[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...
That is the system. Companies that want to make money need to keep on the good side of people in power. But isn't that how democracy works? Better that they adapt to every incoming elected administration than have them hold loyalties to old regimes. Seeing them so regularly bend to the will of voters isn't a horrible thing.
No, that's how a republic might work. In democracy companies are not allowed to yield such power, and people elected can be revoked at any time....
Yes. Democracy (government by the people) was the ancient Athenian ideal of direct government.
Republic (res publica, administration of public "things"/affairs) is the roman inspired version - but it just means that the country is considered to be governed as a whole "public thing" by some body, as opposed to being a thing belonging to the emperor or king, etc. to do as they wish and for private gate).
A republic doesn't have to be democratic - a cadre of "wise people" could e.g. govern one to the exclusion of the public at large. Or the public might be given some token participation (like voting for one of several bodies of government, or merely voting for electors to elect the actual government, etc., and/or, common too, voting for people with fixed 4-5 year terms on abstract platforms for the whole term taken wholesale).
The discussion is blurred because modern republics (almost everyone) often label themselves democracies because "vote".
Seeing companies cozy up to elected officials reassures me that those elected officials still wield power. When companies abandon elected officials, ignore them as irrelevant, then we know that our elected representatives are not in charge and democracy no longer matters.
I don't think that is true at all. There's definitely lots of business owners here (myself included!) but I don't think it's anywhere close to a majority.
Has there been a survey done on this? Because that's not the impression I have at all. Entrepeneurs are obviously over-represented in contrast to the general population, but I doubt they're the majority.
What? Parler doesn't seem to censor political content at all. A lack of liberal voice does not mean Parler "kicks them off."
I hate to break it to you, but bars and restaurants and concert halls can't kick out anyone they want to. There are rules around access to semi-public places. For example they can't kick someone out just for wearing a MAGA hat, or for being black, or lots of other protected classes.
That's what real liberalism looks like and it's something we need to extend to the federal level.
Actually they can. In most jurisdictions that's not a protected class. Nightclubs are well-known for having dress codes with vague guidelines such as "no gang colors". Some fancy restaurants require men to wear jackets or women to wear dresses (this seems politically fraught to me). Some bars don't let you in if you're wearing shorts. And so on.
Generally a protected class is an unchangeable attribute.
Can you cite a relevant case?
You do understand what a protected class is, and why it exists, right?
Yep. Like "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Or a more elaborate dress code.
Which is a simple "Terms of Service" for said establishment.
Facebook has a lengthier one[0].
This stunt will put WhatsApp blunder on back burner and it is exactly the kind of thing that Facebook does to spin the narrative.
Most WhatsApp users probably don't know / care much anyway. Sadly.
Wait what? But this time it's different, this time it's us / US.
American politicians were even present handing out cookies: https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2013/12/1213-world-Nuland2....
Or just install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
Never thought I'd have anything nice to say about Pence but pushing back was the right thing to do here. H/T to him
To say nothing to his tacit approval of a mob storming the capitol on EC certification day...
Further, peoples' social media accounts show that a mob stormed the capitol with minimal police resistance.
It is very clear what happened here.
This is at best closing the gate after the horse has bolted, made it to the next county, been hit over on the motorway causing a massive multi-vehicle pile-up which left a fireworks transporting lorry in flames such that its rockets went off setting light to nearby chemical processing facilities.[1]
And that is being charitable. This is simply sucking up to the new regime the same way they've effectively sucked up to the old one, on the very day the transition was finally confirmed by all parties. It can't hurt that it will distract some attention away from the bad PR relating to WhatsApp.
[1] I look forward to the final stages of the story though: the horse in question declared lame after the accident and processed into glue.
The consequence of this however will be political division. If you thought the political division was bad now because of 'echo chambers'. Wait until the camps are no longer talking because they arent on the same platforms.
The issue is not platforms. The issue is the lack of trust in the political system. Deplatforming is just a band-aid.
Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once. The division and reality-denial we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become seemingly more socially acceptable.
It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to deal with those who become terrorists.
So nothing lost?
>Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once.
The thing about banning people on facebook, twitter, reddit, etc. You just create a new account. Nobody has gone anywhere. When there is a push for different platform like parler, then the migration occurs and there won't be cells. thedonald.win for example just as popular as thedonald was. There's no splintering. Though I can bet you within the next 2 weeks those sites will be taken down.
>The division and reality-denial we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become seemingly more socially acceptable.
To be clear, the political division is not on the republican side. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-americas-political-d...
The political divide is on the democrat side. More specifically... it was just the democrats. That's not the case anymore. The republicans just moved to the right increasing the divide.
