US Panel Asks FBI To Review Role of Parler In Capitol Attack (reuters.com) 259
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The House Oversight and Reform Committee on Thursday asked the FBI to investigate the role Parler, a social media website and app popular with the American far right, played a role in the violence at the U.S. Capitol. Representative Carolyn Maloney, who chairs the panel, cited press reports that detailed violent threats on Parler against state elected officials for their role in certifying the election results before the Jan. 6 attack that left five dead. She also noted numerous Parler users have been arrested and charged with threatening violence against elected officials or for their role in participating in the attack.
Maloney asked the FBI to review Parler's role "as a potential facilitator of planning and incitement related to the violence, as a repository of key evidence posted by users on its site, and as a potential conduit for foreign governments who may be financing civil unrest in the United States." Maloney asked the FBI to review Parler's financing and its ties to Russia after she noted the company had re-emerged. Maloney cited Justice Department charges against a Texas man who used a Parler account to post threats regarding the riots that he would return to the Capitol on Jan. 19 "carrying weapons and massing in numbers so large that no army could match them." The Justice Department said the threats were viewed by other social media users tens of thousands of times. While Parler has reappeared online thanks to a cloud services company based in Russia, it doesn't appear to be hosted via Amazon Web Services anytime soon. According to NPR, a U.S. district judge sided with Amazon, arguing "that it is within Amazon's right to punish the company over its refusal [to remove posts that threatened public safety]." Slashdot reader fropenn first shared the story.
Maloney asked the FBI to review Parler's role "as a potential facilitator of planning and incitement related to the violence, as a repository of key evidence posted by users on its site, and as a potential conduit for foreign governments who may be financing civil unrest in the United States." Maloney asked the FBI to review Parler's financing and its ties to Russia after she noted the company had re-emerged. Maloney cited Justice Department charges against a Texas man who used a Parler account to post threats regarding the riots that he would return to the Capitol on Jan. 19 "carrying weapons and massing in numbers so large that no army could match them." The Justice Department said the threats were viewed by other social media users tens of thousands of times. While Parler has reappeared online thanks to a cloud services company based in Russia, it doesn't appear to be hosted via Amazon Web Services anytime soon. According to NPR, a U.S. district judge sided with Amazon, arguing "that it is within Amazon's right to punish the company over its refusal [to remove posts that threatened public safety]." Slashdot reader fropenn first shared the story.
they're coming to take you away (Score:2, Insightful)
What part of this is actually illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, pardon me, but the 1st and 2nd amendment specifically protect, "carrying weapons and massing in numbers so large that no army could match them."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
ummmm, no
I would love to see that passage from the Constitution, it does not sound familiar to me
Re:What part of this is actually illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
I would love to see that passage from the Constitution, it does not sound familiar to me
It's right under the passage in the constitution which forces private companies to give you a platform and megaphone for you to broadcast your free speech. You need to read the constitution more carefully, it's al in there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about this for a small start. https://www.channel3000.com/wa [channel3000.com]... [channel3000.com]
And Madison, WI is not even the big city - population 275K
But why did Antifa turn on Democratic headquarters in Portland and Seattle just last night? Are they trying to convert Biden into Trump?
Re: they're coming to take you away (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The federal court houses and police stations they tried to burn down every night arent institutions of democracy to these low information voters.
They are organs of government. They are not democratic institutions.
Re: they're coming to take you away (Score:4, Insightful)
Thing is they know what they are arguing for is wrong.
No one who thinks what they're doing is right ever argues "but the other guys did it too". So they know what they are saying is wrong, yet they keep on saying it. So the facts, or reasoning won't help, because all you're doing is telling them something that at a fundamental level they already know and accept.
Re: REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT (Score:2)
I'd prefer to keep the second amendment. It cuts both ways.
Re: REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT (Score:5, Funny)
It’s not a coup unless it’s from the coup d’état region of France, otherwise it’s just sparkling white terrorism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All that fuss about stealing Pelosi’s lectern, FFS he was just taking a stand!
But MAGA
Many
Are
Getting
Arrested.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if a state or the Federal government could require all people who hold a gun license to take part in monthly "militia training" sessions? Boring as possible, naturally, with the penalty for missing more than one in a 12 month period being loss of the license.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gun ownership isn't licensed.
Re: REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, forget the license.
Gun ownership is restricted (felons in many states are not allowed to own guns). So just make it illegal to own a gun if the owner does not attend the required "militia training" sessions.
Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:4, Insightful)
A handful of people commented about the protest during, not much before. All of the protest planning was done on Facebook - y'all took out the wrong target. But Facebook is too big to destroy I guess.
Re:Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:5, Informative)
And how is that relevant to Amazon's argument that Parler did not remove or moderate over 100 examples of threats of violence? Those were just examples that Amazon presented to the judge; I am sure more exists on Parler. Fun fact: the judge scolded Parler for not following procedure as Amazon was not properly served with the lawsuit if that give you any indication of the lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Cant amazon detect those specific URLs and block them out using their firewall systems which can control anything internally.
IF external URL matches table then redirect to warning page.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not but what's your point? What does AWS have to do with ordering the FBI to investigate ?
I'm not a lawyer but I would think Parler would be protected from legal liability for those posts under Section 230 of the CDA. That is to say that the people who posted "threats of violence" would be legally liable, not Parler. Which means it doesn't matter whether or not Parler violated their contract with AWS - that's a civil matter between AWS and Parler. It has nothing at all to do with the FBI or anything cr
Re: (Score:2)
And how is that relevant to Amazon's argument that Parler did not remove or moderate over 100 examples of threats of violence?
100? That's a about 10 billion less than exist on FB right? I'm not excusing Parler here but some consistency would be nice.
Re:Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to their lawsuit filings, Parler claims they fixed everything that Amazon notified them of within the 30 day window. Like I know if that's true or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:4, Informative)
Amazon warned Parler back in November. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA HEADLINE: US Panel Asks FBI To Review Role of Parler In Capitol Attack
It doesn't say Parler incited the attack. It asks what role Parler played in the attack and how it may have facilitated it.
Besides, your argument places the cart before the horse. Someone [sic] could say things that caused someone else to plan an attack and then travel to Washington to participate in it. Then that same someone [sic] could further edge them on into actual action. Incitement before, during, and --as far as that goes-- a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fyi, SK is completely blind to the gaping holes in their arguments
Re: Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:2, Informative)
Parler has been really clear on this.
The FBI stopped them from removing posts so they could honeypot/investigate people.
Meanwhile they demonize Parler for not removing posts.
And in reality Twitter and Facebook are used to organize all the illegal behavior for the entire year.
Re: (Score:3)
If that was true then they should have sued the FBI, not Amazon. The FBI destroyed their business by making it impossible to comply with their contractual obligations, with a course of action that seems exceptional since there are no reports of them doing it to anyone else.
Re: Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:5, Insightful)
If that was true, why didn't they claim it in their lawsuit? And why would they sue Amazon when the FBI is the one that harmed them?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, here are some declarations and attachments to start with... Declaration of Amazon Executive 1 [lmert.com] Declaration of Amazon Executive 2 [lmert.com] Exhibit D [lmert.com] Exhibit E [lmert.com]
The Amazon response to the complaint cites about 15 examples taken from the 100 items that had been reported: [WARNING: as should be obvious from the article, this is full of offensive language; and I had to edit it a bit to avoid the "looks too much
Re: (Score:2)
What the judge really did rule was, "Once a major US corporation declares you guilty, you are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law, regardless of how long it takes or how much it costs, major corporations ARE THE LAW".
Heh. Now that's a very sour-grapesian way of describing the proper and legal execuction of a business contract,
Re:Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perestroika and glasnost happened. USSR collapsed. While the commies were submitting giving self satisfied interviews about how they are undermining American youth, the people under their military boot rose up and threw their oppressors out. USSR broken into dozen countries.
USA, declared victory, enjoyed long peace dividend, Clinton reaped the credit, and it was riding high. Once we declared victo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Peaceful, eh? Chanting "Hang Mike Pence" breaking through the windows. And cops let them and shot them?
They did not bring in weeks worth of food, and did not seem to have any real end game planned. Cannon fodder rarely know the full strategy mapped out by the Generals. Their mission was simple, find a few congresspeople and kill them, and take the fall.
Trump will declare martial law citing the deteriorating law and order situ
Re: Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:2)
Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. Sounds like religious nuttery to me. "You lack morals, better follow MY rules". Are you some sorta RWNJ?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Republicans want to overthrow the government. They just want to be in charge. Those morons at capitol hill and the other morons in Michigan clearly are trying to sew chaos and in their minds overthrow the US government.
