How about free decentralised and self-policing - opinions are fine but creating a place where illegal activity can’t be stopped will lead to any platform (even with good intentions) being marginalised.
People commit far more serious crimes in public parks than could ever be committed on a website. Is that a reason to close or marginalize public parks?
Why not enforce the law on websites in a similar way: by arresting those responsible for illegal activity instead of attacking the venue?
Well if you squint and look closely I don’t think I said anything other than it’s better to make these platforms self policing as a way to stop illegal content from appearing. Personally, the only thing I would ban is child pornography, and probably insightment to terrorism from right wing and islamists as well.
From your link: "Incidents of left-wing terrorism dropped off at the end of the Cold War (circa 1989), partly due to the loss of support for communism.[14]"
Yes, left wing terrorism exists, but today people are increasingly associating terrorism with right-wing ideologies because it's in our face and happening with increasing frequency. It's the same reason one might associate terrorism with Islam in 2001.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with the other post. Should incitement to left wing terrorism somehow be ok on this new platform just because it may not currently be common?
Furthermore, from your own link, the 2000s saw a flood of left wing terror attacks. That was not that long ago.
It answers the question as to the qualification: because it is on people's mind due to recency and prevalence. If I asked you to name the first thing that comes to you mind when I say "Boeing" most would probably say the recent crash, not that they are headquartered in Washington.
It doesn't though, because the question wasn't about why they thought of right wing terrorism, the question is why they would limit it to right wing terrorism. Just say "terrorism".
I think it still does. The topic at hand was censoring content on the Internet. The original parent referred to "Islamic" and "right-wing" terrorism because those are the two most prevalent and growing sources of terrorist activity that foment on the Internet. Did the Weather Underground grow because of the Internet? Did left-wing communist terrorist grow because of the Internet? Even in the early 2000s the Internet wasn't that big of a thing, not like today.
Today, ISIS and right-wing terrorism follow a strikingly similar pattern: attract disaffected males on the Internet to communities where promises of former glory will be recaptured through the creation of an ethno-state. For ISIS, they coalesce behind the perceived dominance of the Muslim religion. For the alt-right they coalesce behind white supremacy.
Anyway, I thought this debate about calling out terrorism was had in the early 2010s. The left wanted to call ISIS simply "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. But the right insisted that it be called "radical Islamic terrorism" because in the words of my family member "you have to call it what it is to defeat it". I agreed with that then, and I agree with it now. The left lost that debate and everyone started calling it "radical Islamic terrorism". Now all of a sudden the right wants to go back to blanket calling it "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism? I'm confused.
With the exception of the Congressional baseball shooting, none of those were called an act of terrorism. The word terrorism can't be found in any of the descriptions. They're just crimes. The Congressional baseball shooter specifically wasn't part of an online community the same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are. How would censoring online recruitment of terrorist activities stop something like a crazy person showing up to a baseball game and shooting everyone?
> terrorism in general is rising, not any particular ideology.
The study I posted above from UMD says otherwise -- that religious and right wing terrorism is increasing in recent years.
Called an act of terrorism by who? They were acts of violence with a political motivation. That's terrorism. Even the SPLC called the BLM-related shootings terrorism. ("As details developed about the Dallas, Baton Rouge and St. Louis attacks, it was apparent that a domestic terrorist threat had re-emerged — a threat not seen since the 1970s.")[1]
> The study I posted above from UMD says otherwise
The study that (unlike the SPLC) doesn't acknowledge the existence of "violent black nationalism" (the SPLC's term), classifying those acts instead as merely "anti-police" and thus not counting them as left-wing terrorism? The study that separated environmental extremism from left-wing extremism? The study with a deceptive chart that depicts 210 where 250 should be and 190 where 150 should be? That study has many flaws.
Still, I must admit the study does seem to say that left-wing terrorism has decreased, after being out of control in the 2000s, accounting for about 75% of all attacks.
However, the DHS, under Obama's leadership, concluded that left wing terrorism is increasing:
"Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as domestic terrorist violence"
Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.[2]
> Congressional baseball shooter specifically wasn't part of an online community
He was part of several online communities where hating Trump and Republicans is the norm ("including the Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans, Donald Trump is Not My President, [and] Terminate the Republican Party"[3]).
> Called an act of terrorism by who? If you're allowing biased sources to decide what's terrorism for you
By the links you posted. But I mean, for example, I'm curious to know why you would consider the beating of a mentally disabled man terrorism. Or the shooting of a private company by someone with a grievance against said company.
> classifying those acts instead as merely "anti-police" and thus not counting them as left-wing terrorism? The study that separated environmental extremism from left-wing extremism?
