has nukes. That ship has unfortunately sailed.

[maccard]

Tarring all news outlets with the same brush isn't helpful here. Twitter, Facebook, HN, reddit, you name it, have all had their fair share of sending an unjustified angry mob at someone.