Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks The Courts

January 6 Committee Subpoenas Social Media Giants In Probe of Capitol Attack (cnbc.com) 119

The House select committee investigating the deadly Capitol riot has subpoenaed social media giants Twitter, Reddit and the parent companies of Facebook and Google, the panel's chairman said Thursday. CNBC reports: The select committee had asked a trove of records last summer from those and other social companies, but received "inadequate responses" from four of the largest platforms, according to a press release Thursday. The committee is once again demanding that Google parent company Alphabet, Twitter, Reddit and Meta -- formerly known as Facebook -- hand over a slew of records relating to domestic terrorism, the spread of misinformation and efforts to influence or overturn the 2020 election.

"Two key questions for the Select Committee are how the spread of misinformation and violent extremism contributed to the violent attack on our democracy, and what steps -- if any -- social media companies took to prevent their platforms from being breeding grounds for radicalizing people to violence," Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in the press release. "It's disappointing that after months of engagement, we still do not have the documents and information necessary to answer those basic questions," Thompson said. "The Select Committee is working to get answers for the American people and help ensure nothing like January 6th ever happens again. We cannot allow our important work to be delayed any further."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

January 6 Committee Subpoenas Social Media Giants In Probe of Capitol Attack

Comments Filter:
  • Seems like a stretch to drag some Reddit exel in front of Congress. That'll be a laugh.

    • exec, not exel

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        exec, not exel

        Did you mean one of the execl, execlp, execle, exect, execv, execvp, or execvP, perhaps?

        • It's execl, execle, execlp, execv, execve, execvp, or fexecve, you non-POSIX swine!

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            you non-POSIX swine!

            I take your non-POSIX swine, and double it to domestic terrorist.

            Seriously, the execve and fexecve are simply documented in a separate man-page on FreeBSD. And Slashdot didn't like multiple < tt > — one for each function-name — rejecting the message. (More than two such, and you get "Filter error: Invalid HTML tag usage").

            Back to the topic at hand, execvp seems most appropriate, since the summoned executive will be, at least, a Vice President.

        • Whichever. Pick one, none of them will have anything useful to say other than to duck behind Section 230.

          • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

            Kind of hard to hide behind section 230 when it doesn't apply to answering questions before a select committee.

    • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      I can almost guarantee they won't be subpoenaing you or me or billions of other people around the world.
      If the Reddit exec has information on the Jan. 6 protest/riot/insurrection then I would hope that they subpoena him/her to get the information on the record.

  • by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Thursday January 13, 2022 @05:06PM (#62170961) Homepage Journal

    Oddly, even though BLM riots damaged billions of dollars in property and resulted in dozens of killings, there's no Congressional investigation into that.

    Oh, right. I'm sorry, I forgot. Those are the little people. I've heard everything will be okay, because they should have had insurance.

    Once again, Congress has confirmed who it really serves, and it's not us.

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday January 13, 2022 @05:25PM (#62171027)
      Didn't try to overthrow the US government in a violent revolution and then admit on camera that it was a violent revolution. Also they were 93% peaceful. And of the remaining 4% is substantial number, ranging from 4% to 6%, has been traced back to right-wing provocateurs either inciting violence or outright pretending to be protesters. For example how much of those dollars lost in damage or those two police stations set fire to by right wingers pretending to be antifa?

      If you're being disingenuous please stop we see right through you. If you're not being disingenuous for the love of God please find New Media sources. Either way you're being lied to. Don't you ever get tired of being lied to?
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        That "93% peaceful" figure is a complete fabrication. The people who made it up did it by counting the entire murderously violent CHAZ insurrection, where armed terrorists seized and occupied an entire downtown area for almost a month while enforcing their rule at gunpoint, as a dozen separate "peaceful" protests.

        Over two billion dollars done, overwhelmingly to poor and minority neighborhoods, and 50+ people murdered is not "peaceful". Entire cities do not wind up boarded up with people literally begging th [twitter.com]

        • The 93% figure you can look up your own sources. There's plenty to back it.

          What I am going to point out is that those billions of dollars weren't done to poor neighborhoods. That's because poor people don't own anything in their neighborhoods anymore. This isn't the 1990s Rodney King riots. It was mostly chain stores owned by mega corporations. Yes there were a few high profile small businesses they were devastated. And that's terrible. But the vast majority of the damage done was the things like Walmar
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I did look it up. That's how I was able to quote you exactly the sort of fraud they engaged in when making up that number. That wasn't a hypothetical, they literally fraudulently counted CHAZ as ~13 separate "peaceful" protests instead of the single month long terrorist insurrection that resulted in numerous cold blooded killings that it was.

