4 ms·
No it's not. Dangerous people shouldn't be allowed platforms. You have to make it harder and harder for them to get a following.
by zouhair 8y ago
No it's not. Dangerous people shouldn't be allowed platforms. You have to make it harder and harder for them to get a following.
- masklinn 8y agoIndeed. It's long been rather clear that giving crackpots a platform is very different from shining a spotlight on their crackpottery, and the last decade or so have confirmed it even further, platforming crackpots and handing them ways to reach a wider audience is a net detriment to society.
- influx 8y agoGood call, Twitter, Facebook, and Google should ban Trump and all republicans. We’ve had enough of their crackpot ideas. They literally put children in cages.
- sctb 8y agoIf you won't stop trolling we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kweinber 8y agoAgreed. Also, freedom of speech doesn’t mean unlimited rights to all broadcast venues for speech. If these guys want to publish stuff on their own website, no one is stopping them.
- mistermann 8y agoDoes that hold true for Europe?
- swebs 8y agoAs far as I know, no European country has the equivalent of the first amendment. Speech is heavily restricted in some countries.
- zouhair 8y agoHate speech is extremely restricted in most democratic European countries. In France for example if you publicly deny the Holocaust you get to visit prison for some time.
- masklinn 8y ago> In France for example if you publicly deny the Holocaust you get to visit prison for some time. In theory, it's 1 year in prison and 45k€ (and it's denial of any recognised crime against humanity), same penalty as provoking racial, religious or ethnic discrimination, hatred or violence; however the maximum penalties (and prison time) are rarely reached e.g. well-known far-right asshole Alain Soral only got a 6k€ fine for publishing and selling a poster ruled denialist, defamatory and inciting religious hatred against jews back in 2014.
- golergka 8y agoPlatforms are more dangerous than people. Especially when they get to decide who's dangerous and who's allowed what.
- dyarosla 8y agoI mean- that’s one opinion. Any evidence that that’s the case?
- atlantic 8y agoObvious question: who decides who the dangerous people are? You?
- vorpalhex 8y ago> Dangerous people shouldn't be allowed platforms MLK was a borderline enemy of the state in the 1950s because he petitioned for equal rights. Who gets to decide who is "dangerous"?
- zouhair 8y agoAre you equating a White Supremacist to MLK? Tolerating the intolerant is a stupid thing to do and is a recipe t destroy democracy.
- LyndsySimon 8y agoDangerous to whom, exactly? If you give the power to the government to allow or disallow deplatforming, then you end up with "dangerous to the state apparatus".
- zouhair 8y agoYeah, silencing racists and white supremacist is the same as giving the government the right to silence everyone. Giving these people a platform is what created Fox News and a made a clown President.
- amaccuish 8y agoDon't bother trying, this is an american site, your view will sadly not be popular.
- pteredactyl 8y agoYes, America has the First Amendment of the Constitution. It's a principle based approach to speech in that it's free unless it incites violence. Like Maxine Waters last week telling her followers to harass Trump supporters.