US to ramp up tracking of domestic extremism on social media
apnews.com
apnews.com
Easy to do when you pull tricks such as not using per-capita statistics or refusing to consider other hate groups because their anger is "valid" [1], or give non-fatal events the same weight as fatal ones [2]. How can anyone consider an organization, that uses "While these groups can be virulently anti-white, this prejudice does not represent the same threat as white supremacy in America." as an excuse to ignore hate crimes, remotely trustworthy?
[1] https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/12/youre-not-an-antiracist...
[2] https://www.investigativeproject.org/7674/splc-touted-terror...
Waco Siege, Oklahoma City Bomber, North Hollywood shootout, Ruby Ridge. Columbine. Gang warfare.
Before "Terrorists" were dudes from the Middle East, "Terrorism" were religious cults, anti-government forces, and bank-robbers who had huge-ass weapons. Domestic terrorism was way scarier, even as Al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center the 1st time in the early 90s, the other domestic events overtook our mindset.
Now that Middle-East terrorism (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.) seem to be on the decline (knock on wood), I'm not surprised to see the pendulum swing back to domestic terrorism.
And there are many people today who still take the Branch Davidians's side in that shootout, furthering anti-government feelings today. Pro-gun groups believe that stockpiling of weapons is a holy right that should not be violated.
David Koresh was known to leave the compound to visit town regularly. The government could have and should have arrested him during one of these visits. Instead they chose to wage a small war (getting several of their own killed in the process.)
Nonetheless, my point is well supported by your argument. There are a huge number of Americans who were disillusioned by those events. The Waco Siege has been used multiple times as an "Excuse" for domestic terrorists to take lethal action on fellow Americans.
Those particular Americans who were disillusioned by the attack are also a particular kind of people to stockpile weapons themselves. So yes, it makes sense to keep tabs on potential domestic terrorists who have grievances from that time.
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-horton-show-just...
There also seems to be rather expansive holes in both of your understandings about what the Oklahoma city Bombing was really about. I can't find the episode of the Scott Horton Show / Antiwar.org at the moment, but here is a very long primer [2] on the extremely suspect and irregular events surrounding the OKC bombing. Bonus: the head of the investigation of the OKC bombing was none other than Merrick Garland the current AG that is apparently going to now unleash a wholesale police surveillance state on us all that I bet many think will not target them … for now.
What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a damn thing about Oklahoma.
If I've said something that is incorrect about Waco, then correct me. Podcasts leave people with the impression that they learned something without actually teaching them anything. They go in one ear and out the other, leaving behind only a sensation of knowledge. If I'm wrong about that, share the knowledge you received from this podcast instead of telling me to consume a podcast.
1. Branch Divinians vs ATF / FBI / other forces occurred with a 50+ day siege.
2. A large number of conspiracy theorists use the Waco Siege event to air their anti-government grievances, sometimes rising to the point of modern domestic terrorism.
EDIT: I've been downvoted. #1 is surely not in question.
That means #2 might need more info. Proof for #2 is the Oklahoma City Bombing. Timothy McVeigh referenced the Waco Siege as one of his grievances. There's no doubt in my mind that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a domestic terrorism event.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-horton-show-just...
https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/richard-booth/
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you believe the government on anything, then I not only have a bridge to sell you, but then I guess we are going to find those WMDs soon.
That's what, for better or worse, 'macho culture' seems to do:
> Photo reveals Australian soldier drinking beer out of dead Taliban fighter's prosthetic leg
* https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/01/photo...
You scored a 'victory' and want to celebrate. It's no different than in a sport when a point is scored, especially team sports. Welcome to human/male nature: you can call in unprofessional or crude or whatever if you want, but good luck try to stamp it out IMHO.
Where have I heard this before...
>China’s constitution affords its citizens freedom of speech and press, but the opacity of Chinese media regulations allows authorities to crack down by claiming that they endanger the country. [0]
Seems like a good model for the West to follow...
>China has around two million people policing public opinion online, according to a state media report that sheds light on the country’s secretive internet surveillance operations. Dubbed “public opinion analysts,” they work for the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda department, major Chinese news websites and commercial corporations
[0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/media-censorship-china
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/07/world/asia/china-internet-mon...
With that in mind, I'd like to pose a related question; would you be cool if the government monitored our speech to help end the scourge of death by lawn mower? Probably not, because it's not a serious threat, right? And yet, you're 20x more likely to be killed by a lawn mower than to be killed by a domestic extremist.
This isn't a matter of precision, it's a matter of scope. And given that these people are, collectively, 95% less deadly than the fearsome lawnmower, I'd say the appropriate scope is zero.
[0]https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike#Epidemiology
Not every new institution created by the govt gets posted on Hacker News and the verbage in the headline triggered red flags for me. As a conservative, it would make me concerned over government surveillance possibly targeting me. As a liberal, it would make me concerned over the presence of domestic extremists. So I was trying to gauge how I should feel about this story, whether 'ramping up' means creating a new NSA, or forming a volunteer committee that meets once/week.
If a story moves on the AP, it’s news, almost by definition.
