Obnoxiously insulting.
"Agnostic about Extremism", hah. They could not even write an unbiased title for their op-ed.
I like how ADL gives
"criticisms and recommendations" for Twitch, Discord and Telegram, but side-steps criticism or recommendation for KiwiFarms and 4chan; instead threatening them by addressing Cloudflare (as if they have any power over CloudFlare, or that CloudFlare is at fault for this attack). ADL also completely side-steps any counter argument to their claims. They want stricter censorship, that has it's pros and cons, but they do not even mention the counter-point to that:
Freedom of Speech. If ADL wanted to be reasonable, nay, realistic they should have done the same for KF and 4chan, and they should have metioned counter-arguments meaningfully.
- Was this crime commited online? No.
- Was this crime planned online? Maybe? But if it was, from the information available currently Discord seems primarily to be the source of that.
- Are KiwiFarms or 4chan terrorist organization? No. (KKK is not a terrorist organization either, if you're curious. Maybe that should change first, but you don't see ADL talking about that. Interesting!)
- KiwiFarms and 4chan have rules.
- KiwiFarms and 4chan enforce their rules.
- KiwiFarms and 4chan adapt to change as new problems arise, be that more/new staff, or more/new tools. Any reasonable organization does this.
- Are KF or 4chan perfect? No, but neither are Twitch or Discord (or ADL). This isnt the first mass shooter to have mention social websites in a manifesto. Neither is name-dropping a service grounds for that service to be at fault.
So what does this mean?
- Is KF or 4chan responsible for Payton Gendron's terrorist attack? No, of course not.
- If a criminal wears branded clothing when performing a crime, is that the brand's fault?
- If a criminal says they like a product, company or service, is that at fault or the person who commited the crime at fault?
- If the crime was directly commited by a product/company/service? (e.g. a chef knife used in a stabbing), is the product/company liable for using their product/service in a manner it was not intended for? If that is the case, is that reasonably similar to this situation?
ADL does not even mention Payton Gendron's parents, school system, local police department, or even gun control and mental health screening for firearms or ammunition possession.
So what can we get out of this?
- Are terrorist attacks good? No, of course not.
- Is the loss of life, or injury of people or property good? No, of course not.
- Is there meaningful change that Twitch, Discord or any online site/service can do to stop a terrorist attack? Probably not, and if there is, not much with current technology and government level policy.
- Could we stop a terrorist attack, with technological innovation? Probably, but that is science-fiction until it not only exists, but is reliably functional and widely available.
- Could we stop a terrorist attack, with societal change? Probably, but what is being exchanged for the benefits of increased security? A common argument for utopias: yes, of course everyone wants to live in a utopia, but what is the cost of making or maintaining a paradise. What are you willing to sacrifice for that control? Is freedom of speech worth sacrificing, for what? What are you getting in exchange? Are you seriously saying, that Britain has less terrorist attacks, because they ban guns and knives? Would banning violent video games and movies actually affect violence? Was the Soviet Union a better place than the west, because they consolidated power? Is communist China?
What is the ADL
really saying here?