4 ms·

I doubt his kind of "dangerous" thinking will be allowed to be spread for much longer in our corporate dystopian internet. It's just a matter of time before spe

I doubt his kind of "dangerous" thinking will be allowed to be spread for much longer in our corporate dystopian internet. It's just a matter of time before speech daring to criticize the corporations will be considered a security threat or whatever and immediately deleted.

jasonvorhe 8y ago
Based on which precedent did you arrive at this conclusion?
- iseeyoubydesign 8y ago
  based on all the twitter banning of right wing thinkers. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Swartz isnt exempt just because you like him. When it was allowed for twitter to silence people from their platform ,for host companies to take down sites the flood gates are now opened.
  - jasonmp85 8y ago
    Hey thanks for starting my week off with a laugh. "Right wing thinkers". Heh. Clever!
    - dang 8y ago
      This comment also breaks the site guidelines and only makes the thread worse. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when commenting here.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    > Based on all the twitter banning of right wing thinkers. I did some Googling to see what "right wing thinkers" Twitter has banned lately, and you appear to be talking about Alex Jones and a bunch of literal Nazis. > When it was allowed for twitter to silence people from their platform "Free speech" does not and has never meant "guaranteed access to private businesses and websites." And I'd bet money that you wouldn't say a word if Twitter started banning far-left progressives.
    - Robotuxin 8y ago
      It must be refreshing to be on the right side of history with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, who is anti-white and anti-Semitic. See his tweet about being anti-termite. In your last sentence, are you admitting that Twitter doesn't yet ban far-left groups for cause? If so, shouldn't it be you explaining why you aren't saying a word about a double standard? Twitter claims to be a neutral platform, and eventually it may be equated to a town square, so legal questions will arise even if it is a private business. Also, once it starts editorializing its content, it may become responsible for the groups it seemingly endorses / condones. Twitter is not only censoring extreme groups, so it isn't sufficient to say that a handful of people deserve to get banned. We know that people now generally, even on free-thinking college campuses, self-censor because saying anything controversial can get your life destroyed. We have set a dangerous precedent with "acceptable social commentary" because anyone can be vilified for their ideas even if they are polite and well-reasoned.
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        If you think I support Louis Farrakhan, or Twitter in general for that matter, you are confused. Twitter's current stance is wildly inconsistent, and there are plenty of people that they should have banned long ago but haven't, Farrakhan included. They've probably banned some people they shouldn't have, as well. I don't trust them much. But the gaggle of racists and Nazis they've already banned is a good start. > In your last sentence, are you admitting that Twitter doesn't yet ban far-left groups for cause? Nope! I'm saying that I think you don't actually care about free speech for all.
        Robotuxin 8y ago
        You and I aren't connecting on each other's points. FYI, this is only my second comment to you. There's not much to discuss if you don't recognize my previous post to you as a simple warning against the treacherous path that is being taken by Twitter. I didn't want to misstate where your support lied, but you spoke tersely and maybe glibly. Yet, it sounded like the usual talking points of the left so I was compelled to respond more generally. I needed to put the political grandstanding into perspective because, even if there were a method to their madness, Twitter needs to stop, reassess and, hopefully, rethink its mandate. I already stated that Twitter is not banning extremist groups alone, so it's important not to get stuck on reaffirming who deserves to be banned the most. You should see that the _righteous_ banning of (purported) racists, Nazis, Russian bots, and whatever groups they highlight next is convenient cover for their inconsistent, biased actions. Simply put, you can only be sure you are on the right side of history if you are in league with propagandists. If I explicitly declare that they have every justification and are full of good intentions in some such action, it would still be a moot point when trying to address my previous statements. Granted, you don't wholeheartedly approve of Twitter nor the far-left figure I mentioned, but I only name them for the following two reasons. The disgust of indefensible (historical) groups can be used to shift the moral high ground deceptively to the left. No double standard you might point to could possibly draw the main focus away from Twitter's political bias. Moreover, we proponents of free speech can't be said to not care about the inalienable rights of the far-left because we aren't the ones doing the banning nor calling for any bans. In our criticism, we can fairly ask for consistent action, and Twitter obviously fails the request when one of its policies isn't evenly enforced across the political spectrum.