4 ms·

I question what constitutes censorship here to people? Is all censorship is bad? Moderation is bad? Should Hacker News in particular not have rules to censor co

I question what constitutes censorship here to people? Is all censorship is bad? Moderation is bad? Should Hacker News in particular not have rules to censor content that does not follow rules? Censorship has and will always be part of our lives. The problem is the application of it. I applaud YouTube, Twitter and FB primarily for trying to not facilitate distribution of bullshit all because free speech. Free speech has limits in everyone's house.

wtetzner 6y ago
And in what way are YouTube, Twitter and Facebook qualified to determine what's bullshit and what isn't? What really happens is that those services just end up forcing their values/beliefs on their users.
- excerionsforte 6y ago
  You tried to twist my words. I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is. Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS.
  - wtetzner 6y ago
    > You tried to twist my words. I did not try to twist your words. If I did, it was entirely unintentional. > I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is. You said: > I applaud YouTube, Twitter and FB primarily for trying to not facilitate distribution of bullshit all because free speech. I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it sounded to me like you were happy these services were trying to filter out bullshit. > Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS. I'm not claiming anything about the legality of what they're doing. Only that I disagree with filtering content based on an arbitrary definition of "bullshit". If that is not what you were arguing, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.

wtetzner 6y ago

And in what way are YouTube, Twitter and Facebook qualified to determine what's bullshit and what isn't? What really happens is that those services just end up forcing their values/beliefs on their users.

excerionsforte 6y ago
You tried to twist my words. I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is. Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > You tried to twist my words. I did not try to twist your words. If I did, it was entirely unintentional. > I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is. You said: > I applaud YouTube, Twitter and FB primarily for trying to not facilitate distribution of bullshit all because free speech. I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it sounded to me like you were happy these services were trying to filter out bullshit. > Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS. I'm not claiming anything about the legality of what they're doing. Only that I disagree with filtering content based on an arbitrary definition of "bullshit". If that is not what you were arguing, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.