Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha
buzzfeednews.com
buzzfeednews.com
But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting, rioting, and protesting.
Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have homeowners insurance.
Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands.
Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing it themselves.
I mean what does some guy who owns a furniture shop in Seattle have to do with a police officer shooting someone in Chicago?
At this point I fear that the good that could come from this is being drowned out by the violence and the destruction and if it continues it will be counter-productive to the movement.
Yeah, get one of those famous players like Roger Federer. Or maybe the whole Detroit Redskins team.
You might as well say solving conflict in the middle-east is as simple as turning every government there into a functioning liberal democracy.
We can play statistics all day, which is kinda my point. It's pretty obvious there is a bias, but not so obvious (to me) what the root causes are. Racism and second degree soci-economic factors are definitely on the table. Labeling every single police event as racially motivated makes no sense though.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-cle...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/
> Results: Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.
The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters?
This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, what happens if someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, crossed a boarder, is attacked and defends themself? It's food for thought. Is every party, protester, militia, police, simultaneously victim and perpetrator?) That in and of itself doesn't negate the constitutional right of others to do the same thing legally. Just like everything else, a small group of people breaking the law, shouldn't take away everyone elses rights. That goes for rioters not destroying peoples rights to protest. That goes for kids/murderers destroying peoples rights to a militia. If you want to say "protesters arent rioters" thats fine, then protesters and militia shouldnt clash, should both be free to exercise their rights, and if they do, that illegal clash should be prosecuted.
The other comments here are saying "cops should stop..." but that is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal (and the cops were encouraging it at the scene) for people to stand outside a building and protect it. Taking that a step further, and back to the point of the initial article, where does Facebook draw the line in allowing people to self organize to protect their property? Is defensive violence different than offensive violence? And then theres the idea that a militia is designed as a check and balance against an oppressive police/military force. Does suppressing the formation of militia play into the strengthening of unchecked government power?
In general though I think it’s far more likely and borne out by history that if militias are allowed to form they do so in protection of the state far earlier than they do in opposition. The really interesting thing to me is that the anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support. Primarily though state supporting militias will arise earlier and stronger because it’s significantly easier to organise in support of extant power structures than it is to organise against them. Part of the current problem IMO is that the police no longer see themselves as neutral. White men dressed a certain way with guns are given a free pass as “one of us” in the heat of the moment.
I havent watched much of it, but the one I did see starts with him being chased. I'm not sure what kind of conclusion I can draw from that.
>anti-authority militias seem to have been entirely coopted into state support
It is, almost an enemy of my enemy situation.
And I don’t think it’s an enemy of my enemy thing. I think these groups genuinely think Trump supports them.
This is from the following twitter thread by a NYTimes reporter: https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
> Rittenhouse eventually leaves the dealership (https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1) and is barred by the police from returning, as seen @Ruptly footage, six minutes before the shooting: https://youtu.be/EEY5aBPNvIg?t=7147.
You need to make sure you use the term in the way it was when it was written, and properly translate it to modern parlance.
All well regulated meant back then was "working as intended" or "fit for the task at hand". Not "activity specifically organized and constrained by formal procedures established by a governing body or authority".
Back then, you could use the phrase to apply to a person, their work, a machine, a system, etc...
There is absolutely no stipulation that the bearing of arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is dependent on the condition of being part of an established militia. The entire militia clause exists as an explanation or justifying reason for the subsequent clause's command.
The concept of someone being "underage" to enjoy a Constitutionally guaranteed right without an explicit carve out in in the Constitution (I.e prescriptive age limits for holding office, delegation to States for implementation details of the choosing of Electors for Presidential voting) is a further farce, made only more extreme by the clear and unambiguous phrasing of the second amendment, namely that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I mean, if you haven't dismissed me as impossible to reconcile with your worldview, it's quite a bit less complicated than it appears. It is only complicated if you're looking for a way to try to twist the clear and unambiguously constructed writing to mean something substantially different than it does.
Besides a traditionalist and literalist, there are other ways to interpret what the constitution means now. As a living document, it's interpretation has changed over time, and can continue to change.
Except AFAICT open carry of long guns by minors 16-17 is legal in Wisconsin, as long as if you're hunting you have the appropriate license. And the gun itself is very definitely legal - IIRC it's the most popular "modern sporting rifle" in existence, and millions exist in similar configurations.
I was under the impression it was illegal for a minor to be open carrying. By illegal gun I meant not registered to him, correct me if I'm wrong. Was it legal for him to own the gun in Illinois? He was also breaking curfew.
