As someone who has cut themselves off from most news outside of HN, is this article actual news or is this just a website trying to stir the pot for clicks
Associated press is considered a pretty trustworthy and neutral news service, or was at one point anyway. Why would a story about surveillance plans be “just to stir the pot for clicks”?
I've grown very cynical of the source/intention of any news I encounter. Ad revenue or shifting political opinion in their favor would be the reason to stir the pot.
Not every new institution created by the govt gets posted on Hacker News and the verbage in the headline triggered red flags for me. As a conservative, it would make me concerned over government surveillance possibly targeting me. As a liberal, it would make me concerned over the presence of domestic extremists. So I was trying to gauge how I should feel about this story, whether 'ramping up' means creating a new NSA, or forming a volunteer committee that meets once/week.
The Associated Press, a cooperative owned by its member newspapers and broadcasters, is the most important American news wire service, and APNEWS.COM is its public website.
If a story moves on the AP, it’s news, almost by definition.
> As someone who has cut themselves off from most news outside of HN, is this article actual news or is this just a website trying to stir the pot for clicks
I think it's real. IIRC, the Biden administration has been saying they're going to make "domestic extremism" a federal law enforcement priority and they're planning on throwing a lot of resources behind it. I beleive their position is that it got too little attention in previous administrations vs. stuff like drug trafficking and Islamic terrorism. This kind of monitoring fits with that, and seems to be reporting on a detail of those plans.
"domestic extremism" will slowly be defined as anything outside the center left/right consensus of washington. but i guess this is what everyone is begging for so let them have it.
I don't know where you got terrorism from. The definition under question is "domestic extremism" which is not well defined. Depending on who you ask an extremist can vary between anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment to actual terrorists.
Its like pornography. You know it when you see it.
* Abortion-center bombers? Clearly terrorism.
* Oklahoma City bombing? Clearly terrorism.
* Beltway Sniper? Terrorism.
* Eco-terrorism? Such as bombing gas pipelines? Terrorism.
* Blowing up a AT&T communication hub? Not terrorism, surprisingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing . Seems to be "standard" workplace grievance. (EDIT: I thought this was terrorism originally, but apparently the investigation came back and said not-terrorism)
There are some edge cases: a random shooting inside of a grocery store? Well, could be terrorism, might not be.
----------
Violent actions, even those that do not result in loss of life (ex: abortion bombers / eco-terrorists), that are designed to push an ideology is terrorism. Simple enough, right?
Sure, there are edge cases here and there. But in the vast majority of domestic terrorism cases, there's no controversy in the label.
By your definition, the guys who burned down the Wendy's in Atlanta are domestic terrorists, but I've yet to see anybody in the media or law enforcement refer to them as such.
The fact is the definition of "domestic extremism" needs to be extremely rigid and detailed, otherwise the government/media will use it to selectively punish their political enemies. Simply saying "you know it when you see it" is nowhere close to a sufficient definition.
Sure there are edge cases, but the vast majority of cases I'm aware of are pretty clear cut.
Boston Marathon Bomber, Beltway Sniper, Oklahoma City Bombing. Etc. etc. Frankly, I'm not seeing too much weird selective stuff going on to be too worried about.
I knew a girl some 15 or so years ago who was charged with terrorism in atlanta. Apparently while trying to wiggle out of being arrested she 'attempted to light a cop car on fire' - so got that charge.
I am guessing she had a lighter or similar - not a gallon of petrol or anything - and was lashing out in some type of way, maybe burned the back seat a square inch?
Law enforcement and the courts were happy to refer to such a (knowingly) unsuccessful burning as terrorism then. She had to deal the consequences of such.
It appears to me that some situations have higher up politicians that choose some situations will not be charged as such or 'refer to them as such' in order to signal one thing or another.
People have been charged under the PATRIOT Act for nonviolent pipeline protests. It's not a new phenomenon that people who act contrary to the interests of the ruling class and the ownership class will see extraordinary state force used against them.
wiki entry shows it's not very well defined. However there is a mention of "Title 22 Chapter 38, of the U.S. Code as "premeditated, politically motivated violence.."
I'm not sure that is well defined either - Is 'assault by intimidation' violence? People yelling at you / over you while you eat? Spitting? Throwing objects at buildings?
By that definition the person running over people with his car was likely not 'premeditated' - so it's outside of that.
