Is there anyone monitoring US government websites for deletion of pages beyond what people may notice in an ad hoc way? I feel like this should be automated.
There's an Archive Team project for the government, although it's just trying to get as much of a snapshot as possible: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/US_Government Detecting changes across all pages in real time is going to be difficult to accomplish.
You can use a combination of the website capture data available in the Internet Archive along with what the Internet Archive and ArchiveTeam crawl to analyze and track when page status changes (both content and http codes, 200->4xx for example). Look for the diffs across the .govs of interest. Crawling continues.
(no affiliation, friendly reminder to donate to the archive)
What does that have to do with US domestic terrorists, which is what the study concerned?
Trump is the only one on your list where it was a US domestic terrorist.
The shooter in that case seems to have been more right-aligned than left-aligned but there is nothing definitive. He donated $15 to Democrats when he was 17, but a few months later when he was 18 and registered to vote he registered as a Republican. A social media account that is thought to be associated with him had a lot of anti-immigration and antisemitic content.
I don't know about 1975, but for the past 10 years or so if something provably politically violent happens - assassinations/assassination attempts, violent protests, politically motivated arson, etc, it's usually coming from the left. I cannot remember anything provably politically violent from the right during that period, with the possible exception of Jan 6. At least this is my perspective observing the american political life from Europe.
I think most organized and militarized western leftist groups were probably defunct by the end of the Cold war.
I’d assume it’s mostly a product of who the enemy was during the Cold War. Though I understand the far right made a large shift in how decentralized they operate around the end of the 20th century too after the feds started picking a lot of various KKK and other organization members off.
If significant armed left wing groups actually existed, we might actually get meaningful gun control legislation, like happened during the rise of Black Panther.
That doesn't make it true though. Just like 300 million Americans died from overdosing on drugs according to POTUS. They just say things knowing people in their base will not verify anything they say. If someone does, they clearly are opposition just making a stink.
Generally, when someone says something like "left wing groups" they mean something with a formal organization.
"Antifa" is less of an organization than even some loose collective like "anonymous"
Are there left-wing agitators? Sure, black bloc and other "direct action" protestors have been around since at least the world trade protests in the 90s.
But to the best of my knowledge there isn't really a formal "antifa" organization to dismantle or anything.
Non-american here: if you get to the point where you want to kill another person or groups of people, it doesn't really matter whether you are left/right/pink/blue/whatever. You are unwell. To blame an entire group for one person's mental break is silly. You have no idea what is in another person's head, what their beliefs are, which of those beliefs are conflicting with each other. You might as well say that because the person ate pizza on the day, that we should blame and ban italian pizza places. Silly.
I live in a very broken country too, but our people are not shooting up random places/people. We have many guns too, so we cannot attribute it to that.
I think the kind of person that is willing to kill others (in the american sense, shootings), typically are highly suicidal but since they are able to blame the society or some aspect of society, they come to the conclusion to not commit suicide but to rather attack the system as a final punishment / giving up moment or to assert that they have some form of control. They ofcoarse find no relief there either.
Meanwhile your media and politician use these people as scape goats and cheerleaders for their own agendas. Disgusting in its own right.
Killing innocents is for the unwell, but assassinations have been a staple of politics for as long as humanity has had politics.
It also doesn't follow that an entire group can't be held for a single person's actions. There are plenty of organizations that go out of their way to shape individuals' ways of thinking in order (or otherwise compel them) to harm groups of innocent others. Those groups can and absolutely should be held accountable.
I don't think we should normalize cover ups like this especially when it comes to political violence studies. POTUS immediately blamed the "radical left" after the attack without evidence. Not only is that reckless, it's not even the most likely scenario.
> If you already have guns, the threshold for terrorist actions is likely lower
Guns are easily accessible to everyone in America.
Guns are accessible, but prior gun ownership is skewed, and prior gun ownership is one less barrier to cross when attempting political violence. In theory, that should mean increased attempts for that high-gun-ownership demographic.
Exactly, because owning a gun and being trained are very different things.
I own guns but I am not capable of performing a Charlie Kirk style assassination. Nor could I actually carry out a school shooting with high rate of fire across many weapons.