2. Guns do not have to be registered to an individual in most states. (As in, other than the ones like CA, NY and NJ)
3. It appears to be legal for minors 16+ to possess long guns in Illinois, if you jump through the appropriate hoops - see https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/
Yes, he was breaking curfew.
These words are so overused these days in headlines.
On the other hand, slam and destroy are judgemental. They're inflammatory hyperbole that shamelessly intended to bias the reader. That is, these are not words journalists use as BF does.
I'm not suggesting BF is wrong. We all know what their biz model is, as well as the tactics they use to achieve those end. What it is, it is. It's simply not jouralism.
Sorry, these sort of headlines remind me of WWE wrestling ads.
If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?
>"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?"
I don't understand what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify what you mean by adding some punctuation to your second paragraph.
If people observe bad things happening because of stuff going on on the Facebook platform and engage is excessive blaming that's just speech.
If Facebook becomes averse to risks with respect to what is on their platform, that is just Facebook being responsive to customer concerns.
You're just not going to have a platform where this relationship doesn't exist, there's always mods.. we need 'em.
Holding broadcasters accountable is easier than holding "narrowcasters" like Facebook accountable because you don't see what narrowcasters are promoting. But when you do find out you see that it is things that broadcasters would never push both for ethical and commercial reasons. This is important to consider.
But primarily commercial reasons related to having a completely different distribution model.
Even if you held that coverage of Russia's role in the 2016 election was promotion of a conspiracy theory it would still be an obvious false equivalence to compare that to the promotion of groups like Bugaloo (that has killed multiple federal officers) or QAnon (which has resulted in multiple kidnappings, many other crimes, and promotes the worst antisemetic conspiracies invented, and more far more absurd things).
As long as there's so much money to be made, Facebook has no incentive to. As long as they know they can give you and other developers the generous salary/options/perks and you will complain at an all hands but not actually leave, they have even less incentive to. Talk is cheap, even from employees, and the executives at Facebook know that.
I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but hate filled bile is profitable. Hate filled bile can earn you money. It can earn you votes. It can earn you power.
While FB may not care about votes or power, they are in business to earn money. They have expenses, as HN User gavman alluded to. Until better ways to make money present themselves, we can expect most social media firms to flirt with controversy. Because things haven't changed much from the newspaper era with respect to the bleeding doing the majority of the lede-ing.
Facebook taking responsibility for such activity will inevitably to other very difficult decisions down the road.
One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are many such conflicts all over the world, and at a certain point no objective criteria can be used to censure.
W.r.t the Kenosha shooter.
1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1
2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list
3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committing a crime by possessing that rifle.
4. Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine, but you can only deadly force if the perpetrators are in your dwelling or place of business. For a place of business, you have to owner be in charge of operations of said business. You can't just post up to protect a random business, also you can't chase people if they decide to retreat like this 17yo did. Wisconsin V. Charles L Chew is the case law if you want to have a look.
5. It is not self defense when you get in a car with a rifle and drive 15 miles to another town and walk the streets with a rifle.
He had every option to stay home, but he chose to get involved in this situation with the plan to be involved with the confrontation (hence the rifle). Also in Wisconsin self defense law, you can't be the instigator and claim self defense. He became the instigator once he pursued.
6. Wearing gloves but no mask is also gonna be hard to explain. He is not concerned about covid-19 infection because his respiratory system is exposed. The blue gloves were on to hide fingerprints and any gun powder residue often used to convict shooters. He had intent to murder.
No lawyer can defend these blatantly dumb mistakes. This wanna be future cop probably can't pass a psychological test to become one.
Wisconsin 948.60
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183
A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.
[0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...
> (c) Nothing in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section prohibits a person under 18 years of age from participating in any lawful recreational activity with a firearm such as, but not limited to, practice shooting at targets upon established public or private target ranges or hunting, trapping, or fishing in accordance with the Wildlife Code or the Fish and Aquatic Life Code.
which implies there are at least some situations in which it is legal for a 17 year old to possess and possibly transport a rifle.
EDIT: Here's a summary I just found:
> Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Illinois
> Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun. State law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any person under age 18. However, Illinois also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to any person who does not hold a FOID card. To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire any firearms and ammunition. Further, the parent or legal guardian must not be prohibited from obtaining a FOID card. Persons under age 21 also do not qualify for a FOID card if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor (other than a traffic offense) or adjudged delinquent.
from https://www.ichv.org/legislation/illinois-state-gun-laws/
Which says Illinois prohibits minors from owning pistols, but also says if they have the appropriate FOID card then they can own things-other-than-pistols.