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    They're not banning "right wing thinkers". They're banning people who are violating Twitter's longstanding policy forbidding hate speech on account of "race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease". Every forum I've ever participated in has had rules against this kind of behavior. If you're not promoting hate speech, you're fine. If you think someone can't be a "right wing thinker" without posting hate speech, then that's the kind of attitude that's poisoning the right and destabilizing the country. Bill Kristol is in no danger of being banned.
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      Hate speech is subjective though. For example saying “men aren’t women” is hate speech and will get you banned from Twitter. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420033-self-described-feminist-banned-from-twitter-says-platform-is-setting-a%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/42003...
      - cabaalis 8y ago
        I've never understood the need to "ban" on twitter. The entire system is set up so that you see speech from people that you want to see. Put up a disclaimer "This account is known to promote speech that is antithetical to the values of Twitter, and the values espoused here solely belong to the individual(s) posting these messages." Put a checkbox for the user if they want to see these results in search or not. Let people decide for themselves who they want to follow.
        teolandon 8y ago
        The fact that those tweets exist and are given a platform on which they can spread the influence is what's harmful. The words themselves can be hurtful, of course, but they're not as harmful as the power they have when they are tweeted out for the whole world to see. They are given value by being allowed on twitter. They are viewed as valid opinions that new people can adopt and spread. This is why I think twitter is doing the right thing by actually banning such accounts, and why simply giving an easier way to blanket "block" those accounts from your personal view might not be enough.
- coolbeanboiii3 8y ago
  Right now there is an addition to the next budget bill in the US senate that is about to outlaw the ability for federal or local government agencies doing business with any company or individual involved in the BDS movement. If you are going to penalize my freedom to NOT buy products the originate from a specific location, it is a slippery slope to see what other forms of protest might be curtailed in order to alter markets. Edit: Downvote me all you want, doesn't make it less true. [0] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/rand-paul-israel-military-aid-congress-senate-1036943 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/rand-paul-israel-m...
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    >Edit: Downvote me all you want, doesn't make it less true. I suspect you're being downvoted because you're off topic and not contributing to the discussion in a constructive way. On the other hand, HN and reddit users have a habit of downvoting comments they disagree with.
  - rconti 8y ago
    "BDS" stands for "Boycott, Divest, Sanction" according to a quick search.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  > Based on which precedent did you arrive at this conclusion? we are already being classified, grouped and given tiered services according to whatever bucket we fit into today. insurances are on top of that already with banks a close second. as their ability to mine large datasets increase and cost decrease, they will keep going deeper into profiling. if you want a concrete precedent, there's this https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/admiral-to-price-car-insurance-based-on-facebook-posts https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/admiral-t... and this is what comes next: https://friendlyscore.com/about https://friendlyscore.com/about in a more general way, the china social score is a preview of what's to come, even if it'll be less blatant in the western world. this might not be yet a political issue, but it will have deep impact on self censorship, and that in turn will: http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html Lol, downvotes with actual primary sources. Hivemind News is becoming more and more an echo chamber instead of a place for actual discussion.
sctb 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648555.