It's right wing extremism for sure, but your typical Republican isn't. Much like your typical Democrat isn't some CHAZ dumbass. It wouldn't be fair to paint Democrats with such a board stroke of the brush so why try doing it to Republicans?
Those extreme elements are not your
I'd argue it's the same thing at this point (Score:2)
The GOP massively suppressed the vote, shut down the Post Office, cheated their balls off and still lost. We've now see
Re: (Score:2)
By conservatism, do you mean white supremacy?
Whenever you see that word used in the Hollymedia, it means "white supremacy." It's their way of getting out of having to engage with any of its ideas.
Re:Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:5, Informative)
A handful of people commented about the protest during, not much before. All of the protest planning was done on Facebook - y'all took out the wrong target. But Facebook is too big to destroy I guess.
Not according to the WSJ [wsj.com]
Parler had become a pariah for serving as a hub for people who organized, participated in or celebrated the storming of the Capitol that left five dead, as well as a forum for some who have posted about future violent actions around the coming inauguration.
In some Parler posts flagged by tech companies as examples of inadequate moderation, users posted about “poisoning the water supply” in minority neighborhoods and killing their alleged enemies.
Executives at Parler said posts inciting violence violate its rules, although acknowledged they are aware such content was on the platform and others in the run-up to the Capitol attack.
. . . .
Daniel J. Jones, president of nonprofit research group Advance Democracy, said the organization found numerous Parler users calling for violence on Jan. 6.
Parler relies on a volunteer community of jurors to moderate content. After some experimentation with its initial rules, Parler settled on generally allowing users to engage in any constitutionally protected speech. There would be no fact-checking, no restrictions on offensive language and no prohibition on gory or adult content, so long as it was tagged “sensitive” by the creator, executives said.
. . . .
Parler executives said before the Capitol riot there was a growing number of calls for violence on the platform, as well on the rest of the internet.
Ms. Peikoff said she instructed moderators who had been hunting for spam to also look for incitements of violence and report it to law enforcement when appropriate. “I was concerned that there was actually going to be some sort of violence on the 6th,” she said.
The day of the riot, Parler was among the social-media networks, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, that Trump supporters seeking to contest the election results used to organize the protests and celebrate the attack, according to researchers and analysts who study extremism and disinformation, as well as posts reviewed by the Journal.
Re:Reality (Score:4, Informative)
And yet none of the people arrested so far had Parler accounts...
Moving the goal post now, are we? First you claimed that "all of the protest planning was done on Facebook," not Parler.
Now you make the false claim that none of the people arrested so far had Parler accounts.
2 Champaign County residents arrested, charged for involvement in Capitol riots [10tv.com]
Two Champaign County residents have been arrested and charged in connection with the Capitol building riots that happened Jan. 6.
Donovan Ray Crowl, 50, and Jessica Marie Watkins, 38, are currently being held in the Montgomery County Jail.
The two are charged with conspiracy, conspiracy to hurt an officer, violent entry, obstruction of official business and destruction of government property.
Watkins posted photographs of herself on Parler at the Capitol on Jan. 6 in an Oath Keepers uniform.
Watkins also posted a video on Parler and wrote "Yeah. We stormed the Capitol today. Teargassed, the whole, 9. Pushed our way into the Rotunda. Made it into the Senate even."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You said:
And yet none of the people arrested so far had Parler accounts...
Someone replied with pretty solid evidence that people arrested did have Parler accounts.
At this point it would be possible to support your original point by just admitting that people who were arrested did have parlor accounts, but that those were not the people who actually planned the whole thing.
But instead you resorted to an ad hominin attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Really surprised that someone on Slashdot would take any major media at face value these days, even from the WSJ you must cast a suspicious eye on what is reported.
You are also confusing people going merely to protest, with those who actually planned to try and enter the capital. That is probably the biggest aspect you have missed entirely.
Sorry. From this moment forward, I will get my news strictly from One America News Network... America's most trusted news network.
New king in town (Score:2)
I thought America's most trusted News source was The Onion?
While that used to be the case, the new leader in reliable information is now The Babylon Bee [babylonbee.com].
Re: (Score:2)
A handful of people commented about the protest during, not much before. All of the protest planning was done on Facebook - y'all took out the wrong target. But Facebook is too big to destroy I guess.
a) Are you saying that a peaceful protest was planned on facebook? That's hardly relevant. Nobody is objecting to the peaceful protesting that took place.
or
b) Are you saying that you, personally, knew all of the details of planning an insurrection, attempted kidnapping of senators and attempted murder of the vice president of the united states and yet you remained silent about this?
