6 ms·

> I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts [...] To me effectively everyone wins. "Everyone", including racists, terrorists, drug cartels

> I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts [...] To me effectively everyone wins. "Everyone", including racists, terrorists, drug cartels, human smugglers, child pornographers, scammers, phishers, hackers, gun nuts, anarchists... I know you say you'd be fine with all that stuff, but if I write long enough I'll find something you're not OK with. And everyone else has a different something. Finding common ground on which we can all agree isn't a mistaken goal or an unnatural side effect of having a public forum. It is the purpose of having a public forum. This is just another variant of the "forums should be unmoderated" argument. No one wants that. And the proof? You're making the point on a heavily moderated forum.

Hitton 6y ago
>No one wants that. And the proof? You're making the point on a heavily moderated forum. That's terrible argument. HN already works pretty close to what mchusma proposes. See "showdead" option in profile setting.
z0r 6y ago
A public forum can also be common ground to disagree on.
AdrianB1 6y ago
People in the "everyone" categories you mention can be heard if they want to, the world and Internet are big enough for everyone. And I have the impression that you think you are the owner of the truth by putting categories that should NOT have free speech because you KNOW they are bad. You are wrong multiple times, first because your categories are extremely subjective (I know gun nuts that are very nice people with a passion for the Olympic sport called precision shooting), second because in a country where SCOTUS said something like "there is no exception for hate speech in the 1st A, so hate speech is protected speech" you want private organizations to be restrict what the government is not allowed to. For you free speech is a bad idea, but you think you can post on forums about that and benefit from the fact that the forums do not restrict your posts like you want to restrict others. Maybe your posts are more nocive than child porn, some food for thought.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > People in the "everyone" categories you mention can be heard if they want to, the world and Internet are big enough for everyone. Which was exactly my point. "Facebook" is not "the world and Internet", is it? The question is about whether moderated forums have value to people (they do, you're reading one right now). Demanding that your moderated forum not be moderated affects whether or not people see it as valuable. Facebook wouldn't be Facebook without moderation to make it so. HN wouldn't be HN, Reddit wouldn't be Reddit, etc... > you think you are the owner of the truth [...] For you free speech is a bad idea Go. Away. This junk doesn't belong on HN. And I'm gonna bet you get flagged for that by the very moderation we're discussing.

Hitton 6y ago

>No one wants that. And the proof? You're making the point on a heavily moderated forum. That's terrible argument. HN already works pretty close to what mchusma proposes. See "showdead" option in profile setting.

z0r 6y ago

A public forum can also be common ground to disagree on.

AdrianB1 6y ago

People in the "everyone" categories you mention can be heard if they want to, the world and Internet are big enough for everyone. And I have the impression that you think you are the owner of the truth by putting categories that should NOT have free speech because you KNOW they are bad. You are wrong multiple times, first because your categories are extremely subjective (I know gun nuts that are very nice people with a passion for the Olympic sport called precision shooting), second because in a country where SCOTUS said something like "there is no exception for hate speech in the 1st A, so hate speech is protected speech" you want private organizations to be restrict what the government is not allowed to. For you free speech is a bad idea, but you think you can post on forums about that and benefit from the fact that the forums do not restrict your posts like you want to restrict others. Maybe your posts are more nocive than child porn, some food for thought.

newacct583 6y ago
> People in the "everyone" categories you mention can be heard if they want to, the world and Internet are big enough for everyone. Which was exactly my point. "Facebook" is not "the world and Internet", is it? The question is about whether moderated forums have value to people (they do, you're reading one right now). Demanding that your moderated forum not be moderated affects whether or not people see it as valuable. Facebook wouldn't be Facebook without moderation to make it so. HN wouldn't be HN, Reddit wouldn't be Reddit, etc... > you think you are the owner of the truth [...] For you free speech is a bad idea Go. Away. This junk doesn't belong on HN. And I'm gonna bet you get flagged for that by the very moderation we're discussing.