6 ms·

Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. Controlling "disinformation" is a dog whistle for censorship, hoping that aver

Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. Controlling "disinformation" is a dog whistle for censorship, hoping that average citizens don't realize what they're really after. We all know who is going to be the moderators in flagging "disinformation" and we all know which ideology they overwhelmingly favor. I'd sooner trust a pyromaniac as fire chief of my local county than I would trust big tech companies to manage "disinformation" on my behalf.

tootie 6y ago
I don't think that's a fair judgement at all. Not when the right is actively attacking honest journalism at its source while also screaming about anti-conservative bias on social media every time they filter disinformation. I would also not at all categorize deplatforming disinformation as censorship either. Nor incitement to violence. I only agree in that it's not a job that any of these companies are setup to handle. EDIT: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-social-media-after-twitter-adds-warning-on-his-twee https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-...
colinmhayes 6y ago
Well yea, the left wants misinformation to be labeled/censored because they're no willing to lie like the right does. Once the left catches on to the need o create their own fake news you'll see this from both sides.
- Covzire 6y ago
  Are you absolutely sure you would notice when the left 'catches on' and starts creating their own fake news? You might be able to spot it when there is a constant parade of anonymous sources that never seem to provide any actual proof for bombshell claims meant to hurt Trump etc. Or maybe various newspapers and cable outlets will run hundreds of stories and thousands upon thousands of hours of ill-sourced coverage into the opposite allegations against Trump, that he would be colluding with some foreign actor, say, i don't know, Russia? Maybe prominent Democrat house members might make claims again and again to the media that they had seen first hand evidence of collusion with Russia. Maybe the jig would be up when, under oath they would be asked the same questions and they were suddenly not so sure, nor could they produce any evidence. It would be tricky, for sure.
- dx87 6y ago
  At the VP debate Kamala Harris repeated the lie that Trump called covid a hoax. Niether party has a monopoly on lying to their base.
  - youthbrigade 6y ago
    He said it at a rally on February 28th. Source: Video on c-span https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4865556/user-clip-trump-this-coronavirus-hoax-equates-flu https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4865556/user-clip-trump-this-...
    - Covzire 6y ago
      I remember this, he clearly refers to how he acted quickly to stop the flow of people from overseas and how few cases of COVID there were at that time. The "Hoax" was how Democrats were claiming Trump was xenophobic and/or accusing him of overreacting, if you remember Nancy Pelosi out walking around in Chinatown without a mask etc around this time. But how quickly the winds can shift. This and the Charlottesville "fine people hoax" that Biden himself keeps repeating is fake news that just won't die, nor does Twitter seem too keen on helping kill it off either.
      - colinmhayes 6y ago
        He literally didn't stop any flow. He's still talking about how he closed the border to China. False, he closed the border to Chinese nationals. Anyone else coming from China was fine. Trump lies constantly. Incessantly. It's legitimately ruined public discourse which is why people keep pushing social media to label/censor misinformation. Trump literally said "fine people" too, referring to literal white supremacists. I don't give a fuck if he walked it back or said something else first. Trump starting with a prepared statement before telling us how he really feels has happened over and over. Remember when Trump totally didn't leak classified info to Russia. Until he admitted himself that he had.
    - squidlogic 6y ago
      Text from the transcript (it's all caps on the site): PRES. TRUMP: THEY HAVE SPENT THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND I CAN EVEN GO FURTHER THAN THAT THREE YEARS SINCE THE ELECTION BUT WE GO BEFORE THE ELECTION, WORKING TO ERASE YOUR BALLOTS AND OVERTHROW OUR DEMOCRACY. BUT WITH YOUR HELP WE HAVE EXPOSE THE FAR-LEFT'S CORRUPTION AND DEFEATED THEIR SINISTER SCHEMES. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COMING MONTHS. LET'S WATCH. LET'S JSUT -- JUST WATCH. VERY DISHONEST PEOPLE. NOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE POLITICIZING THE CORONAVIRUS. CORONAVIRUS. THEY ARE POLITICIZING IT. WE DID ONE OF THE GREAT JOBS -- HOW'S PRESIDENT TRUMP DOING? THEY GO, NOT GOOD. