3 ms·
> Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious. Seems a lot like how authoritarian countries v
by writepub 8y ago
> Then I figured that credible sources would report on whatever Breitbart was shouting about, if it was serious.
Seems a lot like how authoritarian countries view news. First, they classify (a.k.a. anoint) sources as kosher & credible, and then blanket ban the others. Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech.
You can see this pattern in China, Russia, Iran, ... and HN, Wikipedia, ...
Of course, HN is a private company who is free under US speech laws to pick and choose sources it deems kosher. But it's ironic that HN considers it's audience immature enough to "protect" it from the triggers of opposing viewpoints, of Breitbart & ilk.
- lolc 8y agoI don't feel I need to be protected from Breitbart so much as left alone by those who would read that rag. Call it arrogance, but I have better uses for my time than meeting people who afford credibility to Breitbart News. > Then they demonize anyone who makes a logical argument for freedom of speech. And what would that argument be? That I should be exposed to Breitbart so I "can see the other side"? Thank you very much. The world is not divided into two sides where we should go see the other. The world is full of shit. And there is no point to dwell on it.