Interesting how they sing a different tune once the other party finally gets certification of the election results, time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners [1] and ad deals with them.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...
>> time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners
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.
>Companies that want to make money need to keep on the good side of people in power. But isn't that how democracy works?
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....
What's your definition of “republic” here? You seem to see it as an opposite to democracy. I'd posit that democracy and republic (in the true sense of res publica, “public affair”) cannot be separated.
>What's your definition of “republic” here? You seem to see it as an opposite to democracy.
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".
that's hardly the case though, big corps are effectively lobbying the government for big profits. they do have their lobbyists already set up for both parties it's not not the time to spend the time or the energy on the losing side for the next 4 years.
My point was that at least they are lobbying those who have been elected. That is democracy ticking along as planned. If they were instead lobbying non-elected people such as former presidents or family patriarchs, that would be undemocratic.
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.
Also, now this will overshadow the WhatsApp blunder. Great timing.
Whatsapp doesn't have enough penetration in the US for that to have ever mattered. I'd watch the EU for news on that front.
Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses. Social media platforms are not some sort of public utility. Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall. If you dislike who a social media platform allows or does not allow, just use a different one. For example, many Trump supporters use parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal voices. Or better yet, just set up your own blog on your own host and do whatever you want.
> Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses.
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.
> Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses.
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.
I believe you’re recycling your material:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673152
> Parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal voices.
What? Parler doesn't seem to censor political content at all. A lack of liberal voice does not mean Parler "kicks them off."
At least their CEO seems to ban "Antifa" supporters: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...
> Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall.
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.
I’m aware of race, religion, sex, age, and some other federally protected statuses in the US that a business can’t discriminate against, but what protected class would political affiliation fall under?
California does consider political affiliation as a protected class for employment purposes: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
That's what real liberalism looks like and it's something we need to extend to the federal level.
Note that this is only for employment. A california business must not discriminate in hiring based on political affiliation, but can refuse to serve customers based on political affiliation.
I never said political affiliation was protected. I was just pointing out that the blanket statement "they can kick out anyone they want" is not correct.
I was referring to your example of being forced to do business with a person wearing a MAGA hat. I am unsure if that falls into a protected class, that is federally protected at least.
Outside of race, gender, religion you can ban people for anything you like from your private place of business.
They CAN kick anyone out- just not for any reason. "I don't want you in my business" is the only reason needed.
Except that isn't true. Sure they can do it, but the person can sue, and if the business can't come up with a reasonable argument to single out that person, they will lose.
This is false. The only lawful grounds for a lawsuit is discrimination against a protected class such as race, gender, religion. Political affiliation is not protected in any way.
> they can't kick someone out just for wearing a MAGA hat,
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.
If they have a "no hats" dress code, sure. But if hats are generally allowed, and then they disallow you for your hat, that is illegal.
> But if hats are generally allowed, and then they disallow you for your hat, that is illegal.
Can you cite a relevant case?
You do understand what a protected class is, and why it exists, right?
Actually, a restaurant can ban you for anything outside of specific protected classes like race, gender, religion. A restaurant can ban you for your political beliefs, who your friends are as long as they are not a protected class, they don't like the breed of dog you have, or anything else. Welcome to a free country.
Yeah this is just completely untrue. A business owner can refuse to serve you for any reason, as long as it isn't a specifically protected reason. Much as a company can fire you for any reason except for the legally protected ones.
you can absolutely be denied entry for wearing a MAGA hat. businesses can have dress codes as broad or as specific as they want. must wear shoes and a shirt is pretty low bar. must have a collared shirt, no blue jeans, and no sneakers is also a common dress code. no hats, bandanas, or gang colors or MC colors are all common at bars/clubs/breastaurants.
> 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.
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].
[0] https://www.facebook.com/terms.php
Elon Musk was publicly bashing Facebook a few hours ago. We already have 3 threads on front page here. The more this bad press happens the more people become aware of Facebook's malpractices and better it is for everyone in long run.
This stunt will put WhatsApp blunder on back burner and it is exactly the kind of thing that Facebook does to spin the narrative.
