3 ms·

The book "Fahrenheit 451" just called, it wants its dictatorial world back from the current society... Why most people don't realize that censorship leads us t

The book "Fahrenheit 451" just called, it wants its dictatorial world back from the current society... Why most people don't realize that censorship leads us to a very very dark futur? In my opinion, everything would be so much better if we could educate kids and adult on "critical thinking" and "intelligence", instead of censoring everything that could be "fake" (for real or not) based on decision of the ruling cast of a country.

evgen 6y ago
Maybe it is because we are literally fucking watching mass misinformation and delusion spread by nefarious actors lead to mobs trying to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power in a nation armed with nuclear weapons. The nostalgic claims that good information will chase out bad and that sunlight is the best disinfectant to treat misinformation have been shown to be complete bullshit. The free speech maximalists were wrong and we have demonstrable proof that continuing to listen to them will lead to the downfall of civilization. At this point we know with absolute certainty that a lack of censorship (either direct or self-censorship due to societal costs) leads to a very, very dark place. Time to start exploring other options.
- greatgib 6y ago
  I'm sorry but your statements are completely ridiculous and based on nothing. The problem your are seeing in the us is not really due to misinformation being available, but to the country on its way to Idiocracy. The issue is the real lack of intelligence. A long tradition of corrupt leaders have pushed for the suppression of critical thinking in the population as it is way more convenient to control the population. Trump leds to having people acting like that because everything now is about reacting and not thinking anymore. Imagine one second that Google leaders were friends with Trump that would protect their interest. Which truth would be enforcing? Look at the situation in China? Look at Russia that poison its opponents but decide that the state truth is that it is a 'fake news'. Read farhenheit 451 and 1984 and you will understand!
- bumbada 6y ago
  Censorship is not the solution, totalitarian Governments come from censorship. They are never good. With free speech, it should come responsibility. You should be responsible for your speech, if it is false, and pay for it in a Court, but you should not be censored. The problem is that the same people that accuse Trump of spreading misinformation with no proofs are the same that cheered on the New York Times and WP accusing Trump of being a Putin puppet with no profs whatsoever over years because they wanted to prevent the "legitimate transfer of power" as you say. If what you say is false, you should pay for it, including Trump, but you should have the right to say it.
- kortilla 6y ago
  >The free speech maximalists were wrong and we have demonstrable proof that continuing to listen to them will lead to the downfall of civilization. What proof? There is still less war and conflict today than the last couple of centuries.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacies are rather pathetic. Try providing proof that expanded free speech is what led to this drop in war and conflict. I could just as easily claim that the growth of international franchised food and beverage chains is what has led to the overall drop in nation-state conflict.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      I’m not the one who say “demonstrable proof”.
stouset 6y ago
Why is it that free speech absolutists like you can’t see that the unfettered ability to spread mass disinformation has unambiguously led to a dark, dark present? Meanwhile, you’re enjoying the benefits of commenting on a moderated forum where @dang has arbitrary power to delete posts and ban accounts. And it’s precisely because of his moderation on this privately-run publicly-available platform that we continue to enjoy relatively troll-free, level-headed adult discussions about difficult topics.
- greatgib 6y ago
  It is scary how wrong you are. I think that you are speaking of facebook, not hn. The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform and in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. At worst it was debunked by the community. Now, at the opposite, in my opinion, every article and opinion can be posted on HN. And the real value here are the comments and discussion around these links so that there can be a collective critical thinking réflexion about them. Whoever can post anything, and sometimes I'm wondering if the article is true, if there are hidden fact or something that was deformed. And then, the comments let people all give their own opinion and often share interesting relating links and information. From all of that, it give you a better base to have plentyfull of elements to make your own opinion on a topic!
  - stouset 6y ago
    > The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. By what mechanism? It's a basic reddit-style forum that allows comments and up- and down-voting. What's the secret sauce that causes Hacker News to "support critical thinking"? The answer isn't secret, and it's pretty simple: there are commenting guidelines[1]. If you don't follow the guidelines, your posts are killed. If you repeatedly don't follow the guidelines, your account is restricted. This is the same exact mechanism that distinguishes subreddits with high-quality comment sections (/r/science, /r/askhistorians) from the rest. And it's worth noting that even the rest have some forms of moderation. You'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere on the Internet with no moderation that hasn't become an absolute cesspool dominated by the worst possible actors. > As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform If I'm reading this right, you acknowledge that @dang and co have the power to moderate Hacker News essentially however they see fit, and yet you simultaneously recognize that they're capable of exercising these powers judiciously and only when needed. Maybe sit back and reflect on that for a minute. > ...in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. You can literally see a graveyard of three dead comments on this very thread, that are invisible to anyone who doesn't have `showdead` flag turned on. It's not remotely difficult to find accounts whose posts are hidden by default from the community as a whole, to the point where some people make a point of notifying individuals who've been commenting for years without realizing that nobody can see their posts. The fact that you don't personally see moderation is not evidence that there's no moderation. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

