5 ms·

I look at ZeroHedge at least a couple of times a day. I typically look at the FT and then ZH when I get up in the morning, along with various other financial si

I look at ZeroHedge at least a couple of times a day. I typically look at the FT and then ZH when I get up in the morning, along with various other financial sites. I never look at the ZH comments but I do think it an outrage Google having the power to crack down on free speech and that anti trust action and Section 230 review is long overdue. We are at a dangerous tipping point where free speech is being cancelled, other super wealthy thanks to section 230 firms (ie Twitter) have the temerity to editorialize and 'fact check' (ie provide a 'correct' opinion on) posts of users they don't like. BigTech has greatly overstepped the mark and I look forward to them being reigned in.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The incredibly irony here is that Google is crucifying ZeroHedge for content its users post, whilst Google disclaims any responsibility for bad behavior on their platforms by using Section 230 as a shield: "We aren't responsible for what our users post." The fact that Google will both exploit Section 230 while attacking other sites which expect the same immunity is absolutely golden, and a clear demonstration of why it needs to be stripped of the privilege.
- olivermarks 6y ago
  The irony certainly isn't lost on me - I find it enraging. I'm also annoyed by @NBC_VC being framed as a self titled Orwellian 'news' 'verification' outfit when they are clearly highly partisan and intent on closing down anyone they don't agree with. I pay little attention to NBC or MSFTNBC but this is making me actively dislike them
- qtplatypus 6y ago
  Google will remove or demonetise videos that violate their terms of service. Also Section 230 protects you from legal action, it doesn't protect you from things that are not court based.
jonahbenton 6y ago
This is not a "free speech" issue. At all. The FBI didn't show up and shut down the ZH domain. ZH has not been removed from Google's search index. Tyler Durden's fingers were not amputated. Nobody's speech is being prevented. No business is entitled to any other business' monetization. No store has to sell every product. The store doesn't even have to give a reason. Anyway, ZH has MANY other monetization strategies. It is read enough by traders that subscription would be a good option. Have a nice day.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  You are conflating the 1st amendment with "free speech". The First Amendment is what protects the People from the Government. Free Speech is a principle that people should be allowed to express themselves as freely as possible, because contrarian speech provides a critical public service.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonahbenton 6y ago
    Good lord, no. Express yourself, yes, be free from the consequences of expressing yourself- no, unless you are a child. Be entitled to compensation, no, or to compel others to enter into business arrangements with you- no. There is no restriction on expression, in principle or in law. Certain private entities no longer wish to work with Mr Durden in a particular business context. He is free to find others, in fact, he may contract with his advertisers directly, which many prefer to do rather than go through an intermediary platform, like Google, that can take 70% or more when all is said and done. Or contract with his audience, which by the tone of HN comments would be delighted to pay Mr Durden directly for the value his publication provides them. Advertising has always led to the sorts of conflations of which you mistakenly speak, where the loss of an advertiser, or an advertising platform, is a restriction on freedom. No- precisely the opposite. Freedom means you are free to fuck things up for yourself, free to bear the consequences, free to make your way. Cheers.
    - 6y ago

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

The incredibly irony here is that Google is crucifying ZeroHedge for content its users post, whilst Google disclaims any responsibility for bad behavior on their platforms by using Section 230 as a shield: "We aren't responsible for what our users post." The fact that Google will both exploit Section 230 while attacking other sites which expect the same immunity is absolutely golden, and a clear demonstration of why it needs to be stripped of the privilege.

olivermarks 6y ago
The irony certainly isn't lost on me - I find it enraging. I'm also annoyed by @NBC_VC being framed as a self titled Orwellian 'news' 'verification' outfit when they are clearly highly partisan and intent on closing down anyone they don't agree with. I pay little attention to NBC or MSFTNBC but this is making me actively dislike them
qtplatypus 6y ago
Google will remove or demonetise videos that violate their terms of service. Also Section 230 protects you from legal action, it doesn't protect you from things that are not court based.

jonahbenton 6y ago

This is not a "free speech" issue. At all. The FBI didn't show up and shut down the ZH domain. ZH has not been removed from Google's search index. Tyler Durden's fingers were not amputated. Nobody's speech is being prevented. No business is entitled to any other business' monetization. No store has to sell every product. The store doesn't even have to give a reason. Anyway, ZH has MANY other monetization strategies. It is read enough by traders that subscription would be a good option. Have a nice day.

koheripbal 6y ago
You are conflating the 1st amendment with "free speech". The First Amendment is what protects the People from the Government. Free Speech is a principle that people should be allowed to express themselves as freely as possible, because contrarian speech provides a critical public service.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  Good lord, no. Express yourself, yes, be free from the consequences of expressing yourself- no, unless you are a child. Be entitled to compensation, no, or to compel others to enter into business arrangements with you- no. There is no restriction on expression, in principle or in law. Certain private entities no longer wish to work with Mr Durden in a particular business context. He is free to find others, in fact, he may contract with his advertisers directly, which many prefer to do rather than go through an intermediary platform, like Google, that can take 70% or more when all is said and done. Or contract with his audience, which by the tone of HN comments would be delighted to pay Mr Durden directly for the value his publication provides them. Advertising has always led to the sorts of conflations of which you mistakenly speak, where the loss of an advertiser, or an advertising platform, is a restriction on freedom. No- precisely the opposite. Freedom means you are free to fuck things up for yourself, free to bear the consequences, free to make your way. Cheers.
  - 6y ago