Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sunspark | Hacker News Reader

No, it's because they became a legal risk as they were the primary host of insurrectionists who broke into the Capitol while chanting "Hang Mike Pence!".

Also, private business can do whatever they want. 1st amendment only applies to government not private business.

View on HN

Section 230 absolves them of said risk entirely. Amazon's hand wasn't forced.

And quite frankly, I don't buy that accusation. That seems like a convenient, unfalsifiable canard, doubly so when all the tech companies acted in concern.

And please stop with the "1st amendment" thing, which nobody in this conversation even mentioned. This observation is off-topic and the very definition of a dead horse in a conversation about what the law ought to do.

Section 230 only protects against civil suits, not criminal activity.

Parler showed how hypocritical people are.

A pizza place gets bashed for saying that they wouldn't serve pizza to a same sex wedding - they get bashed by one group and praised by another. Payment systems cancel Parler - one group praises private actions, the other bashes it.

I hate Parler, but it showed that both sides are rotten authoritarians.

Comparing a wedding to a terrorist attack on the United States Capitol is absurd.

Terrorist? Really?

I guess most ineffectual terrorist on the world.

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. [1]

Are we going to play this game though? People stormed the Capitol hunting for members of Congress. They were chanting "Hang Mike Pence". If they weren't white, would you have any trouble calling it terrorism? Would insurrection or sedition be more agreeable?

1. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

> Are we going to play this game though?

Ok. Let's. Are BLM and the riots they caused terrorist acts? By your definition - yes.

I would argue no. I think there needs to be more extreme threshold for something to be labeled as a terrorist group.

more extreme than storming the capitol and calling to kill people ?

as long as no one dies, it is not terrorism for you ?

They should be prosecuted for inciting violence, trespassing on government property. Not terrorism.

What is more extreme than attempting to violently overthrow the government?

I guess we should also label George Washington a terrorist.

More ineffectual than the terrorists involved in the Glasgow Airport attack?

One who literally set himself on fire, only to get kicked in the testicles by an irate baggage handler?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Airport_attack

We still call that a terrorist attack, because it was.

So one officer dead and four "terrorist" dead. Damn. If Al-Quaeda had this level of efficacy they wouldn't last a year.

Not that Al-Quaida was deserving of the liberties that were sacrifced for it...

They beat a police officer to death in the process of taking over the Capitol building, to attempt to stop democratic processes because they didn’t like the outcome.

Violence (murder!) for political motives. Terrorism.

Please stop spreading misinformation, the capital riot was primarily organized on Facebook.

He said “primary host of insurrectionists” and said nothing about planning. You’re just looking to fight about some terrible app that was ran by a wannabe mark zuckerberg that prided himself on letting extremists run rampant. Zero moderation meant anyone who wanted to say “hang mike pence” could do it all day long without any fear of repurcusion. That’s a clearly violent threat. That’s the chant of a anarchist mob.

Private business can't do whatever they want when their behavior is regulated/encouraged by congress. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/save-the-constitution-from-big-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com