Incitations of violence on social media

[Red Memories]

I was going to reply to a thread but realized my commentary would take the thread off center completely because it little references trump and is more about the general social media issue.

I don't at all agree with the type of things they are posting on Parlor, but we have a weird ballgame now that could become difficult. If we truly ban all this sort of speech it isn't at all incorrect to suggest the left is next - there are plenty of radical types on the other side with similar speech. Of course it is fair to say, they have not performed actions like assassinating mitch or blowing up the white house. But they've certainly suggest certain things in a fit of rage. Are we going to censor that as well?

also not a platform I would join. This isn't intended to be whataboutism either - I am just suggesting this could come back and bite a lot of people. Because that could also been deemed a "incite of violence." So is in a fit of rage suggesting you want to strangle your dog for annoying you. Where do we stop with this? Because to be frank - it isn't quite "fair justice" to only punish one party because they so happen to be the people who stormed the white house as an act of coup and terrorism. If we are going to take their threats at face value (which we should), are we going to do things about ALL the sort of threats online? Will we punish teenagers for telling other teens to drink bleach? Is this the end of what we considered "Free speech" online? Where DOES this road take us? Will these places be shut down in general because in reality none of them have the moderation capability to 100% stop the spread of misinformation and hate speech? What really constitutes hate speech to begin with? Where do we draw a line at for who can speak in such a way? The only true way to make it "discrimination free" is to in fact ban anyone or any sort of thread which implies an incitation of violence or suffering against any person in any way. What is "Fair" here? I do feel some need to face punishable offenses for the sort of things they say or post online merely because there's venting and then there's an actual suggestion to kill yourself, or kill someone else. But how do we moderate the difference? Do we punish a 13 year old for posting to Miley Cyrus that she's annoying and should kill herself? That's quite violent. Do we punish people wishing Donald Trump would have died of covid? That's violent. Do we in fact punish the sort of people who post conspiracy theories that may cause someone TO commit to a violent act? Where do we draw such a line at punishable offense? Because I fear this may more become a "be careful what you wish for." sort of issue.

 

[The Cat]

I was going to reply to a thread but realized my commentary would take the thread off center completely because it little references trump and is more about the general social media issue.

I don't at all agree with the type of things they are posting on Parlor, but we have a weird ballgame now that could become difficult. If we truly ban all this sort of speech it isn't at all incorrect to suggest the left is next - there are plenty of radical types on the other side with similar speech. Of course it is fair to say, they have not performed actions like assassinating mitch or blowing up the white house. But they've certainly suggest certain things in a fit of rage. Are we going to censor that as well?

also not a platform I would join. This isn't intended to be whataboutism either - I am just suggesting this could come back and bite a lot of people. Because that could also been deemed a "incite of violence." So is in a fit of rage suggesting you want to strangle your dog for annoying you. Where do we stop with this? Because to be frank - it isn't quite "fair justice" to only punish one party because they so happen to be the people who stormed the white house as an act of coup and terrorism. If we are going to take their threats at face value (which we should), are we going to do things about ALL the sort of threats online? Will we punish teenagers for telling other teens to drink bleach? Is this the end of what we considered "Free speech" online? Where DOES this road take us? Will these places be shut down in general because in reality none of them have the moderation capability to 100% stop the spread of misinformation and hate speech? What really constitutes hate speech to begin with? Where do we draw a line at for who can speak in such a way? The only true way to make it "discrimination free" is to in fact ban anyone or any sort of thread which implies an incitation of violence or suffering against any person in any way. What is "Fair" here? I do feel some need to face punishable offenses for the sort of things they say or post online merely because there's venting and then there's an actual suggestion to kill yourself, or kill someone else. But how do we moderate the difference? Do we punish a 13 year old for posting to Miley Cyrus that she's annoying and should kill herself? That's quite violent. Do we punish people wishing Donald Trump would have died of covid? That's violent. Do we in fact punish the sort of people who post conspiracy theories that may cause someone TO commit to a violent act? Where do we draw such a line at punishable offense? Because I fear this may more become a "be careful what you wish for." sort of issue.

