I am being generous when I say the US got a taste of its own medicine; unlike the horrific coups and violent uprisings the US routinely orchestrates in nations around the world, this one stood exactly zero chance of seizing control of the government, and only one person died.
I am also being generous when I say the rioters "forced their way" in. https://twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/1346920924310867968
There was some fighting between police and protesters, but contrasted with the militarized squadron which greeted Black Lives Matter demonstrators at the same building a few months prior it's fair to say the police response today was relatively gentle. https://twitter.com/MartyOropeza/status/1346906852173312000
Predictably, this entirely American disruption has blue-checkmarked commentariat shrieking about Vladimir Putin on social media. https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1346936310028759048?s=20
Just as predictably, it's also got them calling for the censorship of social media.

The New York Times has published two new articles titled "The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media" and "Violence on Capitol Hill Is a Day of Reckoning for Social Media".
In the former, NYT's @sheeraf cites think tank spinmeister Renee DiResta of "Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset" fame. As usual no mention is made of DiResta's involvement in the New Knowledge scandal in which a Russian interference "false flag" was staged for a US Senate race.
This narrative which seeds the idea that unregulated communication on the internet will lead to violent uprisings is funny coming from Frankel, who, as @SamScottish5
noted, wrote a piece in 2018 condemning the Iranian government for restricting protesters' social media access.
In the other article, co-authored by Frankel, Mike Isaac and Kate Conger, the message is driven home even less subtly.
https://archive.is/2bRR8 
We will likely see many more such articles in the coming days, arguing for increased regulation of internet communication to prevent future incidents like today.
In and of itself this won't sound terribly concerning to the average citizen. Nothing wrong with taking steps to prevent people from plotting violence and terrorism on social media, right?
Because the actual power structures in the United States seem to be interested in simply censoring the internet to eliminate political dissent altogether.
That sounds an awful like government officials and operatives telling social media corporations that it's their job to censor communication which could facilitate any kind of unrest, no matter how justified.
Do you trust these monopolistic megacorporations to decide whether or not people's dissident speech is acceptable? I don't.
You can follow @caitoz.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.