I think it's real. IIRC, the Biden administration has been saying they're going to make "domestic extremism" a federal law enforcement priority and they're planning on throwing a lot of resources behind it. I beleive their position is that it got too little attention in previous administrations vs. stuff like drug trafficking and Islamic terrorism. This kind of monitoring fits with that, and seems to be reporting on a detail of those plans.
At least that's how I feel after leaving social media. I check NYT a couple times a day and browse Hackernews while I'm waiting for tests to complete. The rest of the time I'd spend dawdling on Twitter or Fark I put towards reading.
YMMV, but for me, I find it far more pleasant and less hectic.
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-t...
[2]https://business.time.com/2012/08/08/does-not-having-a-faceb...
Use of social media: https://backlinko.com/social-media-users.
As for right wing conspiracy theories: I think we just have to accept that there will be conspiracy theories no matter what we do. The whole QAnon nonsense was based on complete fiction. The only way to really combat it is probably for the Government to be transparent in what its doing, and an independent media with high quality journalists plays a huge role in doing that (part of what resulted in this article).
Isn't terrorism already well defined? What's changing here?
* Abortion-center bombers? Clearly terrorism.
* Oklahoma City bombing? Clearly terrorism.
* Beltway Sniper? Terrorism.
* Eco-terrorism? Such as bombing gas pipelines? Terrorism.
* Blowing up a AT&T communication hub? Not terrorism, surprisingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing . Seems to be "standard" workplace grievance. (EDIT: I thought this was terrorism originally, but apparently the investigation came back and said not-terrorism)
There are some edge cases: a random shooting inside of a grocery store? Well, could be terrorism, might not be.
----------
Violent actions, even those that do not result in loss of life (ex: abortion bombers / eco-terrorists), that are designed to push an ideology is terrorism. Simple enough, right?
Sure, there are edge cases here and there. But in the vast majority of domestic terrorism cases, there's no controversy in the label.
The fact is the definition of "domestic extremism" needs to be extremely rigid and detailed, otherwise the government/media will use it to selectively punish their political enemies. Simply saying "you know it when you see it" is nowhere close to a sufficient definition.
Boston Marathon Bomber, Beltway Sniper, Oklahoma City Bombing. Etc. etc. Frankly, I'm not seeing too much weird selective stuff going on to be too worried about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Unit...
I am guessing she had a lighter or similar - not a gallon of petrol or anything - and was lashing out in some type of way, maybe burned the back seat a square inch?
Law enforcement and the courts were happy to refer to such a (knowingly) unsuccessful burning as terrorism then. She had to deal the consequences of such.
It appears to me that some situations have higher up politicians that choose some situations will not be charged as such or 'refer to them as such' in order to signal one thing or another.
I'm not sure that is well defined either - Is 'assault by intimidation' violence? People yelling at you / over you while you eat? Spitting? Throwing objects at buildings?
By that definition the person running over people with his car was likely not 'premeditated' - so it's outside of that. (imho - ianal etc)
Is threatening violence outside the definition?
adding to the gp? comment - the article does say in a couple places things like: "Biden’s top appointees have called white supremacists the greatest security threat to the country and are pushing for bolstered intelligence gathering." "“These programs almost always end up targeting Black and brown communities,” Ayoub said. He added: “It does seem that the focus...will be on white supremacy.”"
other things in the article seem to indicate that this is being created to have a focus on getting data about (extremist?) white people primarily - so I think the mention of "defined as anything outside the center left/right consensus of washington" is pretty accurate.
It's been said that previous intel collecting on 'domestic terror' stuff has been focused on black/brown people (in the article) - but I'm not sure antifa info gathering qualifies as that - maybe they are referring to after 911 the NY stuff -
Whichever situations they are referring to - it does appear that the big gov as a whole is and has been directed to use it's powers to collect info regarding those who sip info from watering holes that 'anything outside the center left/right consensus'
And that may be more of a testament to the tech algos of recent years actually - before social media it was rare to have hundreds of thousands being “who may be radicalizing, or have radicalized, to violence.” (DHS) - with today's tech you don't have to meet at some secret hideout to talk about hurting people because you don't like their agenda - now you have fang-like that can get groups together to hate by the thousands per minute.
Good on the aclu for once mentioning “The reality is that the federal government already has more than sufficient authority to investigate and prosecute white supremacist violence.”
So it's gotta make one wonder - it really seems like they are setting up new fed groups to train other fed and local groups to find dirt on non-centrist 'others' specifically - and it seems they are focused on what they call extreme right wing.
personally I don't see right wing / left wing - if you incite violence and destruction / intimidation it's just wrong. So is sending agents out to create drama for PR points on specific groups to make your tribe feel some type of way.. but that's been ongoing for a long time it seems - and strange to see so many okay (or just burying their head in the sand) with that, and many happily pushing for more.
There is a very real threat of domestic terrorism in the US and by all accounts most Western governments (with the possible exception of Germany) haven't been paying enough attention.
Or alternatively bee stings kill roughly 60 people per year. For a fraction of the cost and none of the civil liberties risk, we could save 1.5x the lives by giving everyone a free Epi-pen.
[0] - https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2020#exploring-the-...