How do you know that all of the full illegal activities were planned in the open on Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty certain none of the terrorist actions (and that is what they are) were planned on Facebook. The question of whether any were planned on Parler will be interesting. If they were and if Parler had knowledge of this, they may be in very deep there. Life-sentence deep.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI does not need me. They are already pretty certain of what I wrote as well. It is just you who is the moron here.
Here is a hint: Facebook does keyword and key-phrase monitoring and probably a lot more. They would notice.
Re:Parler was not used, Facebook was (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the FBI is likely not confused about how serious insurrection and other nation-endangering actions are. (Hint: "Riots" are bad, but nowhere near that bad.)
If they find Parler was letting things go on while they could have done something, some people there may find themselves removed from public circulation for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Attempts at kidnapping, murder and terrorism are major crimes, no matter how inept.
Are you stupid or arguing in exceptionally bad faith?
Democrats are more likely to heard about QAnon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I had fallen for such an obviously batshit crazy conspiracy theory, I might be tempted to deny even hearing about it too.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many democrats fell for this cult compared to republicans?
Re:Democrats are more likely to heard about QAnon (Score:5, Interesting)
This is like Richard Spencer. Big bogeyman of the left, but no conservatives had heard of him until lefties made a big deal of him.
The primary difference between the left and the right is that people on the right pay no attention to the so-called "alt-right" because they don't really see much in common with them and are generally appalled by them when they see them. People who are left of center, on the other hand, tend to cover for the far-left even though it makes no sense.
See the BLM/Antifa riots (still ongoing) which attacked businesses and governmental buildings, caused $1-2B of damage, and are still being described as "mostly peaceful" by those on the left. All of my conservative friends jumped on facebook to condemn the capitol attack the next day. There's no comparison.
Tomorrow (Score:5, Funny)
Feds asked to investigate the role of air molecules in transmitting hate speech
Re: (Score:2)
I mean comparing Parler to air molecules is not really accurate. Excessive methane and SO2 emissions after burrito night would be more fitting, and that does have a large role in hate speech, aggressiveness, and depending on the flavour of the burrito maybe even death threats.
FD: Never been to Parler (Score:4, Interesting)
Parler appears to be in the crosshairs because of its popularity as a forum for some of the pro-Trump, alt-right, and Qanon folks associated with the Capital invasion. They landed here in droves as their options were limited by ostracization from the more mainstream posting forums, and the inherent promise of a freer atmosphere with little to no moderation.
But the unicorn in the room is that there is no such thing as not moderating content. Content moderation is required by law, even on sites protected by Section 230 of the CDA... copyright issues, underage sexual content, and conspiracy to break laws, for instance, must all be vetted.
Parler welcomed the flood of immigrants from twitter, facebook, the chans, and who knows where else. As the former President may have been able to tell them, " When the internet sends its people, they're not sending their best."
Re: FD: Never been to Parler (Score:2)
Some of us disagree with that basic idea. It's not my job to police anybody else's agenda.
Spend your own time and resources finding your own copyright violations and spend your own time and money in the legal system pursuing those. after you serve me with some papers I'll remove whatever but I'm not spending a second of energy before that.
I personally have a bunch of things I wish everybody would police for me but I realized that that's not their job.
If you don't want society's all encompassing copying syst
Re: (Score:3)
An idealistic viewpoint. The unattractive current situation demands that governmental regulations dictate the degree to which you must moderate your forum.
Do what you want. In your own home and, hopefully, your own life, but on the internet, your presence is is akin to what you are allowed to do in the Publick. You'll either mind or face the consequences of your contrarian stand. It's a free country, so you get to choose.
Re: FD: Never been to Parler (Score:2)
But the unicorn in the room is that there is no such thing as not moderating content. Content moderation is required by law, even on sites protected by Section 230 of the CDA... copyright issues, underage sexual content, and conspiracy to break laws, for instance, must all be vetted.
Hmm...not really. For copyright, the content owner must issue a DMCA notice, and whoever posted it can also issue a counter notice to keep it there. The site owner only has to remove it if they have received a notice and there is no counter notice. Otherwise, the site owner has safe harbor.