Everybody looking at Johannes Casper who fought it in 2016: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-bans-whatsapp-data-transfer-to...
Seems like the Whatsapp change doesn't really affect EU users.
Lol, people still use WhatsApp?
Lol, yes.
I think that was going to be hidden by the recent news regardless ;)
Most WhatsApp users probably don't know / care much anyway. Sadly.
What's the WhatsApp blunder?
It's still on the front page of HN. Forcing people to allow data to go to Facebook if you use Whatsapp.
First thing that came to mind as well. 100% opportunism 0% conscience.
Yes, this must be it. Must have nothing to do with the fact that he said "You're special, we love you!" to the people laying siege at the U.S. Capitol.
Facebook would happily receive foreign money to cause havoc in this country as long as they make a profit on it, oh wait that actually happened https://thehill.com/policy/technology/358102-franken-blasts-...
This must have been the first time in history that President of the United States openly supports people violently "fighting for democracy" against "elected president" of the sovereign country.
Wait what? But this time it's different, this time it's us / US.
The US vehemently supported protestors seizing the Ukrainian parliament and overthrowing the democratically elected president.
American politicians were even present handing out cookies: https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2013/12/1213-world-Nuland2....
Yep. Fuck zuck, finally deleted my Facebook account because of this.
Keep your enemies close.
Wish granted. Facebook and its tracking cookies are close to pretty much everybody who surfs the Web, regardless of having an account or not.
Can you point to any resources that explain how to eradicate your surfing behavior from Facebook's tracking? I'm sure it's not as simple as clearing cookies and never visiting a Facebook property again.
PiHole or a service like NextDNS works very well for this use-case.
You can block facebook domains with uBlock Origin.
Or just install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
It may sound weird but I believe you have to thank Trump for this. Finally some good things come out of his mandate.
You deleted your Facebook account, because they banned someone for inciting treason and sedition?
He deleted his account for the reason stated in the top comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25672752) about Facebook is changing their policies, now that Biden has been confirmed as president to suck up for the ad deals.
Probably not because of the ban. Probably for Facebook's relentless facilitation of the person who incited treason and sedition, as well as the cultivation of conspiracy theory groups that produced the insurrectionists.
This spin leaves me incredulous. How does Trump inviting a protest equate to "inciting treason and sedition"? Y'all are bonkers.
He specifically ordered Pence to throw out the Electoral College result. Pence refused on constitutional grounds. How is that not an attempt at sedition?
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...
The reality is that we just don't know what happened. We cannot know what happened. Perhaps some nations and companies are just too big and too powerful to exist and people are now starting to realize that.
We know that Trump asked Pence to disregard EC results. I don't understand how that could possibly be under dispute in good faith
Further, peoples' social media accounts show that a mob stormed the capitol with minimal police resistance.
It is very clear what happened here.
"stand back and stand by" wink wink
Whatever the reason, I view this as a good thing. Hopefully the news regarding WhatsApp privacy will convince others as well.
Exactly. If they wanted any respect for this they should have had the courage to do it a few years ago. As it is it shows moral weakness, not strength.
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.
Only reason was because he was POTUS. Otherwise he would have been removed long ago. The moment he wasn't potus anymore he was to be removed from these platforms.
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.
This is what scares me. We're already seeing this start with Parler being conservative Twitter. Youtube clones are already popping up. The only saving grace is that such platforms will have difficulties finding advertisers and thus surviving, but if their movement gains traction then corporations will follow the flow of power/money and jump on board.
The issue is not platforms. The issue is the lack of trust in the political system. Deplatforming is just a band-aid.
No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. There is no dialogue between those sides on social media, because social media are generally not conducive to reasonable and rational discussion (with exceptions like HN, of course, where there is appropriate moderation).
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.
>No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages.
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?
I'm also not in the US and the examples I gave were just examples. I also don't think that "the blame game" makes any sense. The effects of modern media are world-wide and don't have much to do with particular party divides or "left" and "right." Notice I spoke of radicals, regardless of political affiliation.
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.
>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 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.