>It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to deal with those who become terrorists.
That's the thing with reality. Those who arent involved in certain subjects can see it objectively. I'm not american nor am I there.
I have never seen the politics so divided in the usa. It WAS the democrats, It's now both. The political divide has never been so bad.
What are the consequences?
As I've said, in my opinion the increasing division is partly a result of the fact that radical minorities nowadays have platforms through which they can easily reach millions.[1] This leads to an amplification of radical opinions and makes them appear to be more acceptable, hence also more accepted by people who would otherwise not even consider them. This in turn has to do with in- and out-group behaviour and corresponding cognitive biases.
One way to counter-act the trend while still allowing free speech is to ensure that radical fringe groups do not have large amplifying platforms. They can still have free speech, just like they had in the 80s, but it should be made hard for them to reach out to millions. I agree that this is technically non-trivial, but many experiences have been made already and there are many methods like moderation, karma systems, IP banning, shadow-banning, banning by degrading service, limiting amplification/re-distribution of messages, identifying sockpuppet and bot accounts, and so on.
[1] There are other reasons, of course, that have nothing to do with social media.
this is the funny thing. Trump and the right wing are the ones being banned but it's the democrats who have created the divide.
> I agree that this is technically non-trivial, but many experiences have been made already and there are many methods like moderation, karma systems, IP banning, shadow-banning, banning by degrading service, limiting amplification/re-distribution of messages, identifying sockpuppet and bot accounts, and so on.
I also find it funny that to justify banning and other moderation that it's only being done to the 'radical minority' but it's absolutely not. This is about political opposition being silenced.
Which again comes back to the first problem. The political division in 2019 was 100% democrats. In 2021? Not 100% democrats anymore. The republicans are now adding to the division and that's not going to end well.
Attempting to silence them will never work.
You claim that the political opposition is silenced in the US, a claim for which there is zero evidence. Bans and other measures are put out for concrete violations of ToS such as directly inciting violence or advocating a coup d'etat by storming the Capitol to prevent US Congress from certifying an election result. Bans are very rare in numbers on social media. In fact, the people we're talking about already have their social media accounts on Discord and Parler. But it's a good idea to limit their ability to reach millions. That's not even silencing them, it's just common sense. Nobody should have a platform to post vitriol and hatred to millions, these kind of posts play no constructive role in politics whatsoever.
On a side note, the vast majority of Republicans is moderate and many of them do not even like Trump, as evidenced by opinion polls who have shown that he's one of the least popular presidents in US history. Trump's fan base is quite small, and the people who were storming the Capitol were an even smaller fraction of that. The problem of the Republican party is a systemic problem of any two-party system and could have just as well happened to the Democrats. Moderate Republicans have to continue to cater to a radical minority because they cannot risk the party to be split. If the Republican party split up into two, then both of these new parties would always lose against the Democratic Party. That explains the complete lack of a spine in many leading Republicans. They do not support Trump, they want to prevent the destruction of their party.
The same could happen to the Democrats. It's a general weakness of the US electoral system and the two party division.
I'm sure this had nothing to do with the attempted coup
Can you point to the specific things that occurred which you believe were part of an attempted coup, and why you believe they were?
The then refused to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol and reportedly was thrilled at the fact that the certification was interrupted by the rioters.
After much pressure he finally put out a weak statement telling the rioters he loved them and they should go home, but the election was still a fraud.
What part of that fails to fall under encouraging an insurrection?
Or did you ignore the videos of them removing barriers, or Trump supporters yelling at people breaking glass to stop, or protestors getting selfies with the guards in the building and tapping them on the shoulder and thanking them for their service?
This is a good list as well https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/ks56rh/trump_ri...
There was also one on Steve Bannon's War Room too this morning towards the end.
There are multiple ones if you just search of the Capitol police literally waving people in.
https://freespeechextremist.com/media/d5a1870d-1c9d-45a9-be2...
Oh my, surely an unbiased source. Why not inform us what Alex Jones is saying as well?
What other reason for the attack do you imagine there was?
Trump told them he won the election. He told them it was fraudulently stolen from them. He told them that this could be rectified by interfering in the proceedings. His intent was to take and retain power by remaining president through intimidating congress into refusing to count the electoral college votes. So yes - they were intending to take power. The fact it was based on a made up fantasy with no basis in reality does not alter the intent of either the rabble or Trump who incited them and painted that reality for them.
I (obviously) can't know what was in the minds of the folks who broke into the Capitol.
However, multiple news reports detail that a number of the folks arrested were carrying police-restraint style cable ties, firearms and explosives.