For kiddie porn, they only have to remove it once they're aware that it's present and they've notified the police. Conspiracy to break any laws doesn't have to be removed, though there may be criminal liability on the par
The more they stay the same (Score:5, Insightful)
About 80 years ago good decent hardworking Americans were convinced to take up arms to respond to the invasion of Martians [wikipedia.org].
In other words, they panicked over an entertainment broadcast they thought was real. Fortunately, the fantasy did not involve a need to storm public buildings and hunt fellow Americans. But it if it had they probably would have.
You might suppose that as a society we have grown much more sophisticated than that. But you would be wrong.
Our media diet, as with our food diet, has become huge and dominated with empty calories. And on 1/6 we saw the result of that.
Re: (Score:2)
From your link:
"Many newspapers assumed that the large number of phone calls and the scattered reports of listeners rushing about or even fleeing their homes proved the existence of a mass panic, but such behavior was never widespread."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you are correct. And on 1/6 we got a few thousand people out of population of over 300M.
You get points for actually reading.
But my point is that the insurrection, although very real and very heinous and at the same time very stupid, looked a hell of a lot bigger than it actually was for many reasons. The following week none of the state capitals experienced more than a few protestors or insurrectionists. Many none at all. The few that showed up soon left. The armed-in-the-streets revolution
Re: The more they stay the same (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See my response to the prior post.
Re: The more they stay the same (Score:2)
Uhh...no they weren't. That whole thing was a hoax spread by newspapers that had an axe to grind with radio. From your own link:
"The supposed panic was so tiny as to be practically immeasurable on the night of the broadcast"
Why such a narrow scope of investiation? (Score:2)
Why not ask FBI to investigate all social media sites involved in planning the Capitol attack, and then investigate their roles in all the riots of 2020?
I guess party representatives only want to investigate the role of sites who don't donate to their party, and only investigate crimes most likely to have been committed by the other party's base. How is this any different than the Trump administration, just biased in the opposite party direction? So much for democratic party being different.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you realize it's okay for the Democrats to do it. It won't even get reported on. It's that kind of crap that the media pulls which made it so easy for Trump to say "Fake News!" to anything he didn't like, because when you spend all day shuffling words around, of course you can make something sound good or bad, yet be the exact same bit of information.
I'm actually more surprised there wasn't some REAL effort to take the capital. It really didn't seem like a militia was invading versus a mob of idiots.
The whole thing is an excuse for authoritarianism (Score:2)
There were between 500-1000 rioters who stormed through into the Capitol.
Fun fact: the Capitol Police are one of the largest police forces in North America with over 2k sworn officers. They had ample manpower and firepower to crush this, but didn't. Even so, it doesn't matter because the overwhelming majority of the rioters were goofballs who had no plan to do more than upset people.
So what if a few people were armed for terrorism? That always happens at a riot. You have honest to goodness urban terrorism h
Re: (Score:2)
So the crowd chanting HANG MIKE PENCE didn't really want to drag him to the gallows they constructed?
Re: (Score:2)
So if you turn up to a bank, armed, with the intention to rob it, but are too stupid to realise that you have no hope in hell... then that is not attempted armed robbery.
And in the process of that attempted armed robbery, deliberately kill a security guard, again, that is just "hooliganism".
Re: (Score:2)
At least they destoryed the first ever Starbucks. That's almost worth all the damage they caused in Portland. Plus, who fucking cares if they burn their city down. The liberals LIKE all that stuff that's happening. They voted for it in fact. Let them have what they clearly must want.
Scared citizens? Nah, just richer liberals that are scared of the rioting liberals. Nothing to worry about. Defund the police, right?
Re: The whole thing is an excuse for authoritarian (Score:3)
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is almost certainly true. You don't give live ammo to a soldier unless you want him to shoot it. They don't have the training to figure out when to shoot people in civilian situations.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it the case here but the troops are almost always armed with live ammo. Maybe there is no magazine in their rifles but they certainly carry some.
The rules of engagement are likely very strict. If you start shooting with assault rifles around civilians, it will become a massacre very quickly. It the situation is manageable, they will likely call the police instead. Unless there is a full blown terrorist attack, the soldiers are unlikely to do anything, but it doesn't mean that their guns are
Re: (Score:2)
The rules of engagement are likely very strict. If you start shooting with assault rifles around civilians, it will become a massacre very quickly. It the situation is manageable, they will likely call the police instead. Unless there is a full blown terrorist attack, the soldiers are unlikely to do anything, but it doesn't mean that their guns are just for show.