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY CLUE. THEY CANNOT EVEN COUNT THE VOTES IN IOWA. NO, THEY CAN'T. THEY CAN'T COUNT THEIR VOTES. ONE OF MY PEOPLE CAME UP TO ME AND SAID, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY TRIED TO BEAT YOU ON RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIAN. THAT DID NOT WORK OUT TOO WELL. THEY COULD NOT DO IT. THEY TRIED THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX. THAT WAS ON A PERFECT CONVERSATION. THEY TRIED ANYTHING. THEY TRIED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEY LOST. IT IS ALL TURNING. THINK OF IT. AND THIS IS THEIR NEW HOAX. WE DID SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PRETTY AMAZING. WE HAVE 15 PEOPLE IN THIS MASSIVE COUNTRY AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE WENT EARLY, WE COULD'VE HAD A LOT MORE THAN THAT. WE'RE DOING GREAT. OUR COUNTRY IS DOING SO GREAT. WE ARE SO UNIFIED. WE ARE SO UNIFIED. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS NEVER EVER BEEN UNIFIED LIKE IT IS NOW. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MOVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY LIKE WE HAVE NOW. NEVER BEEN I'm struck by how this is almost a perfect example of the rorschach test that is Trump. You could easily read this as saying that [COVID] is a hoax. You could just as easily read this as saying that [the democrats saying he is doing a bad job with COVID] is a hoax.
p1necone 6y ago
Assuming you're from America - your right is absolutely bugfuck insane and blatantly corrupt and the fact that you're talking about them as if they're not seriously affects my ability to take you seriously. What is with all these people talking as if the American right and left are just two regular sides of the same political coin without addressing the massive elephant (pun not intended) in the room.
- Covzire 6y ago
  Thanks for the reply I guess, and the clear reminder why so many had to die both in NA and Europe for the first amendment to become a reality.
  - p1necone 6y ago
    How is the first amendment relevant here?
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    It's ironic to be championing the virtues of free speech in reply to a completely innocuous post that was flagged to death.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  > What is with all these people talking as if the American right and left are just two regular sides of the same political coin without addressing the massive elephant in the room. The (GOP) elephant in the room uses 'both sides bad, vote for the Republican' as a strategy with the more educated segment of the electorate. Except for people who criticize both parties from the hard left (well left of Bernie Sanders) and the very hard right (the few people who think Trump isn't extreme enough), 'both sides bad' talking points generally come from Republicans who aren't open about their party affiliation. It's not an honest argument--indeed it's a form of subjective disinformation in and of itself--but it's effective with a certain demographic that is over-represented in the STEM sector. That demographic is people who behave like this https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ in response to mild suggestions that, just maybe, some of the benefits of the past 75 years of economic and technological progress should be shared a little more evenly.
bleepblorp 6y ago
The only reason measures to curb disinformation would have a partisan impact is because conservative parties (throughout the industrialized world, not just in the US) use disinformation strategies far, far more than do other parties. Center-left/left parties use reality to galvanize their base voters into action. Their voters are people who aren't pleased with what's happening in their countries and want to change it for the better. There's no need for center-left parties to lie that their electoral opponents eat babies when their electoral opponents actually put children in cages. In contrast, right wing parties overcome the inherent unpopularity of their revealed policy platforms (running on platforms of cutting taxes on the very rich while making life harder for the average person is not popular) by using disinformation to make a stated platform based on fabricated wedge issues. Hence, the imaginary convoys of South American migrants that were about to storm the US-Mexico border in 2018. As such, restricting disinformation will have a partisan impact. Within the US, there is no Democratic equivalent to Qanon, so anti-disinformation measures that impact the likes of Qanon will have no impact on the Democratic party whatsoever. This, however, isn't a bad thing. Functioning societies can have zero tolerance for 'alternative facts.' Disagree over goals and interpretations, but facts must be accepted by all. Democracy requires an informed electorate and there can be no functioning democracy when one side is free to invent its own version of reality.
- julienb_sea 6y ago