(imho - ianal etc)
Is threatening violence outside the definition?
adding to the gp? comment - the article does say in a couple places things like:
"Biden’s top appointees have called white supremacists the greatest security threat to the country and are pushing for bolstered intelligence gathering."
"“These programs almost always end up targeting Black and brown communities,” Ayoub said. He added: “It does seem that the focus...will be on white supremacy.”"
other things in the article seem to indicate that this is being created to have a focus on getting data about (extremist?) white people primarily - so I think the mention of "defined as anything outside the center left/right consensus of washington" is pretty accurate.
It's been said that previous intel collecting on 'domestic terror' stuff has been focused on black/brown people (in the article) - but I'm not sure antifa info gathering qualifies as that - maybe they are referring to after 911 the NY stuff -
Whichever situations they are referring to - it does appear that the big gov as a whole is and has been directed to use it's powers to collect info regarding those who sip info from watering holes that 'anything outside the center left/right consensus'
And that may be more of a testament to the tech algos of recent years actually - before social media it was rare to have hundreds of thousands being “who may be radicalizing, or have radicalized, to violence.” (DHS) - with today's tech you don't have to meet at some secret hideout to talk about hurting people because you don't like their agenda - now you have fang-like that can get groups together to hate by the thousands per minute.
Good on the aclu for once mentioning “The reality is that the federal government already has more than sufficient authority to investigate and prosecute white supremacist violence.”
So it's gotta make one wonder - it really seems like they are setting up new fed groups to train other fed and local groups to find dirt on non-centrist 'others' specifically - and it seems they are focused on what they call extreme right wing.
personally I don't see right wing / left wing - if you incite violence and destruction / intimidation it's just wrong. So is sending agents out to create drama for PR points on specific groups to make your tribe feel some type of way.. but that's been ongoing for a long time it seems - and strange to see so many okay (or just burying their head in the sand) with that, and many happily pushing for more.
I think ffggvv is implying the politically convenient tendency for definitions to be applied way outside their original intentions over time usually by people with varying political agendas.
Not having lived through McCarthyist hysteria but having lived the War On Terror(TM) hysteria, I'm thinking that the kind of comment from OP is premature and not really founded on evidence.
There is a very real threat of domestic terrorism in the US and by all accounts most Western governments (with the possible exception of Germany) haven't been paying enough attention.
Domestic extremists kill about 40 people a year on average (including domestic Islamic extremism), based on the fairly expansive definition of extremism used by the ADL [0]. So a year of extremist murders for the entire nation is roughly on par with a typical month of murders in Baltimore.
Or alternatively bee stings kill roughly 60 people per year. For a fraction of the cost and none of the civil liberties risk, we could save 1.5x the lives by giving everyone a free Epi-pen.
I wonder if they are going to look into congress? I wish I were making a joke but this seems like a problem that starts at the top. Nationally was it this bad before the Trump administration?
Waco Siege, Oklahoma City Bomber, North Hollywood shootout, Ruby Ridge. Columbine. Gang warfare.
Before "Terrorists" were dudes from the Middle East, "Terrorism" were religious cults, anti-government forces, and bank-robbers who had huge-ass weapons. Domestic terrorism was way scarier, even as Al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center the 1st time in the early 90s, the other domestic events overtook our mindset.
Now that Middle-East terrorism (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.) seem to be on the decline (knock on wood), I'm not surprised to see the pendulum swing back to domestic terrorism.
And there are many people today who still take the Branch Davidians's side in that shootout, furthering anti-government feelings today. Pro-gun groups believe that stockpiling of weapons is a holy right that should not be violated.
They had several stockpiles, including actual fucking short-range missiles. Didn't help them at all against a modern military force, did it? But you think the US Army is concerned about Bubba and his cache of AR-15s?
The Soviet Union at least had the excuse of having a conscript army and America arming the Afghanis with MANPADS. America's failure probably had more to do with nobody having any clue what the actual objective was.
Everyone has struggled to control Afghanistan, including every Afghan government in history. Not going to hold it against them for doing better than most at the task, but not expecting control given the nature of the task and territory.
The federal government framed themselves as the victims there, while the government gunmen were taking memento photos standing next to charred corpses.
David Koresh was known to leave the compound to visit town regularly. The government could have and should have arrested him during one of these visits. Instead they chose to wage a small war (getting several of their own killed in the process.)
When the Branch Divinians released some hostages (a number of children) who seemingly were sexually assaulted inside of the compound, that kind of forces the government negotiators to act.