You're kind of making things up here.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler is *not* back online (Score:5, Insightful)
"While Parler has reappeared online thanks to a cloud services company based in Russia..." No, it hasn't reappeared. Parler.com currently directs to a "We'll be back soon!" page.
I'm sure I would have disagreed with just about every word posted on Parler... but you know, I would have appreciated the chance to *see* those words so that I could make that judgement call for myself. It's a bit disturbing when a platform with 15 million users can be scrubbed so thoroughly and effectively from the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's for your own protection, citizen. Wouldn't want any wrongthought to get through.
Fair from both ends (Score:2)
- Social media giants like FB, Google, Twitter are protected by section 230. Why was Parler not?
- The companies that executed the coordinated deplatform action on Parler, are they prepared to surrender their own protection by section 230?
I know what you guys gonna say... that what people said on FB/Twitter are just rants and what people said on Parler are hate/treason. The thing is, those that made the loudest noi
Re: (Score:2)
Social media giants like FB, Google, Twitter are protected by section 230. Why was Parler not?
Because FB, Google, Twitter (and Amazon) own their own infrastructure. Parler did not. Section 230 protects infrastructure owners from throwing or not throwing anybody they like off their own systems. On the other hand, if you have to rent space, you have no protections.
Damned shape Parler couldn't file a claim under the Covid moratorium on evictions.
Re: (Score:2)
I invite you guys to give it a simple thought: If the FBI is only now being instructed to review Parler's role, who provided the Judge/Jury/Executioner role to whom?
Parler is innocent (Score:2)
Like the Catholic Church, tens of thousands of raped kids, 9000 killed children in Ireland alone but the organization still stands and the Don in Italy still gets his cut.
Attack on Section 230: (Score:2)
This is actually seriously disturbing to me. It shows that the Democans, as well as the Republicrats, are all united in rescinding section 230 and instating liability for user-posted content.
Honestly, this is an attack on section 230. They're investigating for anything at all that can be used as a basis for repealing section 230. This is pretty terrible. Crypto currency, section 230, what next that people largely want or ok with, but that challenges centralized bureaucracy, will be attacked? Not global clim
Useful Idiots for the Russian Government (Score:2)
Time to investigate Fox News (Score:3, Interesting)
Fox has been advocating for single party right wing rule all over the English speaking world. Their political goal is to eliminate multi-party politics and establish fascist governments. Fox embodies an international fascist political movement that crosses political boarders and is unaccountable to any nation.
The ties between Fox and the Putin Kremlin are obvious. At least in the US , Fox reporting never criticizes Russia no mater what they do. Like Trump, they always blame China for everything, even when Russia is the obvious troublemaker.
Until Western democracies face the reality that there is a powerful entrenched international pro-fascist movement, democracy itself is under an existential threat. It would not take much of an investigation to uncover how international fascism has been distorting free governments all over the world.
By the way, I expect this post will be modded down to -1,000,000. Scum hate to be exposed to the light.
Re: (Score:2)
It was all planned on Facebook. In the open. Well ahead of the event.
Greenwald reported that the 13 people charged didn't even have Parlor accounts.
But yes, let's have our show trials and pillory Parlor, because that's how totalitarian societies do it.
SuperKendall posting anonymously to spread the same B.S. lies. LOL
1) People did use Parler to organize and plan Capitol riot as I noted here [slashdot.org]
and
2) Some of the people who've been arrested so far do (did) have Parler accounts as I noted here [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
fyi, refusing to enable is not the same as banning
Re: (Score:2)
um.... no
Re:It was planned on Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
It's politicking, obviously.
Uh, no. Obviously a number of Trump Supporters in this country committed several heinous acts for reasons not backed up by a shred of proof and tanked the reputation of the whole GOP.
The actual politicking arrived when a broader-swath of Trump Supporters, instead of distancing themselves from these violent people, attempted to place the blame on Democrats.
What you're attempting to label as politicking is actually these businesses invoking their right to decline to do business with people that behave this way. This is actually a really good example of the invisible hand at work!
Re: (Score:2)
There's already conclusive evidence Parler was involved. There were news articles about it before certification day https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] . You were triggered so badly you felt the need to lie about it.
Re: (Score:2)
>>a bunch of absolute idiots and mentally ill conspiratards
That pretty much describes trump's followers, and a majority of gop voters, thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FBI = Cowards (Score:2)