Facebook internal memo on Jan 6, with comments from employees | Hacker News Reader

Facebook internal memo on Jan 6, with comments from employees

documentcloud.org

34 pointsad8e44 comments

> first breach of the capital since 1812

The US Capitol was bombed not once, not twice, but three separate times in the 20th century.

The 20th century also saw at least two shootings, one on the actual House floor with representatives injured.

I don't care what you think about Jan 6, the lies being spread about it being a unique occurrence are evil and must be condemned.

On a completely separate note, the claim that the event was remarkable because of the timing and intent to overturn election results is also a lie. Just four years earlier, there were violent organized protests throughout DC with the explicit stated goal of preventing the peaceful transition of power, which is a goal they did in fact achieve in a strict sense. These acts of widespread violence were planned on the open on Facebook and other social media; where was the hand-wringing then?

I keep hearing/reading this deluded argument and variations of whataboutism. The simple fact is we had a president who attempted to use his influence to force an election he lost to be overturned. He spent months announcing his intentions and pushing for this, so yes it clearly was an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election, something the framers of the constitution specifically warned about. Comparing this to protests like the women’s march is completely dishonest.

I'm confused; was the Women's March one of the groups that bombed the capital in the 20th century, or were they the ones bombing cars on Jan 20 2017?

Because those are the only "protests" I mentioned in my comment. And I certainly didn't endorse Jan 6 protest actions for any reason, whataboutism or otherwise.

So you appear to be replying to the wrong comment friend.

    the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority
    may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its
    truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the
    question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means
    of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that
    it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute
    certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.

    - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

Good thing we have the world's greatest minds working on the problem of modern online discourse.

> Again, not sure I know the exact right set of answers but we have been changing and adapting every day

Oh. Agile ethics.

I don't understand all the dramatics about "January 6th". It was a protest turned riot where five protesters were killed. Protesting an election result at the Capitol seems appropriate, some people got out of hand and were arrested or shot. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

I think the hand wringing from Facebook people is more concerning. They don't want people to be able to organize political protests on their platform? Or only protests they agree with?

They hampered congress from verifying the election, and could have potentially prevented the inauguration of the president. Or they could have held hostage or killed congressmen. Effectively it was a coup attempt.

Do you think the violent protests at Trump's inauguration were also a coup attempt?

No, that is a ridiculous whataboutism, those protests were not instigated or supported by the opposition politicians, and the scale and purpose of those protests wasn’t even in the same league.

Hillary Clinton and friends claimed the election was illegitimate and that it was stolen by Russian influence and/or hackers. Clinton supporters then violently attacked Trump's inauguration.

I would agree there is a difference in scale - more violence at the January 6th thing and more incendiary rhetoric from Trump's camp, but I don't think there is a difference in kind. They are both the same kind of thing. I would say they are both protests that got out of control and turned violent. You seem to be saying the January 6th thing is a coup, but it's odd that you don't describe the fundamentally similar Trump inauguration thing the same way.

Finally, on the subject of the difference in scale, I would just say that it doesn't seem particularly meaningful because there is a massive difference between a real coup attempt (say, the 2016 Turkish coup) and January 6th. The difference in scale between January 6th and Trump's inauguration protests is relatively slight.

Hillary conceded defeat the day following the election, Trump still hasn’t to this day and continues the grift based on his lie of stolen election all the while destroying our democracy and fulfilling Putin’s long term goals. It’s pathetic how many republicans know this to be the truth but just won’t come out publicly about it, just see what they were saying on Jan 7 vs. now. Our democracy is circling the drain with the kind of bs being peddled.

Hillary Clinton continues has said multiple times since, and I believe continues to think, that Trump's election was illegitimate and that Russia hacked the election. Conceding and continuing to argue that the other person is an illegitimate President is basically what Clinton and Trump did. Again - maybe Trump does it a bit more but it is the same kind of thing.

It was literally an attempt to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power of a democratic election. That is not a "protest turned riot". That is a coup attempt.

Phrases like "Coup attempt" or "Insurrection" are good examples of dramatics. Let me use a parallel example to explain. Near where I live there was a protest called "CHAZ" - a self-declared anarchist autonomous zone. If I were being dramatic I might say that this was "Attempted secession! Not since the civil war..." and all that. But, if I were being honest, I would say that it was a protest where protesters fought with police, occupied a couple blocks, and trashed a public park.

Maybe, in some sense, some of the protesters really were trying to secede or dissolve the government of something. But, realistically, there was no chance that the autonomous zone was going to last or separate from America or anything like that. Similarly, maybe some of the protesters on January 6th thought that by delaying the certification ceremony then Trump would become President. Again though, realistically, there was no chance of that happening.