            If you actually looked this up yourself you could see it with your own eyes [archive.is] too. But that would require you to either admit you've been utterly lied to by people you ha

          • by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Unnn ... when you say "it wasn't the Democrats" you're wrong. It sure wasn't only the Democrats, and possibly not even largely the Democrats, but they sure did their part. It's the Democrats that pushed through the extended copyright legislation, and various other things that benefited the centralized large technical and entertainment corporations. You don't own anything? Part of that is on the Democrats. They favored different businesses than did the Republicans, but neither side was on the side of th

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              'twas the Republican's or maybe just Trump who put all the IP stuff including extending copyright in the new NAFTA, it was basically the only change in the relationship with Canada, but after Trump stupidly left TIPPS (from America's viewpoint), Republican's had to do something

        • https://www.radcliffe.harvard.... [harvard.edu]

          Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.

          First, police made arrests in 5% of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5% of these events.

          Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 per

          • Yes, that's the original link to the fraudulent disinformation piece that I literally just debunked. That example I gave wasn't a hypothetical, they literally fraudulently counted CHAZ as ~13 separate "peaceful" protests instead of the single month long terrorist insurrection that resulted in numerous cold blooded killings that it was.

            Here, see for yourself with your own two eyes [archive.is] just how utterly fraudulent and dishonest that paper is. Look at the actual data for yourself, with your own two eyes, and it's i

      • Also they were 93% peaceful.

        That's a lot less peaceful than I expected, tbh

      • Nobody tried to overthrow everything, unless there's some way to have a revolution WITHOUT WEAPONS.
        I saw pictures of the 'insurrection' where the 'invaders' were literally standing in queues behind ropes. I don't remember that from Trotsky's advice on revolution "be sure to stay orderly in queue if you want to tear down the government!"

        LOL
        93% peaceful...does that sound like a statistic pulled from one's ass? It does!

        "Fiery, but mostly peaceful!"
        So Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't physically attacked?

        • by Tensor ( 102132 )

          of course there is a way to have a revolution without weapons... that is EXACTLY what India did with Gandhi in the 1920s, started a revolution of non-violence and civil disobedience, supported by poets and writers.

      • You call that bunch of rednecks in face paint, who were clamoring for *Instagram pics*, a violent revolution? You're the pot calling the kettle disingenuous here. You are purposefully inflating events using incendiary language for political advantage. Do you think others don't see through you, or just believe your language no questions asked?
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Are you trying to argue that some violence at protests was a threat to American democracy itself?

      • By your own standards what would you call a member of the government explicitly leading a violent mob to violently attack the Supreme Court, resulting in actual physical violence against sitting justices such as RBG?

        Anything you want to say about the january 6th riot is hoisting yourself by your own petard because your own favorite politicians and radical groups have done worse.

    • What I find funny is everyone comparing this to 9/11. Reasonable people laugh and dismiss them as crazy, but I think it's important to take them at their word: they are admitting that they think people protesting and making them feel uncomfortable for a few hours is worse then 3000 of us commoners dying in a terrorist attack. It reveals a lot about their character.

      • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Thursday January 13, 2022 @06:37PM (#62171229) Homepage

        What I find funny is everyone comparing this to 9/11. Reasonable people laugh and dismiss them as crazy, but I think it's important to take them at their word: they are admitting that they think people protesting and making them feel uncomfortable for a few hours is worse then 3000 of us commoners dying in a terrorist attack. It reveals a lot about their character.

        No, they think that people attempting to violently overturn democracy in the United States are as bad as a terrorist attack.

        I disagree, I think it's far worse.

        • by waspleg ( 316038 )

          As someone who watched both happen on live TV, 1/6 would have been a lot scarier if they weren't so obviously disorganized. It never looked like it had a chance of any kind of success, even when delaying the national guard and other LEOs that should have been called out there faster.

