4 ms·
If it's just because of different definitions of censorship, I would gladly take the downvotes. After all, people disagree on definitions and HN allows downvote
by paradite 8y ago
If it's just because of different definitions of censorship, I would gladly take the downvotes. After all, people disagree on definitions and HN allows downvotes for disagreeing.
In fact I am happy that we found the root cause of our disagreement.
Edit: To be more clear, I would define censorship as denying legal means to access a piece of information.
- bicubic 8y ago"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution" The definition is pretty clear, and TFA pretty clearly meets that definition. You're not being downvoted simply because people disagree with your point of view, you're being downvoted because you're using alternative party-approved language which subverts the discussion. To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling.
- dis-sys 8y ago> To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling. I got downvoted to hell for pointing out that the article doesn't provide the total size of the bond market when talking about those $8 bln defaults. I provided a link to a recent bloomberg article showing the total size is $11 trillion. Surely those downvotes are a good show of freedom of speech! Shame on you.