I think news outlets just sensationalize what happened and use hyperbole. Some people uncritically listen to the news and repeat what they are told. This gets us people who think January 6th was some horrible tragedy and we need to reign in free speech and social media platforms to prevent a repeat. I disagree with that and I'd rather have a January 6th style protest for every future President than have the government, media, and big businesses collude to suppress speech.

They stormed the House and Senate chambers while the electoral college vote was taking place, to attempt to stop it and/or destroy the vote records. What about that is not a coup attempt?

This. It’s not some obscure park. It was Congress in session, with the event organized by #45 and team, not we the people.

I think it is infinitely more appropriate to protest an election at a political building for a few hours, even if that degenerates into rioting and fighting with police, than it is to occupy city blocks including apartments, restaurants, and small business. Note that the CHAZ protesters fought with police and rioted too. Plus, they actually killed people. The idea that it is okay for rioters to destroy, loot, vandalize in a random residential area, or murder random citizens, but it is beyond the pale for rioters to protest at a political building is exactly inverted.

I'm not sure what this what-aboutism has to do with Trump flag waving rioters attempting to stop (and temporarily succeeding in stopping) the election vote count.

It's not "What-aboutism". I'm taking an event where I assume we both agree - in this example CHAZ was not a succession it was a protest that went out of control, and saying that the January 6th event was essentially similar. In both cases you could use hyperbolic language (secession or civil war versus coup or insurrection) but the reality is just not as dramatic.

January 6th is much more like a protest turned riot than it is a coup or insurrection.

Who’s saying these CHAZ folks are okay? Not sure what this is about here.

The comment I'm responding to is saying that the CHAZ thing is less severe than the Capitol riots because the latter were at the Capitol. I am saying that the opposite is true.

I am. What's wrong with people who want to tear down power structures and live free of oppression? Disclaimer: i was not in CHAZ and am not aware of anything that may have gone wrong along the way.

If you've heard testimonies from actual coups, you know nobody is naive enough to think they're going to seize State power from one of the most powerful colonial empires on Earth without tons of weapons.

I agree with you there was a conspiracy with some Trump-loving higher-ups in the security establishment paving the way for the protest, but you can never call a few hundred fascists a "coup" unless they all have a gun and are dropping bombs at key sites to destabilize opposition.

It's also important to note that these fascist networks have access to considerable amounts of weapons. The fact they were not brought along indicates they were not planning a coup. To be clear, i believe Trump himself was planning a coup, but most fascists attending the demo did not because Trump did not request that aloud.

You’re the first person I’ve seen articulate this idea. It’s not necessary to overly dramatize it. It was a terrible event. However, there was a near-zero chance of the protests resulting in a real coup. Maybe people don’t realize that the power in this country isn’t located in a single building. Not since the 1700s at least.

> Maybe, in some sense, some of the protesters really were trying to secede or dissolve the government of something. But, realistically, there was no chance that the autonomous zone was going to last or separate from America or anything like that.

I agree that was not what was happening, but how is people living free from a government that exploits/murders them a wrong thing? I get that secession in the name of keeping institutional slavery isn't ideal, but now that we've had 150y of wage slavery that's not much better for people or the environment, doesn't secession of autonomous communes sound like a reasonable thing to you?

I don't think there should be armed "protesters" breaking into the Capitol when Congress is working to certify the election of the "wrong" guy according to the protesters.

While the instigators were a bit too hopelessly incompetent to really qualify for "insurrection" in my book, it was a dangerous mob attack on our central governing body. Absolutely unacceptable and should never be allowed to happen again.

> Absolutely unacceptable and should never be allowed to happen again.

Except our constitution essentially codifies it as a founding principal. That is, after all, how we started.

So, no, it shouldn't be forbidden. It should be avoided.

Biden isn't King George III.

You're missing my point. I don't condone the events of Jan 6th.

My response was solely to the statement that we should never be allowed to overthrow the government. The people of every nation should be allowed to do so, for that's how the people can be in control of their lives.

I imagine most here will disagree...until someone they abhor is in office.

And I think you're missing my point as well. The event that happened, the event I'm saying should not happen again, was not a legitimate attempt at revolution. It was the losing side attacking the functioning of democracy because they didn't like the outcome of the election.

I don't think the losing side should get to ransack the Capitol every four years because they spread some half-baked rumors and convinced themselves the election was rigged.

We have independent judges, including lots appointed by Trump. If the losing side couldn't convince those judges the election was wrongly decided, they are to wait four years to try again, just like every losing side before them.

The nation is not a playground for toddlers to throw a violent temper tantrum based on make believe when things don't do their way.