Nonetheless, my point is well supported by your argument. There are a huge number of Americans who were disillusioned by those events. The Waco Siege has been used multiple times as an "Excuse" for domestic terrorists to take lethal action on fellow Americans.
Those particular Americans who were disillusioned by the attack are also a particular kind of people to stockpile weapons themselves. So yes, it makes sense to keep tabs on potential domestic terrorists who have grievances from that time.
To be clear, I don't blame the federal government for break up that dangerous cult. But I think they deliberately went about it in a way they knew would result in a lot of violence. The siege had already been underway for weeks when those reports of abuse reached Janet Reno; the reports of abuse precipitated the final assault, not the siege itself. The siege started with arrest warrants for weapons charges.
You may be interested in listening to this [1]. Both of you have a very shallow and, frankly, rather naive understanding of what happened there. It will likely shock you to learn what you were told about that event is not at all honest, to put it nicely.
There also seems to be rather expansive holes in both of your understandings about what the Oklahoma city Bombing was really about. I can't find the episode of the Scott Horton Show / Antiwar.org at the moment, but here is a very long primer [2] on the extremely suspect and irregular events surrounding the OKC bombing. Bonus: the head of the investigation of the OKC bombing was none other than Merrick Garland the current AG that is apparently going to now unleash a wholesale police surveillance state on us all that I bet many think will not target them … for now.
> There also seems to be rather expansive holes in both of your understandings about what the Oklahoma city Bombing
What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a damn thing about Oklahoma.
If I've said something that is incorrect about Waco, then correct me. Podcasts leave people with the impression that they learned something without actually teaching them anything. They go in one ear and out the other, leaving behind only a sensation of knowledge. If I'm wrong about that, share the knowledge you received from this podcast instead of telling me to consume a podcast.
1. Branch Divinians vs ATF / FBI / other forces occurred with a 50+ day siege.
2. A large number of conspiracy theorists use the Waco Siege event to air their anti-government grievances, sometimes rising to the point of modern domestic terrorism.
EDIT: I've been downvoted. #1 is surely not in question.
That means #2 might need more info. Proof for #2 is the Oklahoma City Bombing. Timothy McVeigh referenced the Waco Siege as one of his grievances. There's no doubt in my mind that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a domestic terrorism event.
You seem to be in need of some non-regime propaganda information. I must warn you though, you will have your rose colored glasses smacked right off your face when you hear the truth and even just learn of all the extremely suspect things surrounding just Waco and the OKC Bombing. And no, it's not some crazy stuff, it's solid fact and official record and FOIA/lawsuit based investigative journalism and reality.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you believe the government on anything, then I not only have a bridge to sell you, but then I guess we are going to find those WMDs soon.
You scored a 'victory' and want to celebrate. It's no different than in a sport when a point is scored, especially team sports. Welcome to human/male nature: you can call in unprofessional or crude or whatever if you want, but good luck try to stamp it out IMHO.
This is just fuel to stir the right wing into more conspiracy theories, except this one is true: the government is closely monitoring everything they do online in order to profile them and put them on “high risk” lists so that they can potentially step in and “correct their decisions” if they get scared. Is the solution really to make their feelings of persecution worse? The USA tried that in the Middle East and it just gets dramatically worse every 5-10 years
Hopefully sane and unencumbered by a never ceasing shit stream of dubious information.
At least that's how I feel after leaving social media. I check NYT a couple times a day and browse Hackernews while I'm waiting for tests to complete. The rest of the time I'd spend dawdling on Twitter or Fark I put towards reading.
YMMV, but for me, I find it far more pleasant and less hectic.
I remember back in the early 2010s when employers started checking out the FaceBook profiles of prospects. There was an article about how people without Facebook profiles were deemed suspicious as though they were attempting to hide something by not having a Facebook account. [1] [2]
Well, look at it from the Government's perspective: they cannot ignore those who are actively advocating for the overthrow of the State, self-preservation is one of the most important goals of the State.
As for right wing conspiracy theories: I think we just have to accept that there will be conspiracy theories no matter what we do. The whole QAnon nonsense was based on complete fiction. The only way to really combat it is probably for the Government to be transparent in what its doing, and an independent media with high quality journalists plays a huge role in doing that (part of what resulted in this article).
>DHS will also train analysts on tracking social media and how to distinguish a threat from the exercise of free speech. DHS officials say the goal is to better monitor and respond to story lines percolating on social media that could incite violence.