 

[ceecee]

Let me know when the Republican's have a bill to nationalize social media companies because that's coming. But I'm betting that won't be seen as the violation it is. If you actually think only the right is being punished for what they say on social media you have not been paying close attention. At all.

Who’s really being silenced on Twitter? - The Verge

No One Is Silencing the Far-Right. It’s Louder Than Ever. | by Colin Horgan | OneZero

But here is the difference. This riot was planned for weeks, in the open, all over the place. Saying you want to strangle your dog is not illegal. Saying you are going to put a bullet in Nancy Pelosi's head or hang Mike Pence is very specific, then laying siege to the capital AND building a gallows is.

Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren’t Ready. — ProPublica

Capitol Attack Was Planned Openly Online For Weeks—Police Still Weren’t Ready

Law enforcement missed key signs ahead of riot on US Capitol - CNNPolitics

It's called deplatforming. It doesn't violate 1st Amendment rights or free speech.

Parler for example, was told to come up with a moderation policy or be suspended. They didn't so this is what happened. It was a specific request with specific consequences.

Apple's App Store joined Google Play on Saturday in suspending the social media platform Parler from their app marketplaces until the “Twitter for conservatives” adopts stricter content moderation following the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"We have always supported diverse points of view being represented on the App Store, but there is no place on our platform for threats of violence and illegal activity," Apple said in a statement Saturday. "Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety. We have suspended Parler from the App Store until they resolve these issues."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1253609

What amazes me is I hear absolutely nothing from the right regarding tech and facial recognition, unconstitutional spying and wiretapping, or invasions of privacy and liberty. All the "patriots" who are being identified with Clearview AI for their riot on the Capital should have stood up with the left when they had the chance.

 

[Red Memories]

Let me know when the Republican's have a bill to nationalize social media companies because that's coming. But I'm betting that won't be seen as the violation it is. If you actually think only the right is being punished for what they say on social media you have not been paying close attention. At all.

Who’s really being silenced on Twitter? - The Verge

No One Is Silencing the Far-Right. It’s Louder Than Ever. | by Colin Horgan | OneZero

But here is the difference. This riot was planned for weeks, in the open, all over the place. Saying you want to strangle your dog is not illegal. Saying you are going to put a bullet in Nancy Pelosi's head or hang Mike Pence is very specific, then laying siege to the capital AND building a gallows is.

Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren’t Ready. — ProPublica

Capitol Attack Was Planned Openly Online For Weeks—Police Still Weren’t Ready

Law enforcement missed key signs ahead of riot on US Capitol - CNNPolitics

It's called deplatforming. It doesn't violate 1st Amendment rights or free speech.

Parler for example, was told to come up with a moderation policy or be suspended. They didn't so this is what happened. It was a specific request with specific consequences.



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1253609

What amazes me is I hear absolutely nothing from the right regarding tech and facial recognition, unconstitutional spying and wiretapping, or invasions of privacy and liberty. All the "patriots" who are being identified with Clearview AI for their riot on the Capital should have stood up with the left when they had the chance.

I do not in fact believe only the "right" is punished for what they say. I do think MSM campaigns often feed this perspective a lot. If for instance without of course vetting anything I read strictly my front page news with social media, the hack journalism that uses people's "tweets" like news coverage, it would certainly appear that social media let's the "left" say whatever they want. It is not true, but it is propaganda I am aware exist. My family somewhat falls into it. I don't think there is a true bias. (I agree a lot with the removal of bots and fakes and etc.). I am saying just on reddit politics section I have found some indirect threats, similar to ones on Parler. Again, none acted upon. Nevertheless I believed it was coming. But many people did not. My mother said the "republicans talk a lot but never actually act on it, they don't even keep their boycotts". she saw people discussing it on media, the plans, but she ignored it. My grandpa started onto a sort of antifa rant the other day and I told him this was not "antifa", these were those crazy Qanon supporters. They were loud and proud about it. Of course turned into a massive stupid argument because no one wants to listen to reality in my house lol.

