Pro-Luigi Mangione content is filling up social platforms — and it's a challenge to moderate it
Pro-Luigi Mangione content is filling up social platforms — and it's a challenge to moderate it
Luigi Mangione has drawn lots of defenders on social media. That's a challenge for platforms when it comes to moderation — and for users.
It's very interesting that pro-Luigi posts are immediately and universally censored while pro-Jan. 6th posts are given a lot more leeway. Both were attacks on powerful members of the ruling class, but only one group of sympathizers is being completely shut down. It's tempting to think that it's because tech billionaires have a right-wing bias, but I actually think it's worse than that. I think it's because the January 6th riots represented a partisan divide, while Luigi's (alleged) actions have received bipartisan sympathy. Apparently, violence and terrorism are acceptable unless they lead to class solidarity.
Man, I wonder why
Why are they removing those posts? Luigi Mangione is innocent until proven guilty.
Let's be real though. People are not sympathetic with Luigi because they believe he is innocent. They are sympathetic with him, because they believe he killed the mass murderer CEO Brian Thompson. If he is found innocent and another suspect is produced, Luigi would get sympathy for being wrongfully persecuted and the other suspect would get sympathy for killing the mass murderer CEO Brian Thompson.
Now the question is, why sympathy towards killing a mass murderer is seen as a problem, but being a mass murderer in the way Brian Thompson was is not only accepted, but for mainstream media apparently making him particularly deserving of empathy.
The answer is very obvious, but you won't read it in any of the mainstream media outlets. Because the rich and powerful are fighting a class war against everyone else and the mainstream media is representing the class interests of the rich and powerful, even as the middle class income article writer has his family murdered by the very same people who he tries to invoke empathy for.
The problem with Luigi is not that people are sympathetic towards violence. If the violence is racist or bigoted, if dozens of school children are murdered this is fine. It is not threatening the power of the ruling class. But people realizing that the power of the ruling class is not based on merit, but on brutality, deception and scrupulousness and can easily be toppled by an organized population, that is a gigantic threat.
And that is why the very same people that would demand for precision in talking about suspects of corruption or rich and famous criminals to always be considered innocent until proven guilty, will quickly toss this principle aside in cases like Luigis.
Hi! I'm one of those people who has sympathy for Luigi because he did it. I think the deaths of CEOs like Thompson, billionaires, etc are necessary to create any sort of systemic change that will alleviate the suffering of the working class. It's not because he's hot like mainstream news seems to think, but because I'm tired of being the punching bag of the rich in this class war that we've all been thrust into, and because Luigi fought back.
It's also interesting that the news is saying Luigi is hot and that's why people support him, when it's more the other way around and people find him hot because he shot Thompson.
Why moderate?
The working class is under no obligation to mourn the deaths of those who are actively trying to kill them for profit.
There's a difference between not mourning a piece of shit and asking for the murder of his peers. The hypocrisy of oligarch-run media (social and traditional) is that they stop having an issue with murder if there's an Excel spreadsheet between the instigator and the victim.
Because this instance (and all other instances) physically reside in countries with content laws. If we don't follow those laws, we can be shut down, and the admin/owners that reside in those countries could face legal consequences.
Yeah, it's a pity that the laws appear to be protecting those the best, who are responsible for the most suffering - after all those have the power to get those laws written.
But that's the thing: there's a difference between 'legal' and 'legitimate/true' behaviour.
While I understand that lemmy instances (et al) have to adhere to legal behaviour, I hope that people adhere to legitimate/true behaviour.
You mean it's a challenge to censor and suppress popular sentiment? Maybe stop fucking trying
Can you even fucking imagine if this was about China? The liberal Reddit Lemmitors would be frothing at the mouth about The Great Evil. Meanwhile it’s just another boring article in the freest greatest nation in the world.
censorship, not moderation. and of course free speech only applies to enabling racism and such
I mean free speech actually only applies to government, not social media.
And it doesn't always apply to governments. The Lemmy.world server is in The Netherlands. It's illegal in The Netherlands to threaten violence. So posts threatening violence are deleted so that Lemmy.world can stick around.
This makes some people who feel like they should be allowed to say whatever they want, wherever they want angry at us moderators, but we like Lemmy.world and they don't have to be here if they don't want to. Unfortunately, some people have a massive sense of entitlement, as the ban evader in World News who told me that he shall not be censored found out the hard way this morning.
Sorry, your right to threaten to kill someone is less important to me than Lemmy.world sticking around. There are other Lemmy servers that might allow it, but this one doesn't for legal reasons.
You censor via moderation though right?
Let’s keep posting about Brian Thompson, and every other billionaire, being a mass murderer. That’s all the billionaire class is. Criminals, grifters, less than human murderers protected by the ruling class. US “democracy” working as intended.
its only challenging to moderate because corporate media is struggling to silence the majority without making it look like they are silencing the majority and provoking outrage towards them and their CEOs.
Apparently there was a subreddit too but daddy corporate didn't like that.
I'll tell you what, I'll advocate right now for nonviolence. I really like that luigi didn't kill any of the general public, regardless of anything else he may or may not have done. It's really important to remember in this day and age to not cause widespread suffering to a large number of everyday people who are just going about their normal daily lives.
I agree with you, but I am very worried that any possible copycats might be less discerning. Especially if CEOs start hiring security forces and there are either gun battles or bombings where people get caught in the crossfire.
Not every person with the same agenda as Luigi Mangione's will be as careful to only hit their target.
I see having a reasonable take on this is also giving you downvotes. I think the pro Luigi group has a problematic subgroup that wants to murder anyone.
If it were up to me, I'd start figuring out a way to separate that subgroup out. Otherwise you're going to end up with someone randomly murdering and painting the whole thing as just murderers with no ideological point. That will kill whatever good work this is done.
It’s really important to remember in this day and age to not cause widespread suffering to a large number of everyday people who are just going about their normal daily lives.
Someone needs to tell the CEOs.
This is actually a good point. It seems like, these days, most public violence like this, ends up with a senseless killing spree, and dead bystanders.
It's a very important lesson for CEOs...heck, for everybody to learn.
I am okay with it being there.
The behaviors of some CEOs are making it easy. Oops! Did I victim-blame?
What they gon do? Fill jury with ceos?
Only thing that needs moderation is the parasites paycheques..
I say more memes please.
Somebody even made a Luigi cake
What's to moderate? That insurance companies prevent doctors from delivering effective health care? That insurance companies regularly abuse the contracts they have with customers and deny their claims for arbitrary reasons? That by removing all non-violent options for customers to appeal an unjust decision, they leave only violent ones? This is just basic reality. Removing complaints about insurance company practices is not "moderation." That's just censorship.
why moderate it? i don't think all of it is breaking terms of service necessarily
Holds up empty glass Refill Pls
This is great: https://www.livecoinwatch.com/price/LuigiMangione-__LUIGI