  Here's the problem. A fact can be stated in a variety of different ways with different implications. A fact is also a fairly confined data point, and excludes any extrapolation, modeling, hypothesis, root cause analysis or policy prescription. Pretty much nothing worthy of discussion is a fact. Debating facts is pointless. People debate opinions, interpretations, implications. You cannot declare an implication from a fact as itself a fact. Nor can you claim people disagreeing with an implication are lying about facts. As an aside - right wing platforms as you put it generally include a variety of popular proposals with the lower and middle class. These include immigration protectionism, lowering consumption taxes like gas taxes, taking a conservative stance on societally expensive government policies, and lowering unemployment rate through encouraging business growth. You may not agree with these policies, but to claim they are disinformation and thus not worthy of consideration is blatant biased censorship.
nemothekid 6y ago
disinformation is a dog whistle for censorship, but fake news is...? Censorship for thee but not for me.
- easterncalculus 6y ago
  "Fake news" is a call to criticism. The amount of people bringing up "fake news" and calling for say, CNN, to not be able to report at all is minimal. Comparatively you can't have a conversation about "disinformation" without talking about social media companies' responsibility to delete or hide content.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    Ah ok, when Trump says a negative article about him is "fake news" it's criticism, but when "disinformation" comes out about Biden it's a call for censorship? Am I insane for seeing the dissonance here?
    - p1necone 6y ago
      You're not insane. Don't fall into the trap of thinking these people don't see the hypocrisy in what they're saying. Gaslighting and projection is all part of the alt right playbook.
      - logarhythmic 6y ago
        Are you really concluding those commenters are "alt right" based off of what they said? I find that bizarre
    - refurb 6y ago
      One of them is saying “it’s not true” and one of them is saying “we should stop the public from seeing that”.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
hnshooray 6y ago
Please. Your nutjob president is screaming nonstop about “fake news”. It ain’t people on the left who are uncomfortable with truth. It’s the entire Republican Party.
zetazzed 6y ago
Right wing district attorneys are currently suing Netflix over Cuties, in a throwback to early-90s moral outrage arguments by people who have not actually watched a film and understood anything about it: https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2556282/netflixs-cuties-backlash-has-extended-to-a-lawsuit https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2556282/netflixs-cuties-bac... People have just gotten so used to conservative calls for censorship that they escape all notice.
bleepblorp 6y ago
The only reason measures to curb disinformation would have a partisan impact is because conservative parties (throughout the industrialized world, not just in the US) use disinformation strategies far, far more than do other parties. Center-left/left parties use reality to galvanize their base voters into action. Their voters are people who aren't pleased with what's happening in their countries and want to change it for the better. There's no need for center-left parties to lie that their electoral opponents eat babies when their electoral opponents actually put children in cages. In contrast, right wing parties overcome the inherent unpopularity of their revealed policy platforms (running on platforms of cutting taxes on the very rich while making life harder for the average person is not popular) by using disinformation to make a stated platform based on fabricated wedge issues. Hence, the imaginary convoys of South American migrants that were about to storm the US-Mexico border in 2018. As such, restricting disinformation will have a partisan impact. Within the US, there is no Democratic equivalent to Qanon, so anti-disinformation measures that impact the likes of Qanon will have no impact on the Democratic party whatsoever. Functioning societies must have zero tolerance for 'alternative facts.' Disagree over goals and interpretations, but facts must be accepted by all. Democracy requires an informed electorate and there can be no functioning democracy when one side is free to invent its own version of reality.
drewrv 6y ago
> Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. This year the president has sued to stop publication of two books because they embarrassed him, one from John Bolton and another from Mary Trump. This year police in cities across the country have opened fire on journalists. These are legal and physical attacks, on journalists and publishers, coming from government officials. Social media moderation policies are interesting and important. But if you see censorship and attacks on free speech only coming from one side, you should probably diversify your media diet.
- artificialLimbs 6y ago
  I suspect the original statement is referring to sheer volume, where your examples are more few and far between, particularly where it concerns violence. "Only" could have been left out of the sentence for greater accuracy.
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781792.

