But new numerical simulations get a step closer by untangling the influence of two types of friction-one between neighboring dominoes and the other between each domino and the surface beneath it. (See videos below.) Г—Дespite the apparent simplicity of toppling dominoes, physicists still donвЂ™t have a complete model of the phenomenon. New simulations reveal the role of friction in the seemingly simple mechanics of domino toppling. Therefore, actions should be taken proportionally and with a fair governance structure in place that is appropriate for its respective layer of the Internet.Lily Hevesh Falling over themselves. Such a domino effect can threaten the presence of certain people on the Internet. They used similar methods and processes for the same goal: removing Trump and his supporters. From the outside, tech-platforms (located in various layers of the Internet) appeared to have a domino effect on one another. But I think we should look at the issue more holistically. We have been debating at which layer it is appropriate to do content moderation. Governance is the necessary structure that helps build communities which, combined with fairness, can bring trust to a platform.ДЇinally, it is important to look at the interrelation of different tech-platforms and consider their actions collectively and not individually. Governance is not just due process or 100 page community standards of behavior. To go beyond content moderation, platforms should build governance structures that can proactively create trust and legitimacy. Using only content moderation techniques with no clear governance structure is like theatrical solutions we often see at the airport security: likely to be ineffective but visible. It was not clear how the platforms moderated the users. We did not see measures through which platforms tried to respond to the aggrieved parties (those who thought it was unfair to remove their President from the platform). We saw top-down measures that removed harmful, violence-inciting content and people.

Instead, we saw what we might call вЂњsafety theatreвЂќ. That certainly did not happen in the recent events. If the users trust a platform and perceive its processes as legitimate, those users are more likely to accept a decision by the platform even if they donвЂ™t agree with it. But the way tech-platforms deal with such behavior online is also a determining factor on how the users are going to behave in the future. Political leaders and others can use tech-platforms to affect people's behavior and incite violence.

UsersвЂ™ perceptions of tech-platforms are very important. After tech-platforms banned Trump and some of his acolytes, it became clear that their content moderation techniques are not sufficient to build legitimacy and trust. The recent spate of take-down and bansВ by tech-platforms is a testament to the fact that in governing their usersвЂ™ behavior, tech-platforms have to go beyond content moderation. The reason for this unpreparedness is that these platforms donвЂ™t only moderate content, they moderate users but they still use content moderation techniques that are not built to deal with users. It is also hard to argue that tech-platforms had a governance structure in place to address the problem. It is hard to argue that tech-platforms did not see this coming since they deal with all kinds of other harmful behavior on their platforms. That person happened to be the President of the United States. Tech-platforms in the past week had to remove and ban someone because of inciting violence.

Dominoes falling