Given that both the Vice-president and the Speaker of the House (#2 and #3 in line of succession to the presidency), as well as both houses of Congress were in the Capitol at that moment, it's fair to ask who those folks intended to restrain with those cable ties?
And once they were restrained, what would they do with those restrained people?
Again, I can't say what was in the minds of the folks who attempted to occupy the US Capitol building, but some certainly brought weapons and tools indicating that they wanted to take hostages and possibly harm/kill them.
Do you usually bring molotov cocktails and police-style plastic restraints when you go sightseeing? Out to dinner, maybe? Or even to a protest rally?
While the protestors didn't storm the Capitol or bring tools to restrain people and destroy property, some segment of the rioters/insurrectionists did so.
As I mentioned, taking hostage and murdering the Vice President, the Speaker of the House and perhaps many members of Congress probably wouldn't have destroyed our government, but it certainly could be considered a coup attempt and definitely would be insurrection.
Exhibit B: Rudy going around and encouraging Republican state legislatures to throw out the vote of the people and instead appoint Donald Trump.
Exhibit C: Trump continuing to tell his supporters that they're right to be angry and this whole election was an undemocratic coup against him even when ostensibly telling them to go home hours after they've breached the Capitol building.
Exhibit D: Literally everything else Trump and his cronies have said over the past 2 months and the past 5.5 years.
Instead, I'd suggest you try to re-calibrate what you think is normal.
Everyone wants to use words like coup or insurrection as outrage bait and more clicks and views. It denigrates the plight of people who have actually lived through the real version of those events. As a US citizen, it's embarrassing actually.
You are being disingenuous if you label this as a "coup" regurgitating biased media talking points.
Either the Capitol Police are fucking terrible incompetent or they wanted this to happen.
BLM rioters burned down a police station in Minneapolis/St Paul. They took over 6 square blocks in Seattle and their "community police" shot up a Jeep killing a 14 year old boy and removed all the evidence (https://battlepenguin.video/videos/watch/9f81cd38-3ee9-4f26-...).
These people walked into a public building and everyone is upset because they walked around the sacred halls of the rich and powerful; the house of the people. It was peasants in the castle and we can't have that.
Was it wrong? absolutely. That's why the vast majority of people stayed outside.
Oh and a woman was shot by that incompetent Capitol Security force. It's okay though because her life didn't matter since she's white. I'm pretty sure it was her fault because victim blaming is alright if the victim is a privileged air force veteran and isn't an oppressed minority.
I am not trying to justify it as good or bad, but it was not a coup by a long shot and you cant haphazardly label it as such.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/06/coup-heres-so...
The courts have "listened" to the "claims of injustice". They found nothing of merit. It's over. Trump lost, fair and square. His inability to handle the loss and his disregard for our democracy has wreaked havoc across the nation.
They rushed through barricades of the legislative building during a session. This session wasn't merely "some bill" for gun control, or abolishing taxes, or amending the Constitution, or what have you.
It was the procedure of finally and officially certifying the results of an election that has been improperly questioned by the incumbent. This election has been concluded to be free of systemic fraud, or any level of fraud sufficient to flip any state. And yet these seditious citizens broke in with the intent to stop such a vote from occurring, to the extent that representatives had to flee to safety and several people died.
I personally did not support the level of property damage from the summer protests, but the differences are large. Protesting for political change through collective action, and being attacked in many instances by the very force they claim is oppressive.
The protesters in DC were attacking the will of the people, based on lies and the encouragement of the sitting President - and pretty much welcomed in by local law enforcement.
Trump got power, Zuckerberg got power and they meet to discuss how to proceed. Trump loses power, Zuckerberg locks down his account because the arrangement is no longer viable.
The deal itself could have been anything, maybe Trump threatening to regulate the hell of FB if they don't play ball, maybe Zuckerberg had a good idea on how to get rid of TikTok with the help of Trump in exchange of letting him do his thing. Who knows?
Zuckerboi the greedy one. w/out him and his FB Inc. lot, and that vastly overrated egotist Assange [who never ever has been even close to ethical grounds of, for instance, E. Snowden] the sick-orange cretin HeWas45 never would have made it in the first place
just fits to what's been posted here earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662215
A target where people can vent their frustrations and anger, and once Trump leaves get that dopamine hit and simmer down -- until next cycle.
If none of the events of the past month happened people would have to face the reality of their situation. Now they can just scream at Trump. Who knows maybe he's being paid handsomely under the table.
One hopes, but I'd imagine the people living in the alternate reality will just ask "What have the Romans ever done for us?!"[0]
[0] Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPbj9NX0zc