          It seems pretty obvious to me, that Trump was sitting back hoping for a Beer Hall Putsch situation [wikipedia.org], I would love for his stupid ass to be in jail and I'm not sure how the fuck he's not already, but those were hardly the brown [wikipedia.org]

        • people attempting to violently overturn democracy in the United States

          Absolutely laughable. You think a crowd of people are going to "violently overturn democracy" by pushing their way in a building?
          Then what? Hold votes and elect themselves? Enact laws? lmao
          That's hilarious.You're a clown if you think that.
          It was a bunch of gullible idiots led by a grifter who threw them under the bus the moment it was convenient for him.

          • by HiThere ( 15173 )

            If you want to claim that it was too disorganized to create a successful government, I'll agree. But they *were* attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms. If the constitution didn't define treason so narrowly I would say they were clearly guilty of treason.

          • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

            You don't need to form your own government to overturn democracy. All you need to do is invalidate the votes of 80 million Americans. If the protesters weren't there to stop congress from accepting the legitimate votes of those 80 million Americans (in the form of the Electorate) then what were they there for?

          • people attempting to violently overturn democracy in the United States

            Absolutely laughable. You think a crowd of people are going to "violently overturn democracy" by pushing their way in a building? Then what? Hold votes and elect themselves? Enact laws?

            Good question, then what?

            I don't know. Why don't you ask them? At a guess, I'd say that if they had successfully stopped the vote count they would have claimed that the final step in the presidential election (per the 12 amendment to the constitution) did not happen, and therefore Biden's election was not valid, and therefore Trump will remain president until it was sorted out (in some unspecified way.)

            lmao That's hilarious.You're a clown if you think that. It was a bunch of gullible idiots led by a grifter who threw them under the bus the moment it was convenient for him.

            I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the fact that they were disorganized and in the end were not

        • You have a great career in politics ahead of you.... "violently overturn democracy". Reminds me of those who equate a health care services cut of any sort to "literally killing babies". Actually, I think you can come up with much better hyperbole if you really try.
          • No, they think that people attempting to violently overturn democracy in the United States are as bad as a terrorist attack. I disagree, I think it's far worse.

            You have a great career in politics ahead of you.... "violently overturn democracy". Reminds me of those who equate a health care services cut of any sort to "literally killing babies". Actually, I think you can come up with much better hyperbole if you really try.

            The fact that they were badly organized and unable to do it does not alter what they were trying to do.

            They broke into the Capitol while the electoral votes were being counted in an effort to stop the vote count from being done, and thus attempting to stop the Senate from confirming the election of Joe Biden as president. This process is in the constitution.

            Yes, they were attempting to overturn democracy in the United States. Badly, sure, but that was their goal.

            https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01... [cnn.com]
            https: [apnews.com]

      • According to the seditious conspiracy indictment, the defendants conspired through a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates to participate in the conspiracy; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons, and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat

    • It's almost as if the overwhelming majority of congress including republicans are perfectly happy to see poor and minority neighborhoods razed to the ground and small businesses eradicated, paving the way for a handful of multinational corporations to move in and buy everything up dirt cheap.

    • by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Thursday January 13, 2022 @05:55PM (#62171115) Homepage Journal

      Oddly, even though BLM ...

      Whataboutism at its finest.

    • Whataboutism?

      You are better than that.

    • Holy shit jesus is shaking his head at you, keep living the lie.
    • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

      What were BLM protests about?
      What were the Jan. 6th protesters protesting about?

      Hint: One group was protesting a legitimate problem with police killings and the other was protesting because of a lie by a sore loser.

      I'll leave it up to you to determine how equivalent the two events were.

  • https://www.realclearinvestiga... [realcleari...ations.com]

    D.C. MPD spokeswoman confirmed that Byrd did not cooperate with internal affairs agents or FBI agents, who jointly investigated what was one of the most high-profile officer-involved shooting cases in U.S. history.

    “MPD did not formally interview Lt. Byrd,” deputy D.C. MPD communications director Kristen Metzger said. And, “He didn’t give a statement while under the U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation.”

    • Real Clear Investigations? Lol, what the fuck news site is that.

    • Babbitt was the one shot trying to crawl through the broken window of a barricaded door, right?

      What's there to investigate?

    • Investigation? Are you BLIND? It's on video.

      Usual dumb f*cks walking into a cop's gun get exactly what they deserve and paramedics come save them so they can create dumb f*ck kids like Ashli Babbitt.

      Her comrades in their "protest" blocked access to the medical care she needed; figures.

  • News Flash! Jan 6 committee has subpoenaed all people who voted for Trump.

  • They could always wait until the sun becomes a red giant.

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...