jasonvorhe 8y ago

Based on which precedent did you arrive at this conclusion?

iseeyoubydesign 8y ago
based on all the twitter banning of right wing thinkers. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Swartz isnt exempt just because you like him. When it was allowed for twitter to silence people from their platform ,for host companies to take down sites the flood gates are now opened.
- jasonmp85 8y ago
  Hey thanks for starting my week off with a laugh. "Right wing thinkers". Heh. Clever!
  - dang 8y ago
    This comment also breaks the site guidelines and only makes the thread worse. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when commenting here.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > Based on all the twitter banning of right wing thinkers. I did some Googling to see what "right wing thinkers" Twitter has banned lately, and you appear to be talking about Alex Jones and a bunch of literal Nazis. > When it was allowed for twitter to silence people from their platform "Free speech" does not and has never meant "guaranteed access to private businesses and websites." And I'd bet money that you wouldn't say a word if Twitter started banning far-left progressives.
  - Robotuxin 8y ago
    It must be refreshing to be on the right side of history with the likes of Louis Farrakhan, who is anti-white and anti-Semitic. See his tweet about being anti-termite. In your last sentence, are you admitting that Twitter doesn't yet ban far-left groups for cause? If so, shouldn't it be you explaining why you aren't saying a word about a double standard? Twitter claims to be a neutral platform, and eventually it may be equated to a town square, so legal questions will arise even if it is a private business. Also, once it starts editorializing its content, it may become responsible for the groups it seemingly endorses / condones. Twitter is not only censoring extreme groups, so it isn't sufficient to say that a handful of people deserve to get banned. We know that people now generally, even on free-thinking college campuses, self-censor because saying anything controversial can get your life destroyed. We have set a dangerous precedent with "acceptable social commentary" because anyone can be vilified for their ideas even if they are polite and well-reasoned.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      If you think I support Louis Farrakhan, or Twitter in general for that matter, you are confused. Twitter's current stance is wildly inconsistent, and there are plenty of people that they should have banned long ago but haven't, Farrakhan included. They've probably banned some people they shouldn't have, as well. I don't trust them much. But the gaggle of racists and Nazis they've already banned is a good start. > In your last sentence, are you admitting that Twitter doesn't yet ban far-left groups for cause? Nope! I'm saying that I think you don't actually care about free speech for all.
      - Robotuxin 8y ago
        You and I aren't connecting on each other's points. FYI, this is only my second comment to you. There's not much to discuss if you don't recognize my previous post to you as a simple warning against the treacherous path that is being taken by Twitter. I didn't want to misstate where your support lied, but you spoke tersely and maybe glibly. Yet, it sounded like the usual talking points of the left so I was compelled to respond more generally. I needed to put the political grandstanding into perspective because, even if there were a method to their madness, Twitter needs to stop, reassess and, hopefully, rethink its mandate. I already stated that Twitter is not banning extremist groups alone, so it's important not to get stuck on reaffirming who deserves to be banned the most. You should see that the _righteous_ banning of (purported) racists, Nazis, Russian bots, and whatever groups they highlight next is convenient cover for their inconsistent, biased actions. Simply put, you can only be sure you are on the right side of history if you are in league with propagandists. If I explicitly declare that they have every justification and are full of good intentions in some such action, it would still be a moot point when trying to address my previous statements. Granted, you don't wholeheartedly approve of Twitter nor the far-left figure I mentioned, but I only name them for the following two reasons. The disgust of indefensible (historical) groups can be used to shift the moral high ground deceptively to the left. No double standard you might point to could possibly draw the main focus away from Twitter's political bias. Moreover, we proponents of free speech can't be said to not care about the inalienable rights of the far-left because we aren't the ones doing the banning nor calling for any bans. In our criticism, we can fairly ask for consistent action, and Twitter obviously fails the request when one of its policies isn't evenly enforced across the political spectrum.
- amyjess 8y ago
  They're not banning "right wing thinkers". They're banning people who are violating Twitter's longstanding policy forbidding hate speech on account of "race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease". Every forum I've ever participated in has had rules against this kind of behavior. If you're not promoting hate speech, you're fine. If you think someone can't be a "right wing thinker" without posting hate speech, then that's the kind of attitude that's poisoning the right and destabilizing the country. Bill Kristol is in no danger of being banned.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Hate speech is subjective though. For example saying “men aren’t women” is hate speech and will get you banned from Twitter. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420033-self-described-feminist-banned-from-twitter-says-platform-is-setting-a%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/42003...
    - cabaalis 8y ago
      I've never understood the need to "ban" on twitter. The entire system is set up so that you see speech from people that you want to see. Put up a disclaimer "This account is known to promote speech that is antithetical to the values of Twitter, and the values espoused here solely belong to the individual(s) posting these messages." Put a checkbox for the user if they want to see these results in search or not. Let people decide for themselves who they want to follow.
      - teolandon 8y ago
        The fact that those tweets exist and are given a platform on which they can spread the influence is what's harmful. The words themselves can be hurtful, of course, but they're not as harmful as the power they have when they are tweeted out for the whole world to see. They are given value by being allowed on twitter. They are viewed as valid opinions that new people can adopt and spread. This is why I think twitter is doing the right thing by actually banning such accounts, and why simply giving an easier way to blanket "block" those accounts from your personal view might not be enough.
coolbeanboiii3 8y ago
Right now there is an addition to the next budget bill in the US senate that is about to outlaw the ability for federal or local government agencies doing business with any company or individual involved in the BDS movement. If you are going to penalize my freedom to NOT buy products the originate from a specific location, it is a slippery slope to see what other forms of protest might be curtailed in order to alter markets. Edit: Downvote me all you want, doesn't make it less true. [0] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/rand-paul-israel-military-aid-congress-senate-1036943 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/30/rand-paul-israel-m...
- craftyguy 8y ago
  >Edit: Downvote me all you want, doesn't make it less true. I suspect you're being downvoted because you're off topic and not contributing to the discussion in a constructive way. On the other hand, HN and reddit users have a habit of downvoting comments they disagree with.
- rconti 8y ago
  "BDS" stands for "Boycott, Divest, Sanction" according to a quick search.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
> Based on which precedent did you arrive at this conclusion? we are already being classified, grouped and given tiered services according to whatever bucket we fit into today. insurances are on top of that already with banks a close second. as their ability to mine large datasets increase and cost decrease, they will keep going deeper into profiling. if you want a concrete precedent, there's this https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/admiral-to-price-car-insurance-based-on-facebook-posts https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/admiral-t... and this is what comes next: https://friendlyscore.com/about https://friendlyscore.com/about in a more general way, the china social score is a preview of what's to come, even if it'll be less blatant in the western world. this might not be yet a political issue, but it will have deep impact on self censorship, and that in turn will: http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html Lol, downvotes with actual primary sources. Hivemind News is becoming more and more an echo chamber instead of a place for actual discussion.

sctb 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648555.