I was only talking about radicalized people who are advocating violence or are completely detached from reality (e.g. people who claim Covid-19 does not exist, or people who claim vaccination is a way to implant microchips into people). I have not talked about the political opposition in general. Your claims about 100% divides are or who caused it, as far as I can see, completely made up and without any evidential support. As I've said, it's also irrelevant who "causes a divide." The political divide is between two sides, so of course both of them are affected and responsible for it. I argued that the divide is partly a consequence of how social media work, because these allow in-group behavior that fosters radicalization. You chose to ignore that argument. Okay, so be it. I certainly don't buy into your argument insofar as I can reconstruct it.
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.
yeah
I'm sure this had nothing to do with the attempted coup
Genuine request as I've seem this framing a lot and cannot understand it:
Can you point to the specific things that occurred which you believe were part of an attempted coup, and why you believe they were?
Trump wanted Pence to violate them constitution and overturn the election. When Pence refused he then went to an angry protest and told them to match the Capitol and fight like hell.
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?
A coup requires that power is taken illegally (usually violently), and held. Are you saying this rabble of idiots were intending to take power somehow (what power?), just by occupying a building? How could this have ended with them (or even Trump) in power?
Did you conveniently ignore that some of the folks who broke into the capitol were armed with spears, clubs and firearms, carrying ziptie handcuffs? If the capitol police were not able to secure the escape of the senators and representatives, what do you imagine might have happened when the mob descended upon them?
Did you conveniently ignore the part that the Capitol Police, one of the most well armed and well funded police forces in the US, are either terrible incompetent and couldn't protect one of the most important buildings in the US.
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?
I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but there’s at least one video of protesters violently removing the barriers https://mobile.twitter.com/elijahschaffer/status/13469665149...
This is a good list as well https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/ks56rh/trump_ri...
Here's one video: https://noagendasocial.com/@cgarison/105517331411076930
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.
oh and here is a video of Trump supporter stopping a vandal:
https://freespeechextremist.com/media/d5a1870d-1c9d-45a9-be2...
The links don’t open for me, sorry. I’ve seen the first video judging by the thumbnail; it shows a cop waving to someone offscreen. Other cops maybe? Given that we have plenty of video of police being attacked I’ll need stronger evidence for the “cops waved them through” theory.
Occam's Razor suggests that the cop was gesturing to other cops on the line that they were retreating from their position and falling back. To suggest otherwise strains credulity and would require much more substantial proof.
That sounds plausible. Police do not calmly wave rioters through in one area while their colleagues are getting beat up elsewhere. Once us vs. them mentality settles in it’s game over.
>Steve Bannon's War Room
Oh my, surely an unbiased source. Why not inform us what Alex Jones is saying as well?
None of that is relevant to my point above.
Are you saying their plan was to attack those senators and representatives, in order to gain and keep power? What evidence do you have for this?
Well yes: the point was to delay or prevent certification oof Biden as president, with the aim of keeping Trump in power.
What other reason for the attack do you imagine there was?
Don’t spend much time on parler do you?
No, but I would need to see evidence, not just your opinion that such evidence exists. Same as for electoral fraud.
> Are you saying this rabble of idiots were intending to take power somehow (what power?)
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 have heard this theory stated, but where is the actual evidence that this was the plan and their actions were aligned to that? So far I've only seen people asserting that this was the plan, rather than showing actual evidence linking these things together. It's easy to join dots that don't exist, just as the Trump people seem to have done with electoral fraud.
>A coup requires that power is taken illegally (usually violently), and held
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.
All of it
Exhibit A: Trump's attempted coercion of the GA secretary of state to overturn a certified and triple-counted election.
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.
Read a transcript of Trump’s verbal diarrhea from his speech yesterday. This was clearly a putsch
coup is a bit much. this happens from time to time at the state level, protesters push their way into chambers. they should have just been arrested, the police dropped the ball.
This went a bit further than a protest I would think.
No it absolutely did not. Stop buying the bullshit the media is feeding you.
If busting the windows out of a Walgreens goes beyond a protest, so does busting the windows out of the US capitol.
