6 ms·

I don't see how 1 is an issue when Alex Jones et al were deliberately spreading hateful misinformation. Aiming to CYA by booting someone off of a private platf

I don't see how 1 is an issue when Alex Jones et al were deliberately spreading hateful misinformation. Aiming to CYA by booting someone off of a private platform and others following suit is not the same thing as "conspiring to censor" someone

symlinkk 6y ago
In my opinion your comment is spreading hateful misinformation about YouTube, and I would like for Hacker News to delete it and ban you permanently.
- vernie 6y ago
  Heh, got 'em. Can I interest you in some brain supplements?
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
Conspire - To join or act together; combine Censor - prohibit or restrict the use of something Yeah, they conspired to censor.
- tedivm 6y ago
  Come on. Verb (with object) > to agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal. verb (without object) > to plot (something wrong, evil, or illegal). We all know that "conspire" has connotations beyond just to "join or act together", otherwise there would be no difference between "coporate" and "conspire".
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    The main difference between my definition and yours is the emotion underlying the interpretation. The base definition is the same.
herostratus101 6y ago
We only burn the bad books!
- jaybeeayyy 6y ago
  Alex Jones said trans people murder babies with democrats for their blood...
  - serf 6y ago
    one can be against censorship and against the message being censored. in other words : don't assume those that defend people like Alex Jones are defending his opinions. Many are defending his ability to transmit his message, regardless of the quality of that message, in the interest of preserving that ability for themselves and causes that they support.
    - hobs 6y ago
      Nah, they are using that as a front to push their agenda, because otherwise they'd be super in favor of google and youtube's free speech too, which they are not. Alex Jones isn't legally prohibited from saying lies about Sandy Hook, and the people up in arms defending those hateful lies and saying we should be careful to preserve hateful lies on private platforms are either idiot patsies or purposefully misleading liars(like Alex Jones himself actually.)
      - herostratus101 6y ago
        I think you're confusing YouTube's "free speech" with YouTube's ability to censor anything they want. I have no issue with Google uploading YouTube videos or blog posts spreading essentially whatever message the company wants to spread.
  - stOneskull 6y ago
    psychopaths rise to power so i wouldn't be surprised if there is some truth to that. someone once said 'a dumb psychopath is the serial killer, who kills a few people, and is imprisoned. a smart one drops bombs on thousands of people at once and gets paid for it.' something like that anyway.
Reedx 6y ago
It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time. Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.
- mwfunk 6y ago
  That only makes sense if you consider someone like Alex Jones to be “just another person who happens to have different opinions about some things than some other people”. He never got shit from anyone for merely offering unpopular opinions, his history (and present) is much more complicated and fucked up than that. He’s definitely on a short list of people for whom humanity in general is worse off overall for having him in it. Like a negative contributor on a team who just makes work for other people, he’s a negative contributor in many, many ways for all of humanity, and not just from spreading transparent lies and obvious disinformation. He never got in trouble for simply saying something someone else disagreed with, he got in trouble for directly fucking with the lives of victims of horrible tragedies, over and over again.
- baddox 6y ago
  I don't understand this attitude that we shouldn't say "don't do bad things" because someone else might come along and disagree about which things are bad.
  - unishark 6y ago
    I think you mean "don't say bad things".
- GoofballJones 6y ago
  What does this even mean? Are you suggesting a private company should be forced to host content they don't want to? Should Fox News be forced to host Rachael Maddow and a Huffpost show? Is Fox News "censoring" Huffpost by not hosting a show on their network?
  - Reedx 6y ago
    No, none of that. This is different. Imagine a public town square. Would you want any company acting as the gatekeeper, deciding what speech is allowed or not in that setting? YouTube, Twitter and a few others are effectively the new town square. I don't think we want to end up in a position where a few corporations are dictating acceptable speech and open debate.

symlinkk 6y ago

In my opinion your comment is spreading hateful misinformation about YouTube, and I would like for Hacker News to delete it and ban you permanently.

vernie 6y ago
Heh, got 'em. Can I interest you in some brain supplements?

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

Conspire - To join or act together; combine Censor - prohibit or restrict the use of something Yeah, they conspired to censor.

tedivm 6y ago
Come on. Verb (with object) > to agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal. verb (without object) > to plot (something wrong, evil, or illegal). We all know that "conspire" has connotations beyond just to "join or act together", otherwise there would be no difference between "coporate" and "conspire".
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  The main difference between my definition and yours is the emotion underlying the interpretation. The base definition is the same.

herostratus101 6y ago

We only burn the bad books!

jaybeeayyy 6y ago
Alex Jones said trans people murder babies with democrats for their blood...
- serf 6y ago
  one can be against censorship and against the message being censored. in other words : don't assume those that defend people like Alex Jones are defending his opinions. Many are defending his ability to transmit his message, regardless of the quality of that message, in the interest of preserving that ability for themselves and causes that they support.
  - hobs 6y ago
    Nah, they are using that as a front to push their agenda, because otherwise they'd be super in favor of google and youtube's free speech too, which they are not. Alex Jones isn't legally prohibited from saying lies about Sandy Hook, and the people up in arms defending those hateful lies and saying we should be careful to preserve hateful lies on private platforms are either idiot patsies or purposefully misleading liars(like Alex Jones himself actually.)
    - herostratus101 6y ago
      I think you're confusing YouTube's "free speech" with YouTube's ability to censor anything they want. I have no issue with Google uploading YouTube videos or blog posts spreading essentially whatever message the company wants to spread.
- stOneskull 6y ago
  psychopaths rise to power so i wouldn't be surprised if there is some truth to that. someone once said 'a dumb psychopath is the serial killer, who kills a few people, and is imprisoned. a smart one drops bombs on thousands of people at once and gets paid for it.' something like that anyway.

Reedx 6y ago

It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time. Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.

mwfunk 6y ago
That only makes sense if you consider someone like Alex Jones to be “just another person who happens to have different opinions about some things than some other people”. He never got shit from anyone for merely offering unpopular opinions, his history (and present) is much more complicated and fucked up than that. He’s definitely on a short list of people for whom humanity in general is worse off overall for having him in it. Like a negative contributor on a team who just makes work for other people, he’s a negative contributor in many, many ways for all of humanity, and not just from spreading transparent lies and obvious disinformation. He never got in trouble for simply saying something someone else disagreed with, he got in trouble for directly fucking with the lives of victims of horrible tragedies, over and over again.
baddox 6y ago
I don't understand this attitude that we shouldn't say "don't do bad things" because someone else might come along and disagree about which things are bad.
- unishark 6y ago
  I think you mean "don't say bad things".
GoofballJones 6y ago
What does this even mean? Are you suggesting a private company should be forced to host content they don't want to? Should Fox News be forced to host Rachael Maddow and a Huffpost show? Is Fox News "censoring" Huffpost by not hosting a show on their network?
- Reedx 6y ago
  No, none of that. This is different. Imagine a public town square. Would you want any company acting as the gatekeeper, deciding what speech is allowed or not in that setting? YouTube, Twitter and a few others are effectively the new town square. I don't think we want to end up in a position where a few corporations are dictating acceptable speech and open debate.