The day big tech companies learned that democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them, these kinds of actions started happening. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
If you're going to pick the events of the day, it's best to mention both.
Please provide examples or you're just providing false equivalencies and whataboutism.
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.
Did the VP encourage and incite violence?
This information is not hard to find.
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?
She said the protests would not let up, and to "beware". It was not an explicit call for violence, but often politicians tread the line and this case was no different. You may say that she did not actually call for violence, and condemned the violence afterward. So did Trump.
> 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?
He said that in a message for them to go home. Do you think that maybe telling people who are motivated to extreme actions (including violence) might be calmed by being told that they are loved? I think it might have that effect.
With regards to Trump, you may consider his words as a way to quell the crowd, but only if you view them in isolation. He provided no condemnation of the act, most of his statement centered around reiterating his unproven conspiracy that caused the mob. He withheld support from the national guard as well.
To compare the two is highly disingenuous.
Only after the protests had been raging for months. Nor did she call out the specific groups responsible for the violence.
And in any case, actions speak louder than words, and her bail efforts fall into that category. Now, you've questioned whether those bail funds went to the rioters. Let's be clear: the organization that she was donating to explicitly doesn't filter who they bail out based on the circumstances of the arrest. This was not an effort to merely help the peaceful protesters unlawfully arrested by authoritarian cops (which no doubt there was some of that) it was for everyone. There is no way rioters weren't included in that group. And it's clear that the politicians and celebrities who donated to that fund didn't care.
> To compare the two is highly disingenuous.
It is not at all. Democratic politicians and public figures have been providing cover for rampant criminal behavior for months. AOC brushes it off as "making people uncomfortable". Chris Cuomo of CNN asked "Where is it written that protests have to be polite or peaceful?" live on air. Joe Biden only really started condemning the violence after Don Lemon and others pointed out that the rioting was hurting the Democrats in the polls.
Parler openly allowed the planning of this violent anti-democratic insurrection and has been deemed bad faith in their moderation.
Would also be curios if Facebook or Twitter was used in any way to plan or facilitate communication leading up to the event.
You can look at www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch to see examples of extremism on Parler.
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.
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.
Which side had the president of the United States actively inciting riots?
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?
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.
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.
These people stormed the legislature of the US to attempt to install their cult leader as dictator. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
And Parler will find another web host. If the daily stormer can find one, these clowns will. They're not disappearing.
> The capitol has been the site of multiple bombings, shootings, assassination attempts, and stormings for centuries. Pretending its an unbespoiled sacred Church which has never been penetrated so vulgarly is just ahistorical.
-- https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/kt0xpm/in_1954_4...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCeqySVhCE&t=20m55s
edit: clicking a button doesn't constitute an argument. You can only ignore Chomsky, neither tie his shoelaces or address his points. Shame on you.
This looking for the root cause usually works well in big companies - for example on the Toyota production line but in politics people tend to look for easy answers. Examples like the war on drugs, getting overly tough on crime or defunding the police altogether do nothing but exacerbate the underlying issues.
Apart from calling this out and trying to vote in people who can think deeper I'm not sure what else to do. Living in close nit community/larger families you need to learn accept people for who they are and that seems to be going out the window with the increased focus on the individual in modern western culture. There's no one size fix all unfortunately...
America has become a country of absolutely insane extremists in a relatively short time.
There doesn’t seem to be anyone willing to try to get things back on track. As an outsider looking in it feels like everyone’s IQ has dropped below room temperature.
You’re operating on stress, fear, and propaganda my friend. Find the truth, and bring your IQ back up.
This type of content should have never been tolerated to begin with, the only reason they're only starting to do something is because they don't fear political retribution any more.
The time to be concerned would be if these companies choose politics over profits.