As someone who is sympathetic to both cultures, this has been painful to watch. Now that it's time for the powers that be to punish the red tribe, the blue tribe is all too happy to join in the authoritarianism - eg feigning outrage at the gallows (ignoring the guillotine symbolism of the past year), assertions that speech must be policed, and calls to take right-wing terrorism "seriously" (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests).
Really, the government is demonstrably out of control from its charter, the economy has been coopted by the bankers, the deep state is a thing (for better and for worse), and the ruling class gives no shits about We The People. When asked in the right way, grassroots of both tribes seem to agree on these things! But rather than having any consensus, the division is stoked by journalist clickbaiters and other political hacks.
The tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly - why they went "full retard" with the covid self harm and election theft hoax, well past the expected fomented-division of hating on BLM and "antifa" bogeyman. Some of that is surely due to the charismatic conman figurehead, but not all.
> As someone who is sympathetic to both cultures, this has been painful to watch. Now that it's time for the powers that be to punish the red tribe, the blue tribe is all too happy to join in the authoritarianism - eg feigning outrage at the gallows (ignoring the guillotine symbolism of the past year), assertions that speech must be policed, and calls to take right-wing terrorism "seriously"
You're equivocating around the elephant (no pun intended) in the room. Members of authority on the red team have been actively working to overturn the election since they were voted out and those attempts finally culminated in a deadly attack on the capitol. These big tech companies are policing speech, but they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing. These companies are saying "enough is enough, if you spread election fraud misinformation you are not welcome here", that's perfectly reasonable, and forcing these companies to rebroadcast this message is the only example of authoritarianism present in this debate.
> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests)
This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused. I'd be interested if you had any examples demonstrating otherwise.
> the tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly
There's a little bit of tech to it, but this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet, the only difference is that twitter is massively popular whereas Fox News is not. If Fox News had 180 million prime time viewers we'd all just say "well, they could just watch MSNBC is if they wanted!"
> they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing
Agreed. I worded it how I did on purpose - to not take issue with the platforms choosing to censor, but rather with the assertion that all platforms have some duty to censor.
>> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests)
> This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused
When specifically asked, yes, but that's not how such calls are received by policy makers. I've definitely seen videos of rioters complaining for being "attacked like Black people" with blue tribe commenters partaking in schadenfreude. But yes my example was a bit obtuse, trying to capture the general attitude of condemning people being angry at the government in the red tribe way.
> this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet
I agree that this is part of a longer trend. But there is also a qualitative difference now that pent up anger has turned into mass action, especially over something so clearly farcical. If talk radio had incited something like this in the 90s, there would have been a clear target to blame. Even the gaslighting of politicians' sedition as not-sedition is an artifact of our postmodern media environment.
You have never been guaranteed a venue on the internet. You have always punched your ticket on any platform - including the one that we're typing on now - by colouring within the lines of the powers that be. Sometimes the lines will change, and what was acceptable or tolerated is suddenly outside the window. Sometimes (most of the time?) these lines move for fairly cynical reasons.
Don't like it? Make your own platform or find one that's happy to host you. That's not censorship - that's internet culture. There are very few places on the internet that are committed to free speech absolutism - 4chan comes to mind, back in the day. Free speech absolutists are trying to assert the right to free speech absolutism on every platform which is a new thing, and disruptive, and not particularly useful.
I understand Parler is back up on non US servers. Good for them. Truly. I'm happy that they've found a place to have their discussions. I'm also happy that they've set up shop in a place that is fair game for the entire law enforcement and intelligence apparatus in case they try to plan more insurrections.
You've blasted a talking point in response to an assertion that I did not make. There is a significant distinction between a platform choosing to censor, and acting like all platforms have some duty to censor. There are many such calls for the latter in this thread.
FWIW I have previously argued that platforms have a moral obligation to carry less popular speech, but I'm done arguing that after the "stop the steal" propaganda campaign. What's happening now is inevitable, and the real solutions for Freedom are mandated interop (mitigating Metcalfe's law), and/or p2p communications (which has always been the correct answer before AJAX was even a term, albeit economically non-lucrative)
> I'm also happy that they've set up shop in a place that is fair game for the entire law enforcement and intelligence apparatus in case they try to plan more insurrections.
There's that authoritarianism peeking out - "they can go their own way, but we'll hit them with a bigger stick". From a technical perspective, being outside the US seems harder to surveil. US users will continue to use HTTPS and post public comments, so nothing changes there. Meanwhile the session traffic from foreign troll farms becomes invisible. Pushing social media away from domestic firms is actually a national security misstep, IMO.
Really, the government is demonstrably out of control from its charter, the economy has been coopted by the bankers, the deep state is a thing (for better and for worse), and the ruling class gives no shits about We The People. When asked in the right way, grassroots of both tribes seem to agree on these things! But rather than having any consensus, the division is stoked by journalist clickbaiters and other political hacks.
The tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly - why they went "full retard" with the covid self harm and election theft hoax, well past the expected fomented-division of hating on BLM and "antifa" bogeyman. Some of that is surely due to the charismatic conman figurehead, but not all.