So here's my thing about "deplatforming", which I agree in essence does not really violate, but could still be considered a sort of "censorship". Social media is a place many people my age (I refer my age, I did not say everyone my age or around it is smart about where they take in their information) are obtaining their information and viewpoints. Twitter has a news section, news articles show up on my brother's facebook feed. They're feeding people information. What deems something "controversial" then? Must we shut down any and all controversial arguments? Because if that is the case along with the far right and far left rhetoric we must shut down anything which has an overabundance of disagreement which could come down to you saying orange chicken is the best chicken, 20 people disagreed, so suddenly you are taken down and you no longer have a platform because your take on chicken is controversial. I'm speaking from an extreme here, but any time you let something in a little like that, it can give way to directions such as this. There's obviously an inherent difference in saying "This election was fraudulent" and saying "orange chicken is the best chicken" but how long before some sort of heavier censorship comes where people really cannot freely state things online anymore? I have a similar issue with cancel culture, where we tell 15 year olds how horrible they are at 30 for making a really shitty joke 15 years ago and now they lose their reputation over it. Or just from a stupid thing I read earlier, but they were discussing how the Washington backup was discovered to be a trump supporter and one of the tweets placed in this article was someone saying "if you say Heinecke did a good job you are a supporter of racism and insurrection" and that's a pretty drastic claim to make. I like Halsey's music but I don't really support she suggested someone go burn Pitchfork up for a bad review. Where do we draw that line too? Of platforms and destroying careers over bad takes?

 

[ceecee]

https://twitter.com/TerryBoutonHist/status/1348365375449268226

This man is a History Professor at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. While I can't second his experiences at the BLM DC protests, I certainly can tell you the police presence he is relating was 100% the case at the ones I attended myself. His observations at the capital are thorough and chilling...

The most alarming part to me was the matter-of-fact, causal ways that people from all walks of life were talking about violence and even the execution of “traitors” in private conversations, like this was something normal that happened every day. 21/22

 

[The Cat]

I do not in fact believe only the "right" is punished for what they say. I do think MSM campaigns often feed this perspective a lot. If for instance without of course vetting anything I read strictly my front page news with social media, the hack journalism that uses people's "tweets" like news coverage, it would certainly appear that social media let's the "left" say whatever they want. It is not true, but it is propaganda I am aware exist. My family somewhat falls into it. I don't think there is a true bias. (I agree a lot with the removal of bots and fakes and etc.). I am saying just on reddit politics section I have found some indirect threats, similar to ones on Parler. Again, none acted upon. Nevertheless I believed it was coming. But many people did not. My mother said the "republicans talk a lot but never actually act on it, they don't even keep their boycotts". she saw people discussing it on media, the plans, but she ignored it. My grandpa started onto a sort of antifa rant the other day and I told him this was not "antifa", these were those crazy Qanon supporters. They were loud and proud about it. Of course turned into a massive stupid argument because no one wants to listen to reality in my house lol.

So here's my thing about "deplatforming", which I agree in essence does not really violate, but could still be considered a sort of "censorship". Social media is a place many people my age (I refer my age, I did not say everyone my age or around it is smart about where they take in their information) are obtaining their information and viewpoints. Twitter has a news section, news articles show up on my brother's facebook feed. They're feeding people information. What deems something "controversial" then? Must we shut down any and all controversial arguments? Because if that is the case along with the far right and far left rhetoric we must shut down anything which has an overabundance of disagreement which could come down to you saying orange chicken is the best chicken, 20 people disagreed, so suddenly you are taken down and you no longer have a platform because your take on chicken is controversial. I'm speaking from an extreme here, but any time you let something in a little like that, it can give way to directions such as this. There's obviously an inherent difference in saying "This election was fraudulent" and saying "orange chicken is the best chicken" but how long before some sort of heavier censorship comes where people really cannot freely state things online anymore? I have a similar issue with cancel culture, where we tell 15 year olds how horrible they are at 30 for making a really shitty joke 15 years ago and now they lose their reputation over it. Or just from a stupid thing I read earlier, but they were discussing how the Washington backup was discovered to be a trump supporter and one of the tweets placed in this article was someone saying "if you say Heinecke did a good job you are a supporter of racism and insurrection" and that's a pretty drastic claim to make. I like Halsey's music but I don't really support she suggested someone go burn Pitchfork up for a bad review. Where do we draw that line too? Of platforms and destroying careers over bad takes?