Why do you want to lump everything together? Anti-police violence isn't necessarily left wing. I know several conservative black men who are anti-police (not to say they are violent). But if you want to play some sort of game with the numbers, then we can lump in religious terrorism and anti-abortion terrorism with right wing terrorism. Personally as far as I'm concerned I don't see much difference between anti-Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorists and would classify both their views as right-wing. They're cut from the same cloth.
I'll agree 100% that anarchists and antifa are a problem. Although I don't know how anarchists would be considered right or left. Anarchists as I understand are anti-globalists, which would be something the right would be for. They're also anti-capitalist which is something the left would be for. So I don't know if they fit nicely into this right/left dichotomy.
Either way, every single antifa and anarchist could disappear tomorrow and almost no one would notice, and we would still be knee deep in high-profile terrorist activities. The US mail bombings last year paralyzed the nation for a week. Then there was the Squirrel Hill shooting at the same time that killed 11. Now a NZ shooter that kills 50. Each of these actors were clearly radicalized by the alt-right. The bomber frequently posted right-wing memes [1], the Squirrel Hill shooter was on Gab posting his insanity [2], and the NZ shooter conducted his whole attack for the benefit of social media like 8chan and Twitter.
It seems to me then, if we want to stop these kinds of things from happening, we should target the communities and recruitment methods that radicalize individuals to such extremes. A blanket condemnation of "terrorism of all kinds" while one kind specifically is racking up a body count by the dozens seems to miss the point.
> He was part of several online communities
You left out my qualification "same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are". There's a difference between being a member of a Facebook group that's political, and being part of something like 8chan or gab. I mean, the secretary down the hall is part of the Donald Trump is Not My President Facebook group. She's not exactly becoming radicalized. The Terminate the Republican Party group in your link is quoted "It's terrible what he did," Pearlman said of the gunman. "I — and we as a group — do not condone this at all." That doesn't exactly sound like a radical terrorist recruiting group to me. Contrast this with the shooting in NZ last week and /r/The_Donald and 8chan are calling him a hero.
> I'm curious to know why you would consider the beating of a mentally disabled man terrorism
Because of the things the kidnappers said and forced him to say, and because the kidnappers broadcast the event live to send a political message.
> Personally as far as I'm concerned I don't see much difference between anti-Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorists and would classify both their views as right-wing. They're cut from the same cloth.
Authoritarian and intolerant? Willing to kill those with different beliefs? That's something that exists on both the left and the right. (Witness the many communist holocausts...) Extremists from the American right-wing and Islamic jihadists share little to nothing in common, save a tactic that's used by desperate or unhinged people of all kinds.
> Although I don't know how anarchists would be considered right or left.
Those certainly are vague labels, inconsistently applied.
For example, there's good reason to call the NZ a left-wing white supremacist, according to his statements. He claimed to be an eco-fascist, a fan of communist China, and an opponent of Trump. But the possibility of a left-wing white supremacist is out of bounds for the media these days.
> You left out my qualification "same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are"
Perhaps not by exactly the same mechanisms, but constantly equating Trump with Hitler is bound to have an effect on less stable individuals. Someone who hears that message is likely to think they'd be a hero for stopping "Hitler". So those groups probably did contribute, as much as they want to disassociate themselves now.
But I doubt we'll settle the world's issues here, and as interesting as this is, I have to go now.
> Did the Weather Underground grow because of the Internet? Did left-wing communist terrorist grow because of the Internet?
You're inferring a causal connection here? Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that left wing terrorism won't similarly grow?
You're making a lot of assumptions to conclude that a medium which allows all people to congregate with like-minded individuals, will only foment aggression among a specific sub-population. Terrorism on all sides waxes and wanes due to many environmental factors. Assuming the internet is a causal factor, then when those environmental factors tilt against left-wing agendas, left-wing terrorism will also increase again.
If the idea is to implement some measures to reduce all forms of terrorism and extremism, then the qualifiers are not appropriate in that context. In so far as some forms of terrorism may require measures that differ from those required by other forms, then qualifiers are appropriate. That isn't the case when you're asserting a mission statement or a larger social goal.
However, the data suggests that left and right wing people are not that different, cognitively. They each exhibit similar motivations to deny science, a similar propensity to believe fake news. They differ primarily in their moral foundations, and so their propensity to violence will only increase when the environment is unfavourable to those foundations.
> The left wanted to call ISIS simply "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. But the right insisted that it be called "radical Islamic terrorism" because in the words of my family member "you have to call it what it is to defeat it".
Because ISIS is a radical Islamic terrorist group. They're not left-wing terrorists. If the subject of a conversation is a specific group, then qualifiers are appropriate.