tootie 6y ago

I don't think that's a fair judgement at all. Not when the right is actively attacking honest journalism at its source while also screaming about anti-conservative bias on social media every time they filter disinformation. I would also not at all categorize deplatforming disinformation as censorship either. Nor incitement to violence. I only agree in that it's not a job that any of these companies are setup to handle. EDIT: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-shut-down-social-media-after-twitter-adds-warning-on-his-twee https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863011399/trump-threatens-to-...

colinmhayes 6y ago

Well yea, the left wants misinformation to be labeled/censored because they're no willing to lie like the right does. Once the left catches on to the need o create their own fake news you'll see this from both sides.

Covzire 6y ago
Are you absolutely sure you would notice when the left 'catches on' and starts creating their own fake news? You might be able to spot it when there is a constant parade of anonymous sources that never seem to provide any actual proof for bombshell claims meant to hurt Trump etc. Or maybe various newspapers and cable outlets will run hundreds of stories and thousands upon thousands of hours of ill-sourced coverage into the opposite allegations against Trump, that he would be colluding with some foreign actor, say, i don't know, Russia? Maybe prominent Democrat house members might make claims again and again to the media that they had seen first hand evidence of collusion with Russia. Maybe the jig would be up when, under oath they would be asked the same questions and they were suddenly not so sure, nor could they produce any evidence. It would be tricky, for sure.
dx87 6y ago
At the VP debate Kamala Harris repeated the lie that Trump called covid a hoax. Niether party has a monopoly on lying to their base.
- youthbrigade 6y ago
  He said it at a rally on February 28th. Source: Video on c-span https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4865556/user-clip-trump-this-coronavirus-hoax-equates-flu https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4865556/user-clip-trump-this-...
  - Covzire 6y ago
    I remember this, he clearly refers to how he acted quickly to stop the flow of people from overseas and how few cases of COVID there were at that time. The "Hoax" was how Democrats were claiming Trump was xenophobic and/or accusing him of overreacting, if you remember Nancy Pelosi out walking around in Chinatown without a mask etc around this time. But how quickly the winds can shift. This and the Charlottesville "fine people hoax" that Biden himself keeps repeating is fake news that just won't die, nor does Twitter seem too keen on helping kill it off either.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      He literally didn't stop any flow. He's still talking about how he closed the border to China. False, he closed the border to Chinese nationals. Anyone else coming from China was fine. Trump lies constantly. Incessantly. It's legitimately ruined public discourse which is why people keep pushing social media to label/censor misinformation. Trump literally said "fine people" too, referring to literal white supremacists. I don't give a fuck if he walked it back or said something else first. Trump starting with a prepared statement before telling us how he really feels has happened over and over. Remember when Trump totally didn't leak classified info to Russia. Until he admitted himself that he had.
  - squidlogic 6y ago
    Text from the transcript (it's all caps on the site): PRES. TRUMP: THEY HAVE SPENT THE LAST THREE YEARS, AND I CAN EVEN GO FURTHER THAN THAT THREE YEARS SINCE THE ELECTION BUT WE GO BEFORE THE ELECTION, WORKING TO ERASE YOUR BALLOTS AND OVERTHROW OUR DEMOCRACY. BUT WITH YOUR HELP WE HAVE EXPOSE THE FAR-LEFT'S CORRUPTION AND DEFEATED THEIR SINISTER SCHEMES. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COMING MONTHS. LET'S WATCH. LET'S JSUT -- JUST WATCH. VERY DISHONEST PEOPLE. NOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE POLITICIZING THE CORONAVIRUS. CORONAVIRUS. THEY ARE POLITICIZING IT. WE DID ONE OF THE GREAT JOBS -- HOW'S PRESIDENT TRUMP DOING? THEY GO, NOT GOOD. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY CLUE. THEY CANNOT EVEN COUNT THE VOTES IN IOWA. NO, THEY CAN'T. THEY CAN'T COUNT THEIR VOTES. ONE OF MY PEOPLE CAME UP TO ME AND SAID, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY TRIED TO BEAT YOU ON RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIAN. THAT DID NOT WORK OUT TOO WELL. THEY COULD NOT DO IT. THEY TRIED THE IMPEACHMENT HOAX. THAT WAS ON A PERFECT CONVERSATION. THEY TRIED ANYTHING. THEY TRIED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEY LOST. IT IS ALL TURNING. THINK OF IT. AND THIS IS THEIR NEW HOAX. WE DID SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PRETTY AMAZING. WE HAVE 15 PEOPLE IN THIS MASSIVE COUNTRY AND BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE WENT EARLY, WE COULD'VE HAD A LOT MORE THAN THAT. WE'RE DOING GREAT. OUR COUNTRY IS DOING SO GREAT. WE ARE SO UNIFIED. WE ARE SO UNIFIED. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS NEVER EVER BEEN UNIFIED LIKE IT IS NOW. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MOVEMENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY LIKE WE HAVE NOW. NEVER BEEN I'm struck by how this is almost a perfect example of the rorschach test that is Trump. You could easily read this as saying that [COVID] is a hoax. You could just as easily read this as saying that [the democrats saying he is doing a bad job with COVID] is a hoax.