You'd find this interesting^

 

[ceecee]

I do not in fact believe only the "right" is punished for what they say. I do think MSM campaigns often feed this perspective a lot. If for instance without of course vetting anything I read strictly my front page news with social media, the hack journalism that uses people's "tweets" like news coverage, it would certainly appear that social media let's the "left" say whatever they want. It is not true, but it is propaganda I am aware exist. My family somewhat falls into it. I don't think there is a true bias. (I agree a lot with the removal of bots and fakes and etc.). I am saying just on reddit politics section I have found some indirect threats, similar to ones on Parler. Again, none acted upon. Nevertheless I believed it was coming. But many people did not. My mother said the "republicans talk a lot but never actually act on it, they don't even keep their boycotts". she saw people discussing it on media, the plans, but she ignored it. My grandpa started onto a sort of antifa rant the other day and I told him this was not "antifa", these were those crazy Qanon supporters. They were loud and proud about it. Of course turned into a massive stupid argument because no one wants to listen to reality in my house lol.

So here's my thing about "deplatforming", which I agree in essence does not really violate, but could still be considered a sort of "censorship". Social media is a place many people my age (I refer my age, I did not say everyone my age or around it is smart about where they take in their information) are obtaining their information and viewpoints. Twitter has a news section, news articles show up on my brother's facebook feed. They're feeding people information. What deems something "controversial" then? Must we shut down any and all controversial arguments? Because if that is the case along with the far right and far left rhetoric we must shut down anything which has an overabundance of disagreement which could come down to you saying orange chicken is the best chicken, 20 people disagreed, so suddenly you are taken down and you no longer have a platform because your take on chicken is controversial. I'm speaking from an extreme here, but any time you let something in a little like that, it can give way to directions such as this. There's obviously an inherent difference in saying "This election was fraudulent" and saying "orange chicken is the best chicken" but how long before some sort of heavier censorship comes where people really cannot freely state things online anymore? I have a similar issue with cancel culture, where we tell 15 year olds how horrible they are at 30 for making a really shitty joke 15 years ago and now they lose their reputation over it. Or just from a stupid thing I read earlier, but they were discussing how the Washington backup was discovered to be a trump supporter and one of the tweets placed in this article was someone saying "if you say Heinecke did a good job you are a supporter of racism and insurrection" and that's a pretty drastic claim to make. I like Halsey's music but I don't really support she suggested someone go burn Pitchfork up for a bad review. Where do we draw that line too? Of platforms and destroying careers over bad takes?

This sounds more like being cancelled than anything. I don't agree with blanket cancelling people, I never have. But there are people that should be cancelled for their actions, not accusations made by others. Examples...

Texas attorney fired after posting videos from inside Capitol chaos - HoustonChronicle.com

West Virginia lawmaker charged after recording himself storming Capitol

 

[Virtual ghost]

And all of that since the US is basically in the post policy age, so people don't have much to discuss in the terms of actual policy. At least that is what most people in the country think. Even if the violence will grow the less you talk about actual policies and it's details.

 

[Jaguar]

The title of this thread doesn't have anything to do with what is being posted.

 

[ceecee]

They dragged a police officer down stairs, and beat him to death, with flagpoles. There were hundreds of them. There's no indication ANYONE came to his defense. Know what else they're planning? To murder journalists. They've been discussing it for YEARS. Think they won't do it? They will.

Why is this allowed? By anyone anywhere. It's a threat of murder. It is not free speech.