Where have I heard this before...
>China’s constitution affords its citizens freedom of speech and press, but the opacity of Chinese media regulations allows authorities to crack down by claiming that they endanger the country. [0]
Seems like a good model for the West to follow...
>China has around two million people policing public opinion online, according to a state media report that sheds light on the country’s secretive internet surveillance operations. Dubbed “public opinion analysts,” they work for the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda department, major Chinese news websites and commercial corporations
The extent to which this lends itself to abuse largely hinges on how precisely/narrowly and neutrally we define 'extremism'. We have to do better than the bipartisan counter-terrorism legislation of the 2000s, for example.
Based on a cursory google search, domestic extremism results in ~40 deaths per year.[0]
With that in mind, I'd like to pose a related question; would you be cool if the government monitored our speech to help end the scourge of death by lawn mower? Probably not, because it's not a serious threat, right? And yet, you're 20x more likely to be killed by a lawn mower than to be killed by a domestic extremist.
This isn't a matter of precision, it's a matter of scope. And given that these people are, collectively, 95% less deadly than the fearsome lawnmower, I'd say the appropriate scope is zero.
That seems like a fair point. No doubt the news cycle distorts the importance of these things. If the capitol hill security were capable of repelling LARPers we probably wouldn’t be having this debate (though no doubt some equally silly debate would have ensued).
Department of Healthy Speech? I can see how in just 10 years media will ban people practicing misleading and unhealthy speech and there will be an AI bot looking for malicious sarcasm.
1) The Jan. 6 protesters were invited into the Capitol building by Capitol police, and none had weapons. Of the 5 people who died, 4 died of natural causes and one was shot by Capitol police while entering a window.
When you have a rally with 500,000 attendees and no extra security, it will probably look like a riot. (Pelosi was responsible for approving additional security.)
2) In 2018, Democratic protesters also entered the Capitol. There are photos in the MSM. I can't tell from the photos whether they were from 2018 or 2021.
> President Joe Biden’s top appointees have called white supremacists the greatest security threat to the country
Easy to do when you pull tricks such as not using per-capita statistics or refusing to consider other hate groups because their anger is "valid" [1], or give non-fatal events the same weight as fatal ones [2]. How can anyone consider an organization, that uses "While these groups can be virulently anti-white, this prejudice does not represent the same threat as white supremacy in America." as an excuse to ignore hate crimes, remotely trustworthy?
67 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadNot every new institution created by the govt gets posted on Hacker News and the verbage in the headline triggered red flags for me. As a conservative, it would make me concerned over government surveillance possibly targeting me. As a liberal, it would make me concerned over the presence of domestic extremists. So I was trying to gauge how I should feel about this story, whether 'ramping up' means creating a new NSA, or forming a volunteer committee that meets once/week.
If a story moves on the AP, it’s news, almost by definition.
I think it's real. IIRC, the Biden administration has been saying they're going to make "domestic extremism" a federal law enforcement priority and they're planning on throwing a lot of resources behind it. I beleive their position is that it got too little attention in previous administrations vs. stuff like drug trafficking and Islamic terrorism. This kind of monitoring fits with that, and seems to be reporting on a detail of those plans.
Isn't terrorism already well defined? What's changing here?
* Abortion-center bombers? Clearly terrorism.
* Oklahoma City bombing? Clearly terrorism.
* Beltway Sniper? Terrorism.
* Eco-terrorism? Such as bombing gas pipelines? Terrorism.
* Blowing up a AT&T communication hub? Not terrorism, surprisingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nashville_bombing . Seems to be "standard" workplace grievance. (EDIT: I thought this was terrorism originally, but apparently the investigation came back and said not-terrorism)
There are some edge cases: a random shooting inside of a grocery store? Well, could be terrorism, might not be.
----------
Violent actions, even those that do not result in loss of life (ex: abortion bombers / eco-terrorists), that are designed to push an ideology is terrorism. Simple enough, right?
Sure, there are edge cases here and there. But in the vast majority of domestic terrorism cases, there's no controversy in the label.
The fact is the definition of "domestic extremism" needs to be extremely rigid and detailed, otherwise the government/media will use it to selectively punish their political enemies. Simply saying "you know it when you see it" is nowhere close to a sufficient definition.