p1necone 6y ago

Assuming you're from America - your right is absolutely bugfuck insane and blatantly corrupt and the fact that you're talking about them as if they're not seriously affects my ability to take you seriously. What is with all these people talking as if the American right and left are just two regular sides of the same political coin without addressing the massive elephant (pun not intended) in the room.

Covzire 6y ago
Thanks for the reply I guess, and the clear reminder why so many had to die both in NA and Europe for the first amendment to become a reality.
- p1necone 6y ago
  How is the first amendment relevant here?
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  It's ironic to be championing the virtues of free speech in reply to a completely innocuous post that was flagged to death.
bleepblorp 6y ago
> What is with all these people talking as if the American right and left are just two regular sides of the same political coin without addressing the massive elephant in the room. The (GOP) elephant in the room uses 'both sides bad, vote for the Republican' as a strategy with the more educated segment of the electorate. Except for people who criticize both parties from the hard left (well left of Bernie Sanders) and the very hard right (the few people who think Trump isn't extreme enough), 'both sides bad' talking points generally come from Republicans who aren't open about their party affiliation. It's not an honest argument--indeed it's a form of subjective disinformation in and of itself--but it's effective with a certain demographic that is over-represented in the STEM sector. That demographic is people who behave like this https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ in response to mild suggestions that, just maybe, some of the benefits of the past 75 years of economic and technological progress should be shared a little more evenly.

bleepblorp 6y ago

The only reason measures to curb disinformation would have a partisan impact is because conservative parties (throughout the industrialized world, not just in the US) use disinformation strategies far, far more than do other parties. Center-left/left parties use reality to galvanize their base voters into action. Their voters are people who aren't pleased with what's happening in their countries and want to change it for the better. There's no need for center-left parties to lie that their electoral opponents eat babies when their electoral opponents actually put children in cages. In contrast, right wing parties overcome the inherent unpopularity of their revealed policy platforms (running on platforms of cutting taxes on the very rich while making life harder for the average person is not popular) by using disinformation to make a stated platform based on fabricated wedge issues. Hence, the imaginary convoys of South American migrants that were about to storm the US-Mexico border in 2018. As such, restricting disinformation will have a partisan impact. Within the US, there is no Democratic equivalent to Qanon, so anti-disinformation measures that impact the likes of Qanon will have no impact on the Democratic party whatsoever. This, however, isn't a bad thing. Functioning societies can have zero tolerance for 'alternative facts.' Disagree over goals and interpretations, but facts must be accepted by all. Democracy requires an informed electorate and there can be no functioning democracy when one side is free to invent its own version of reality.