I'm entirely sick of the insistence of nuance, understanding and across the isle cooperation. This thread seems to be seeking to tell me I need to understand something that should never be given even a second of time.

 

[ceecee]

This is directed at a journalist by a known and now jailed Nazi. But not in jail for anything below. Because this is apparently what falls under free speech. No I am not putting spoiler tags around this.

 

[ceecee]

Opinion | Who’s Really Placing Limits on Free Speech? - The New York Times

 

[Jaguar]

SCOTUS Two-pronged test: Does the person intend to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

No, wearing a shirt that reads: "Lawyers should be punched" is not inciting violence. It's free speech. It is unlikely that upon reading the shirt someone will immediately seek out a lawyer and punch them. (No passing of the imminence test. No passing of the likelihood test.)

We are a nation of laws for a reason. You don't get to make them up as you go along to suit your personal agenda, regardless of how offended you may be.

 

[ceecee]

SCOTUS Two-pronged test: Does the person intend to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

No, wearing a shirt that reads: "Lawyers should be punched" is not inciting violence. It's free speech. It is unlikely that upon reading the shirt someone will immediately seek out a lawyer and punch them. (No passing of the imminence test. No passing of the likelihood test.)

We are a nation of laws for a reason. You don't get to make them up as you go along to suit your personal agenda, regardless of how offended you may be.

The five dead journalists at The Capital in Annapolis Maryland would disagree.

 

[Jaguar]

The five dead journalists at The Capital in Annapolis Maryland would disagree.

Go bitch at the Supreme Court.

 

[Maou]

No speech should be censored. Social media should be treated as a public space, since they advertise themselves as a public space. Otherwise, they should be held accountable for false advertising, since they make millions of people's private life information they sell to add companies. Also, they should not be allowed to sell their user's information.

They also totally enforce the rules how they feel, and not what is fair. They like to say they are the champions of truth and justice, but then literally just do leftist activism while lying about how fair they are.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm all for free speech but I'm afraid I have to draw the line at inciting and encouraging violence. Free speech cannot be truly free if people are threatened into silence, which is a more charitable interpretation of the intentions of "Patriots" than they deserve.

 

[Totenkindly]

We banned people from here for instigating/threatening violence. Yes, it can be a grey area, but actions don't occur out of the blue. They are ideas that take seed, germinating, grow, and then become enacted. Perpetrators typically live out their fantasies in their heads before they act on them, it's "staging" the violence and practicing it, then doing it. This is not individual staging, it's community staging which provides a sense of strength in numbers and makes it more likely for some to carry it out emboldened by similar views.

Maybe it's not prosecutable as a criminal offence per se (depending on statutes) but it makes sense to remove the platform to prevent it from swelling to give birth to something horrendous.

AS far as social media punishing left-wing folks -- yeah, I see it all the time, people getting kicked off facebook / temp-banned for saying similar stupid things / making more overt violent comments.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I never really understood the American fascination with free speech. Yes the speech should be generally free, but if it advocates violence or seriously promotes for the 53rd time openly debunked stuff it should be removed from the table. Since spreading that is not the point of the free speech.


On the other hand many in US as still acting as if everyone online is another American and that all information there is "within a family". What is evidently false since online there are no borders whatsoever. What can allow malign foreign activities that try to establish their proxies or disrupt debates. Therefore when they manage to do that this proxy has to be dismantled and that probably means stepping on some of the locals that really bought the story. I mean in 21th century due to modern transportation and internet US simply isn't anymore some isolated country at the end of the world and therefore it will have to accept certain self preserving standards that exist elsewhere for a long time.

 

[Maou]

How do you guys plan to overthrow a tyrannical government without words of violence and calls to violence? You may not realize this, but thats what extreme freedom of speech can extend its power towards. The government may not be gunning down dissenters in the streets this moment, but would you wait for that moment before you start organizing a rebellion? The government would use anti speech laws to black bag anyone who tries to rebel before they can organize. The government is not your friend, and does not care about you. So why would you hand it a knife, and say "Don't backstab me". The government can and will use what power you give it to preserve itself, not you.