Both of these crimes require that the shooter have training and practice in this style of shooting. You need specialized equipment beyond what a casual gun owner will spend. Buying a 9mm and going to the range every couple of months isn’t cutting it.
Gun culture creates the environment where folk are prepping for combat situations. Go watch any guntuber and you’ll see them train for military situations that your hunter, farmer, or even family defense gun owner is not concerned with.
In fact, I learned that there’s a pejorative term “Fudds” for gun owners who aren’t militarized like this. As in, Elmer Fudd; an actual hunter that uses guns for game. Somehow this is not a respectable person for a gun nut.
When gun ownership becomes a hobby and personality trait you see a lot more people optimizing their habits toward maximum lethality
> Elon Musk, who owns X, recently tweeted that he was going to “fix” the platform’s AI assistant Grok after it cited research that showed right-wing violence was more common than left-wing violence: “My apologies, we are fixing this cringe idiocy by Grok,” he said.
I understand why it's hard to make AI that's accurate, but Musk's elite engineers can't even make it push a preferred narrative consistently. Sounds like it should be a much easier problem to solve.
Regardless of the bias inherent in Grok, it wasn't a good experience to me. I tried it for some time before going back to ChatGPT (this was before GPT-5 though, I'm also not super happy with GPT-5 UX)
This book might be relevant for those trying to understand why and how fascists attempt to control the narrative by suppression of the free press, erasure of documents, and nowadays hiding and flagging posts on social media and popular RSS feeds: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/207294076-erasing-histor...
> Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Um... there was this thing called "September 11". It was after 1990. Out of the three named groups, 520 killed does not put them at the top.
The left only killed 15% as many people as the right. That is noteworthy. But saying that "Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than... radical Islamist extremists" has to be massively cherry-picking the data.
But I suppose it might depend on the point of the study. If the point is "what dangers should people in the US be worried about", then it's absolutely a cherry-pick. If international terrorists kill you, you're still just as dead. But if the point is "where should law enforcement focus its efforts", and if international terrorism is not the responsibility of the same people, then the distinction matters.
Note "not a responsibility" is different from "not primarily the responsibility".
> Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Would have been nice if you were as skeptical of what the OP wrote. But here's the summary from TFA:
"Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism
has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of
far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of
terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990,
far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated
homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227
events that took more than 520 lives.1 In this same period, far-left
extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took
78 lives.2 A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an
acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-
related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to
immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue
to serve as a justification for violent actions."
The most likely explanation that I've seen so far is that the trans-humanists believe that they will solve the aging problem and that that will solve cancer as a byproduct, so we should pour lots of money into their pet subject. It's pretty obvious why they would want to solve aging first as long as they don't have cancer, after that it is going to be a toss-up.
Is there anyone monitoring US government websites for deletion of pages beyond what people may notice in an ad hoc way? I feel like this should be automated.
There's an Archive Team project for the government, although it's just trying to get as much of a snapshot as possible: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/US_Government Detecting changes across all pages in real time is going to be difficult to accomplish.
You can use a combination of the website capture data available in the Internet Archive along with what the Internet Archive and ArchiveTeam crawl to analyze and track when page status changes (both content and http codes, 200->4xx for example). Look for the diffs across the .govs of interest. Crawling continues.
(no affiliation, friendly reminder to donate to the archive)
https://web.archive.org/web/20250911165140/https://www.ojp.g...
TFA
Memory hole anything inconvenient
Robert Fico, Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Solomon Pena, Fumio Kishida, Andriy Parubiy, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Shinzo Abe, Jair Bolsonaro...
All of them represents of right orientated politics and are a victims of assassination in recent years.
What does that have to do with US domestic terrorists, which is what the study concerned?
Trump is the only one on your list where it was a US domestic terrorist.
The shooter in that case seems to have been more right-aligned than left-aligned but there is nothing definitive. He donated $15 to Democrats when he was 17, but a few months later when he was 18 and registered to vote he registered as a Republican. A social media account that is thought to be associated with him had a lot of anti-immigration and antisemitic content.
The party insists that political violence, by definition, requires a suitable leftist minority identity to apply.
Any violence by a member of the party is just sparkling patriotism.
Since 1975, right-wing terrorists have killed 5.5x as many people as left-wing terrorists.