Boston Marathon Bomber, Beltway Sniper, Oklahoma City Bombing. Etc. etc. Frankly, I'm not seeing too much weird selective stuff going on to be too worried about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_Unit...
I am guessing she had a lighter or similar - not a gallon of petrol or anything - and was lashing out in some type of way, maybe burned the back seat a square inch?
Law enforcement and the courts were happy to refer to such a (knowingly) unsuccessful burning as terrorism then. She had to deal the consequences of such.
It appears to me that some situations have higher up politicians that choose some situations will not be charged as such or 'refer to them as such' in order to signal one thing or another.
I'm not sure that is well defined either - Is 'assault by intimidation' violence? People yelling at you / over you while you eat? Spitting? Throwing objects at buildings?
By that definition the person running over people with his car was likely not 'premeditated' - so it's outside of that. (imho - ianal etc)
Is threatening violence outside the definition?
adding to the gp? comment - the article does say in a couple places things like: "Biden’s top appointees have called white supremacists the greatest security threat to the country and are pushing for bolstered intelligence gathering." "“These programs almost always end up targeting Black and brown communities,” Ayoub said. He added: “It does seem that the focus...will be on white supremacy.”"
other things in the article seem to indicate that this is being created to have a focus on getting data about (extremist?) white people primarily - so I think the mention of "defined as anything outside the center left/right consensus of washington" is pretty accurate.
It's been said that previous intel collecting on 'domestic terror' stuff has been focused on black/brown people (in the article) - but I'm not sure antifa info gathering qualifies as that - maybe they are referring to after 911 the NY stuff -
Whichever situations they are referring to - it does appear that the big gov as a whole is and has been directed to use it's powers to collect info regarding those who sip info from watering holes that 'anything outside the center left/right consensus'
And that may be more of a testament to the tech algos of recent years actually - before social media it was rare to have hundreds of thousands being “who may be radicalizing, or have radicalized, to violence.” (DHS) - with today's tech you don't have to meet at some secret hideout to talk about hurting people because you don't like their agenda - now you have fang-like that can get groups together to hate by the thousands per minute.
Good on the aclu for once mentioning “The reality is that the federal government already has more than sufficient authority to investigate and prosecute white supremacist violence.”
So it's gotta make one wonder - it really seems like they are setting up new fed groups to train other fed and local groups to find dirt on non-centrist 'others' specifically - and it seems they are focused on what they call extreme right wing.
personally I don't see right wing / left wing - if you incite violence and destruction / intimidation it's just wrong. So is sending agents out to create drama for PR points on specific groups to make your tribe feel some type of way.. but that's been ongoing for a long time it seems - and strange to see so many okay (or just burying their head in the sand) with that, and many happily pushing for more.
There is a very real threat of domestic terrorism in the US and by all accounts most Western governments (with the possible exception of Germany) haven't been paying enough attention.
Or alternatively bee stings kill roughly 60 people per year. For a fraction of the cost and none of the civil liberties risk, we could save 1.5x the lives by giving everyone a free Epi-pen.
[0] - https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2020#exploring-the-...
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6829a5.htm
Waco Siege, Oklahoma City Bomber, North Hollywood shootout, Ruby Ridge. Columbine. Gang warfare.
Before "Terrorists" were dudes from the Middle East, "Terrorism" were religious cults, anti-government forces, and bank-robbers who had huge-ass weapons. Domestic terrorism was way scarier, even as Al-Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center the 1st time in the early 90s, the other domestic events overtook our mindset.
Now that Middle-East terrorism (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. etc.) seem to be on the decline (knock on wood), I'm not surprised to see the pendulum swing back to domestic terrorism.
And there are many people today who still take the Branch Davidians's side in that shootout, furthering anti-government feelings today. Pro-gun groups believe that stockpiling of weapons is a holy right that should not be violated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZSaKYmP2s
David Koresh was known to leave the compound to visit town regularly. The government could have and should have arrested him during one of these visits. Instead they chose to wage a small war (getting several of their own killed in the process.)
Nonetheless, my point is well supported by your argument. There are a huge number of Americans who were disillusioned by those events. The Waco Siege has been used multiple times as an "Excuse" for domestic terrorists to take lethal action on fellow Americans.
Those particular Americans who were disillusioned by the attack are also a particular kind of people to stockpile weapons themselves. So yes, it makes sense to keep tabs on potential domestic terrorists who have grievances from that time.
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-horton-show-just...
