[chromatin]

I don’t take it at all as the threat you portray it as.

Instead, it is a sage warning — I fear the man who has nothing left to lose.

Let’s be honest, our society has major cracks at the seams, and it is prudent to be worried about the ripping social fabric leading to worsening unrest, and, ultimately violence. (Apologies for the terribly mixed metaphors)

[dane-pgp]

> I fear the man who has nothing left to lose.

Does taking away a man's Twitter account really mean he has nothing left to lose?

I will grant you that if (or when) big platforms collude together to prevent millions of people from buying and selling, that will lead to some desperate people deciding they need to resort to violence to survive, but that's not what we've seen so far and it's not the stated goal of the big platforms.

The existing violence we saw was not a reaction to people being censored, but instead arguably a result of lies about the election spreading unimpeded due to a lack of censorship. To argue that it was censorship that triggered the problem (and that a few people losing their social media accounts justifies an insurrection) is the tail dangerously wagging the dog.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not pro-censorship, and I wouldn't trust big platforms to decide what the truth is, or what "dangerous ideas" need to be hidden from people. I'm just pointing out that the argument of "If you do this (technically legal) thing, you will be met with violence" is not automatically a moral or decisive one, even if it is correct.

[chromatin]

> Does taking away a man's Twitter account really mean he has nothing left to lose?

Of course not.

The article was about shutting people out of the financial system (I acknowledge that you mention this later, albeit briefly, in your comment), which is all that my response was intended to address. It is unfortunate you chose to lead with what amounts to a strawman.

> To argue that it was censorship that triggered the problem (and that a few people losing their social media accounts justifies an insurrection) is the tail dangerously wagging the dog.

I didn't, which again sounds like a strawman. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment to be broader than it was.

> the argument of "If you do this (technically legal) thing, you will be met with violence" is not automatically a moral or decisive one, even if it is correct.

I can't parse this. What is a moral argument? Do you mean "in bad faith?" I wouldn't even equate those two concepts FWIW. An argument is correct, or it isn't. I don't assign morality to an argument itself.

[dane-pgp]

If all you're saying is "shutting people out of the financial system will leave them with little choice but resorting to violence" then I probably agree with you.

The author's reference to the recent "stress test", though, and your mention of the existing "cracks at the seams", at least hinted at the position that past violence was attributable to past censorship. However, your comment didn't explicitly make that point, and the inference may only exist in my head, in which case please accept my apologies for associating you with that position.

> What is a moral argument?

I suppose what I meant was "an argument in support of a morally acceptable position". Perhaps the adjective doesn't juxtapose well with the noun, but I think there needs to be a way to condemn some arguments on moral grounds. For example, "You should commit that crime, because you'll never be caught" is not a (morally) good argument for committing a crime, even if it is factually true.

[raffraffraff]

> I fear the man who has nothing left to lose.

So much this.