I don't know about 1975, but for the past 10 years or so if something provably politically violent happens - assassinations/assassination attempts, violent protests, politically motivated arson, etc, it's usually coming from the left. I cannot remember anything provably politically violent from the right during that period, with the possible exception of Jan 6. At least this is my perspective observing the american political life from Europe.
[delayed]
https://archive.is/A5TGH
Link in case the MAGA flaggers take it down: https://www.404media.co/doj-deletes-study-showing-domestic-t...
Other than the Weather Underground, I'm having trouble thinking of left wing groups.
I think most organized and militarized western leftist groups were probably defunct by the end of the Cold war.
I’d assume it’s mostly a product of who the enemy was during the Cold War. Though I understand the far right made a large shift in how decentralized they operate around the end of the 20th century too after the feds started picking a lot of various KKK and other organization members off.
There is a wiki for that. You will find it supports your position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Left-wing_militant_gr...
It's gone a bit out of fashion but FARC were big in their day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_...
The US' DOJ would not be concerned about Colombian revolutionaries like this though
If significant armed left wing groups actually existed, we might actually get meaningful gun control legislation, like happened during the rise of Black Panther.
Strawman Front
antifa
Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think antifa has been relevant for the past... five years? My mind puts them in the pre-COVID bucket.
They've remained a continuous feature of right wing scare media.
That doesn't make it true though. Just like 300 million Americans died from overdosing on drugs according to POTUS. They just say things knowing people in their base will not verify anything they say. If someone does, they clearly are opposition just making a stink.
Generally, when someone says something like "left wing groups" they mean something with a formal organization.
"Antifa" is less of an organization than even some loose collective like "anonymous"
Are there left-wing agitators? Sure, black bloc and other "direct action" protestors have been around since at least the world trade protests in the 90s.
But to the best of my knowledge there isn't really a formal "antifa" organization to dismantle or anything.
Non-american here: if you get to the point where you want to kill another person or groups of people, it doesn't really matter whether you are left/right/pink/blue/whatever. You are unwell. To blame an entire group for one person's mental break is silly. You have no idea what is in another person's head, what their beliefs are, which of those beliefs are conflicting with each other. You might as well say that because the person ate pizza on the day, that we should blame and ban italian pizza places. Silly.
I live in a very broken country too, but our people are not shooting up random places/people. We have many guns too, so we cannot attribute it to that.
I think the kind of person that is willing to kill others (in the american sense, shootings), typically are highly suicidal but since they are able to blame the society or some aspect of society, they come to the conclusion to not commit suicide but to rather attack the system as a final punishment / giving up moment or to assert that they have some form of control. They ofcoarse find no relief there either.
Meanwhile your media and politician use these people as scape goats and cheerleaders for their own agendas. Disgusting in its own right.
Killing innocents is for the unwell, but assassinations have been a staple of politics for as long as humanity has had politics.
It also doesn't follow that an entire group can't be held for a single person's actions. There are plenty of organizations that go out of their way to shape individuals' ways of thinking in order (or otherwise compel them) to harm groups of innocent others. Those groups can and absolutely should be held accountable.
I think this is not too surprising? Both the result and the action of hiding it?
From my understanding, right-wing usually means more pro-gun. If you already have guns, the threshold for terrorist actions is likely lower.
> I think this is not too surprising?
I don't think we should normalize cover ups like this especially when it comes to political violence studies. POTUS immediately blamed the "radical left" after the attack without evidence. Not only is that reckless, it's not even the most likely scenario.
> If you already have guns, the threshold for terrorist actions is likely lower
Guns are easily accessible to everyone in America.
Guns are accessible, but prior gun ownership is skewed, and prior gun ownership is one less barrier to cross when attempting political violence. In theory, that should mean increased attempts for that high-gun-ownership demographic.
Exactly, because owning a gun and being trained are very different things.
I own guns but I am not capable of performing a Charlie Kirk style assassination. Nor could I actually carry out a school shooting with high rate of fire across many weapons.
Both of these crimes require that the shooter have training and practice in this style of shooting. You need specialized equipment beyond what a casual gun owner will spend. Buying a 9mm and going to the range every couple of months isn’t cutting it.