julienb_sea 6y ago
Here's the problem. A fact can be stated in a variety of different ways with different implications. A fact is also a fairly confined data point, and excludes any extrapolation, modeling, hypothesis, root cause analysis or policy prescription. Pretty much nothing worthy of discussion is a fact. Debating facts is pointless. People debate opinions, interpretations, implications. You cannot declare an implication from a fact as itself a fact. Nor can you claim people disagreeing with an implication are lying about facts. As an aside - right wing platforms as you put it generally include a variety of popular proposals with the lower and middle class. These include immigration protectionism, lowering consumption taxes like gas taxes, taking a conservative stance on societally expensive government policies, and lowering unemployment rate through encouraging business growth. You may not agree with these policies, but to claim they are disinformation and thus not worthy of consideration is blatant biased censorship.

nemothekid 6y ago

disinformation is a dog whistle for censorship, but fake news is...? Censorship for thee but not for me.

easterncalculus 6y ago
"Fake news" is a call to criticism. The amount of people bringing up "fake news" and calling for say, CNN, to not be able to report at all is minimal. Comparatively you can't have a conversation about "disinformation" without talking about social media companies' responsibility to delete or hide content.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  Ah ok, when Trump says a negative article about him is "fake news" it's criticism, but when "disinformation" comes out about Biden it's a call for censorship? Am I insane for seeing the dissonance here?
  - p1necone 6y ago
    You're not insane. Don't fall into the trap of thinking these people don't see the hypocrisy in what they're saying. Gaslighting and projection is all part of the alt right playbook.
    - logarhythmic 6y ago
      Are you really concluding those commenters are "alt right" based off of what they said? I find that bizarre
  - refurb 6y ago
    One of them is saying “it’s not true” and one of them is saying “we should stop the public from seeing that”.
    - nobody9999 6y ago

hnshooray 6y ago

Please. Your nutjob president is screaming nonstop about “fake news”. It ain’t people on the left who are uncomfortable with truth. It’s the entire Republican Party.

zetazzed 6y ago

Right wing district attorneys are currently suing Netflix over Cuties, in a throwback to early-90s moral outrage arguments by people who have not actually watched a film and understood anything about it: https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2556282/netflixs-cuties-backlash-has-extended-to-a-lawsuit https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2556282/netflixs-cuties-bac... People have just gotten so used to conservative calls for censorship that they escape all notice.

bleepblorp 6y ago

The only reason measures to curb disinformation would have a partisan impact is because conservative parties (throughout the industrialized world, not just in the US) use disinformation strategies far, far more than do other parties. Center-left/left parties use reality to galvanize their base voters into action. Their voters are people who aren't pleased with what's happening in their countries and want to change it for the better. There's no need for center-left parties to lie that their electoral opponents eat babies when their electoral opponents actually put children in cages. In contrast, right wing parties overcome the inherent unpopularity of their revealed policy platforms (running on platforms of cutting taxes on the very rich while making life harder for the average person is not popular) by using disinformation to make a stated platform based on fabricated wedge issues. Hence, the imaginary convoys of South American migrants that were about to storm the US-Mexico border in 2018. As such, restricting disinformation will have a partisan impact. Within the US, there is no Democratic equivalent to Qanon, so anti-disinformation measures that impact the likes of Qanon will have no impact on the Democratic party whatsoever. Functioning societies must have zero tolerance for 'alternative facts.' Disagree over goals and interpretations, but facts must be accepted by all. Democracy requires an informed electorate and there can be no functioning democracy when one side is free to invent its own version of reality.

drewrv 6y ago

> Let's be honest, the only people screaming for censorship are firmly on the left. This year the president has sued to stop publication of two books because they embarrassed him, one from John Bolton and another from Mary Trump. This year police in cities across the country have opened fire on journalists. These are legal and physical attacks, on journalists and publishers, coming from government officials. Social media moderation policies are interesting and important. But if you see censorship and attacks on free speech only coming from one side, you should probably diversify your media diet.

artificialLimbs 6y ago
I suspect the original statement is referring to sheer volume, where your examples are more few and far between, particularly where it concerns violence. "Only" could have been left out of the sentence for greater accuracy.

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781792.