It was a mob literally storming the primary political establishment of the country. I agree that there was zero hope of overturning the election, but this was massive symbolic blow at the peaceful transfer of power. I'll concede it was sensationalized to a significant degree - like the cop that was originally reported to had been killed by rioters, only for media outlets to quietly edit when the medical examiner found his stroke was unrelated. And articles writing that 4 cops died due to the riot when in reality they committed suicide months later [1]. But even if coverage was slanted, the basis of the events are definitely a "big deal" to put it mildly.

What Facebook should do in response I'm more ambivalent about. People forget that we're seeing this with the benefit of hindsight. Holding a rally disapproving an election result is not an unusual thing. Plenty of people marched in the streets chanting "Not my president" following Trump's 2016 victory. How are websites supposed to know in advance which ones are going to turn violent? Furthermore, without clear evidence that Trump directed this mob, banning him would set a precedence ripe for abuse: have some of your own supporters commit crimes under the guise of being egged on by your opponents to get said opponents banned from the public square.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/us/politics/jan-6-capitol...

I definitely condemn their actions, but it would be shocking if there was no protests at the capital that day. I clearly remember going to bed on election night being convinced that Trump won, only to discover that new mail-in votes that came in overnight skewed the results towards Biden. All republicans were outraged.

Anyone with half a brain cell knew that would happen, and said that would happen, because blue voters were more concerned about the pandemic and therefore were more likely to cast a mail-in ballot.

Are you assuming that just because they're blue?

Pretty safe bet that pandemic-concerned skews blue.

So - any protest where 5 protesters were killed at once would be dramatic. Some light research suggests that basically all of the people that have been killed at protests were using the protests to cover up some other activity, or because of some 1:1 dispute or grief. None of the protests over the last few years have had more than perhaps 2 associated deaths with any given event, and that's in protests involving 15-20m people in total.

The january 6th protest/riot involved 2000-2500-ish people, and 5 people died - 4 protesters and 1 police officer. Two more police officers committed suicide in the following weeks - could be unrelated, but seems....unlikely.

So that already puts January 6th in a category of its own in terms of deaths relative to number of involved parties (at least in modern times, I suppose the boston massacre had the same number of deaths with fewer protesters).

Then you couple the events with the context - a sitting president, disputing the electoral results, riles up a crowd of protesters, encourages them to go down to the capitol building, where the results of an election are being certified, and as a result - 5-7 people are dead. It's unprecedented.

I agree that some of the "coup" hyperbole is overblown - when I think of coup, I think of a highly organized plot to overthrow a government. However, I don't think the lack of project management around this particular initiative should distract from the fact that a lot of the people there were trying to "stop the steal", aka stop the legitimate counting of elections through force and violence.

So - a uniquely deadly protest, oriented around a presidential exhortation, that led to a group of people trying to disrupt the standard constitutional process of the peaceful transfer of power - that seems newsworthy, no?

I don't think so. The police officer who "died" at the protest is a good example of the news dramatizing things. He died a day later of natural causes unrelated to the protest. The media simply reported his death as if he were killed by protesters.

Five people were killed, all protesters. I agree that's a bit extreme, but so is rioting in the Capitol. If the media coverage were about the severity of the police response or why so many protesters died - then I'd think it would be appropriate. As is, the media response is opposite of that.

What sets apart January 6 is that it was instigated and promoted by a seating president who had just lost an election with the backing of a significant portion of elected officials, all openly attempting to cancel a legitimate election. It was a direct attack on our democratic system of government. The fact that the tribalism of politics has gotten to the point that close to half of the country can’t even (or won’t) recognize this obvious fact is quite concerning for the future.

Lauren Bobert tweeted Nancy Pelosi's location when she was relocated for security reasons. The leaders of both the Oathkeepers and The Proud Boys are under arrest for their involvement that day. The FBI is still investigating who placed the pipe bombs near the capital.

It is a big deal.

Yeah, a few folks died. “Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.”

Totally a normal country with normal people.

Oh, and that part about the crazy guy who was in charge who instigated it all months in advance — forget about all that. That wasn’t a big deal either.

All of the people who died were protesters. As I wrote earlier, I would understand more if the focus of the news and related stories was why so many people died at the protest. That's not the focus though. The focus is about how horrible the insurrection or coup is.

This makes me want to stay far, far away from FAANG.

What is Facebook's moral responsibility here? Hell if I know. It's just too big. Too much verbal ability, not enough cohesion.

Facebook’s algorithm deliberately amplified this speech to increase profit. I’d say that counts as a kind of editorial discretion which then comes with a moral responsibility for the consequences of that editorialising.

If Facebook wants to be the “town square” of the digital age it should be nationalised and the algorithm should be removed.

Source: https://gizmodo.com/facebook-papers-donald-trump-2020-electi...

now anyone please publish & compare this with any gibberish on the same topic on twitter. At least on facebook and in meta people seem to be able to discuss things in an organized manner.

Not a meta employee

Reply on news.ycombinator.com