It's not the 'bulsshit the media is feeding me', it is the eyewitness testimony from the rioters.
Instead, I'd suggest you try to re-calibrate what you think is normal.
It’s a putsch because the intent was to disrupt or prevent the certification of the next president, literally the formal approval of the transfer of power. This is not a bunch of yahoos upset with a governor about coronavirus restrictions.
No, this happens at the state level from time to time. There were protesters who broke in to state chambers to disrupt a vote on abortion rights iirc. There's also been the same on gun rights votes too. I can't find a link because any search for "protest" turns up yesterday's events.
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.
I’m not sure why you are not able to understand this. Disrupting legislation is not the same as disrupting the machinery by which we hand power from one executive to the next. Google “self-coup” or “autogolpe” to see how this is not exactly an uncommon action by would-be tyrants.
Do you have evidence that was their intent? And how exactly could they have succeeded, and kept Trump in power?
By their own admission, their intent was "revolution". It's really bizarre to me that you are continuously trying to whitewash these seditious traitors' actions in this thread. Is it a willful act of naivete, or something more disingenuous?
I am asking for rational explanations and evidence for the original claim that this was an attempted coup (something I have experience with sadly). Evidence and logic are valued here. You are accusing me of whitewashing sedition (I am not), being naive (I am certainly not on this topic), and being disingenuous (ditto) for taking that approach. I think you should re-read the HN guidelines.
I don't think there is any reason to exaggerate. People have a will and a right to protest against their perceived injustice at a state or federal level. A coup also usually involves the military and a taking of government by force, neither of which happened yesterday. If this were a coup then the BLM "protests" over the summer were also a coup, and they were causing significantly more damage to small business with destruction and looting.
You are being disingenuous if you label this as a "coup" regurgitating biased media talking points.
When did BLM protestors force their way into a capital building with the express goal of overturning the results of an election?
Do you really think Trump protesters wanted to overthrow an election result by breaking into a building? Have you seen the videos of Capitol Police removing barriers and leading them into the buildings, or some of them taking selfies with the protestors?
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.
The Capitol was the focal point of the protest due to the location and in this case the perceived injustice of the election. When almost half the voting population thinks there is something wrong with the election, maybe its time to listen to those people. If anything I think the hivemind and unemployed young people showing frustration was the spark that ignited what happened yesterday.
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.
There are times when I try my upmost be very careful with my language. And this is one of them: What was undertaken on Jan. 6th was an attempted coup. It was insurrection. It was sedition. I refuse to allow that fact to be downplayed or obfuscated.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/06/coup-heres-so...
You are entitled to your opinion and your echo chamber of choice, but you are doing a disservice to your fellow citizens if you think in black and white
The perceived injustice of the election only exists thanks to a massive, baseless propaganda campaign led by President Trump himself.
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.
How would protestors overturn the results? Do they get a vote just because they are standing on the senate floor?
This is such a god-awful take.
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.
There's no meaningful difference between Joe Biden's status yesterday and his status today. I get that pretending otherwise is a good way to frame FB in a negative light, fine, but it's also weirdly close to the deluded thinking of the people who attacked the Capitol building.
No difference for Biden, but a significant difference for the Senate, who staff panels with the power to investigate Facebook.
That's a fair point. I don't think it's likely that FB execs were waiting for the results of the Georgia runoffs to decide how to moderate Trump, but it's at least possible that they were. I don't think the same can be said for the certification of electoral votes.
I think there is a meaningful difference as of yesterday. It now looks like Biden will have a cooperative Democratic controlled senate, because of the Georgia results.
I doubt that these things are ever personal. People in position of power meet all the time and not necessarily with good intentions.
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?
quite right
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
This just seems like both parties are working together including Trump to have these events be a pressure release valve for all the shit of 2020.
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.
I don't buy in to the conspiracy theories because all of the big players comes out looking terrible. DNC now has to spend most of the first half of Bidens term trying to rebuild the nations confidence. RNC looks like crap because Trump. The only beneficiaries from a political perspective look to be state governments
> DNC now has to spend most of the first half of Bidens term trying to rebuild the nations confidence.
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