There also seems to be rather expansive holes in both of your understandings about what the Oklahoma city Bombing was really about. I can't find the episode of the Scott Horton Show / Antiwar.org at the moment, but here is a very long primer [2] on the extremely suspect and irregular events surrounding the OKC bombing. Bonus: the head of the investigation of the OKC bombing was none other than Merrick Garland the current AG that is apparently going to now unleash a wholesale police surveillance state on us all that I bet many think will not target them … for now.
[2] https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/richard-booth/
What the hell are you talking about? I haven't said a damn thing about Oklahoma.
If I've said something that is incorrect about Waco, then correct me. Podcasts leave people with the impression that they learned something without actually teaching them anything. They go in one ear and out the other, leaving behind only a sensation of knowledge. If I'm wrong about that, share the knowledge you received from this podcast instead of telling me to consume a podcast.
1. Branch Divinians vs ATF / FBI / other forces occurred with a 50+ day siege.
2. A large number of conspiracy theorists use the Waco Siege event to air their anti-government grievances, sometimes rising to the point of modern domestic terrorism.
EDIT: I've been downvoted. #1 is surely not in question.
That means #2 might need more info. Proof for #2 is the Oklahoma City Bombing. Timothy McVeigh referenced the Waco Siege as one of his grievances. There's no doubt in my mind that the Oklahoma City Bombing was a domestic terrorism event.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-horton-show-just...
https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/richard-booth/
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you believe the government on anything, then I not only have a bridge to sell you, but then I guess we are going to find those WMDs soon.
That's what, for better or worse, 'macho culture' seems to do:
> Photo reveals Australian soldier drinking beer out of dead Taliban fighter's prosthetic leg
* https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/01/photo...
You scored a 'victory' and want to celebrate. It's no different than in a sport when a point is scored, especially team sports. Welcome to human/male nature: you can call in unprofessional or crude or whatever if you want, but good luck try to stamp it out IMHO.
At least that's how I feel after leaving social media. I check NYT a couple times a day and browse Hackernews while I'm waiting for tests to complete. The rest of the time I'd spend dawdling on Twitter or Fark I put towards reading.
YMMV, but for me, I find it far more pleasant and less hectic.
[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-t...
[2]https://business.time.com/2012/08/08/does-not-having-a-faceb...
Use of social media: https://backlinko.com/social-media-users.
As for right wing conspiracy theories: I think we just have to accept that there will be conspiracy theories no matter what we do. The whole QAnon nonsense was based on complete fiction. The only way to really combat it is probably for the Government to be transparent in what its doing, and an independent media with high quality journalists plays a huge role in doing that (part of what resulted in this article).
Where have I heard this before...
>China’s constitution affords its citizens freedom of speech and press, but the opacity of Chinese media regulations allows authorities to crack down by claiming that they endanger the country. [0]
Seems like a good model for the West to follow...
>China has around two million people policing public opinion online, according to a state media report that sheds light on the country’s secretive internet surveillance operations. Dubbed “public opinion analysts,” they work for the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda department, major Chinese news websites and commercial corporations
[0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/media-censorship-china
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/07/world/asia/china-internet-mon...
With that in mind, I'd like to pose a related question; would you be cool if the government monitored our speech to help end the scourge of death by lawn mower? Probably not, because it's not a serious threat, right? And yet, you're 20x more likely to be killed by a lawn mower than to be killed by a domestic extremist.
This isn't a matter of precision, it's a matter of scope. And given that these people are, collectively, 95% less deadly than the fearsome lawnmower, I'd say the appropriate scope is zero.
[0]https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike#Epidemiology
I have a funny feeling that they are going to continue letting the groups that are really causing destruction have a free pass.
When you have a rally with 500,000 attendees and no extra security, it will probably look like a riot. (Pelosi was responsible for approving additional security.)
2) In 2018, Democratic protesters also entered the Capitol. There are photos in the MSM. I can't tell from the photos whether they were from 2018 or 2021.
Easy to do when you pull tricks such as not using per-capita statistics or refusing to consider other hate groups because their anger is "valid" [1], or give non-fatal events the same weight as fatal ones [2]. How can anyone consider an organization, that uses "While these groups can be virulently anti-white, this prejudice does not represent the same threat as white supremacy in America." as an excuse to ignore hate crimes, remotely trustworthy?
[1] https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/12/youre-not-an-antiracist...
[2] https://www.investigativeproject.org/7674/splc-touted-terror...