Gun culture creates the environment where folk are prepping for combat situations. Go watch any guntuber and you’ll see them train for military situations that your hunter, farmer, or even family defense gun owner is not concerned with.
In fact, I learned that there’s a pejorative term “Fudds” for gun owners who aren’t militarized like this. As in, Elmer Fudd; an actual hunter that uses guns for game. Somehow this is not a respectable person for a gun nut.
When gun ownership becomes a hobby and personality trait you see a lot more people optimizing their habits toward maximum lethality
True, but if you already have them at home and you’re raised in a family that uses them, presumably the barrier to using one is lower.
Not surprising, and absolutely newsworthy.
Oh yes, I didn’t mean to say it should be ignored. Just more expressing that sadly I’m not surprised by this action with the current government.
> Elon Musk, who owns X, recently tweeted that he was going to “fix” the platform’s AI assistant Grok after it cited research that showed right-wing violence was more common than left-wing violence: “My apologies, we are fixing this cringe idiocy by Grok,” he said.
I understand why it's hard to make AI that's accurate, but Musk's elite engineers can't even make it push a preferred narrative consistently. Sounds like it should be a much easier problem to solve.
I think the last time they tried it ended up going mechahitler
Regardless of the bias inherent in Grok, it wasn't a good experience to me. I tried it for some time before going back to ChatGPT (this was before GPT-5 though, I'm also not super happy with GPT-5 UX)
What issues did you have with Grok/are having with GPT5?
I find it quite amusing that Grok tends to contradict Musk's untruths.
The last time they tried to make it agree with Elon consistently, it proclaimed itself to be mechahitler so...
[dead]
On HN there was another post about DOJ going against the guy who made the anti-ICE app: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44496458 and it's also flagged, which is a pity.
This book might be relevant for those trying to understand why and how fascists attempt to control the narrative by suppression of the free press, erasure of documents, and nowadays hiding and flagging posts on social media and popular RSS feeds: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/207294076-erasing-histor...
[flagged]
[flagged]
Reading the actual study says:
> Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Link: https://archive.is/2024.10.24-222147/https://nij.ojp.gov/top...
Um... there was this thing called "September 11". It was after 1990. Out of the three named groups, 520 killed does not put them at the top.
The left only killed 15% as many people as the right. That is noteworthy. But saying that "Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than... radical Islamist extremists" has to be massively cherry-picking the data.
key word is domestic
It's still a massive cherry-pick.
But I suppose it might depend on the point of the study. If the point is "what dangers should people in the US be worried about", then it's absolutely a cherry-pick. If international terrorists kill you, you're still just as dead. But if the point is "where should law enforcement focus its efforts", and if international terrorism is not the responsibility of the same people, then the distinction matters.
Note "not a responsibility" is different from "not primarily the responsibility".
The first paragraph:
> Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
https://www.publicnow.com/view/52C0B5B4B9D5E61F29777B936AD8F...
Here is the study, the link is not clickable if you have an account, you have to view source to get at it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250911165140/https://www.ojp.g...
Thank you for being skeptical and looking up the actual research.
Unfortunately this article is the usual level of quality of 404 Media. Their domain should probably be autoflagged on HN submissions.
The article is not wrong just because the above commenter didn't like it. Take a look yourself: https://archive.is/2024.10.24-222147/https://nij.ojp.gov/top...
Would have been nice if you were as skeptical of what the OP wrote. But here's the summary from TFA:
"Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.1 In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.2 A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic- related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions."
https://web.archive.org/web/20250911165140/https://www.ojp.g...
One standard response to someone quoting a source they do not link is always to go to the source. You may well be presented with cherry picked data.
[dead]
[flagged]
While it's important to note they are trying to delete stuff like that
it's way way more alarming they are deleting cancer research, for many decades to come
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/magazine/trump-administra...
and the weird thing is no-one quite understands why, this is not even vaccine related
The most likely explanation that I've seen so far is that the trans-humanists believe that they will solve the aging problem and that that will solve cancer as a byproduct, so we should pour lots of money into their pet subject. It's pretty obvious why they would want to solve aging first as long as they don't have cancer, after that it is going to be a toss-up.
Ignoring the obvious, you mean?