evgen 6y ago

Maybe it is because we are literally fucking watching mass misinformation and delusion spread by nefarious actors lead to mobs trying to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power in a nation armed with nuclear weapons. The nostalgic claims that good information will chase out bad and that sunlight is the best disinfectant to treat misinformation have been shown to be complete bullshit. The free speech maximalists were wrong and we have demonstrable proof that continuing to listen to them will lead to the downfall of civilization. At this point we know with absolute certainty that a lack of censorship (either direct or self-censorship due to societal costs) leads to a very, very dark place. Time to start exploring other options.

greatgib 6y ago
I'm sorry but your statements are completely ridiculous and based on nothing. The problem your are seeing in the us is not really due to misinformation being available, but to the country on its way to Idiocracy. The issue is the real lack of intelligence. A long tradition of corrupt leaders have pushed for the suppression of critical thinking in the population as it is way more convenient to control the population. Trump leds to having people acting like that because everything now is about reacting and not thinking anymore. Imagine one second that Google leaders were friends with Trump that would protect their interest. Which truth would be enforcing? Look at the situation in China? Look at Russia that poison its opponents but decide that the state truth is that it is a 'fake news'. Read farhenheit 451 and 1984 and you will understand!
bumbada 6y ago
Censorship is not the solution, totalitarian Governments come from censorship. They are never good. With free speech, it should come responsibility. You should be responsible for your speech, if it is false, and pay for it in a Court, but you should not be censored. The problem is that the same people that accuse Trump of spreading misinformation with no proofs are the same that cheered on the New York Times and WP accusing Trump of being a Putin puppet with no profs whatsoever over years because they wanted to prevent the "legitimate transfer of power" as you say. If what you say is false, you should pay for it, including Trump, but you should have the right to say it.
kortilla 6y ago
>The free speech maximalists were wrong and we have demonstrable proof that continuing to listen to them will lead to the downfall of civilization. What proof? There is still less war and conflict today than the last couple of centuries.
- evgen 6y ago
  Ad hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacies are rather pathetic. Try providing proof that expanded free speech is what led to this drop in war and conflict. I could just as easily claim that the growth of international franchised food and beverage chains is what has led to the overall drop in nation-state conflict.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    I’m not the one who say “demonstrable proof”.

stouset 6y ago

Why is it that free speech absolutists like you can’t see that the unfettered ability to spread mass disinformation has unambiguously led to a dark, dark present? Meanwhile, you’re enjoying the benefits of commenting on a moderated forum where @dang has arbitrary power to delete posts and ban accounts. And it’s precisely because of his moderation on this privately-run publicly-available platform that we continue to enjoy relatively troll-free, level-headed adult discussions about difficult topics.

greatgib 6y ago
It is scary how wrong you are. I think that you are speaking of facebook, not hn. The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform and in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. At worst it was debunked by the community. Now, at the opposite, in my opinion, every article and opinion can be posted on HN. And the real value here are the comments and discussion around these links so that there can be a collective critical thinking réflexion about them. Whoever can post anything, and sometimes I'm wondering if the article is true, if there are hidden fact or something that was deformed. And then, the comments let people all give their own opinion and often share interesting relating links and information. From all of that, it give you a better base to have plentyfull of elements to make your own opinion on a topic!
- stouset 6y ago
  > The huge value of HN is especially that it supports critical thinking. By what mechanism? It's a basic reddit-style forum that allows comments and up- and down-voting. What's the secret sauce that causes Hacker News to "support critical thinking"? The answer isn't secret, and it's pretty simple: there are commenting guidelines[1]. If you don't follow the guidelines, your posts are killed. If you repeatedly don't follow the guidelines, your account is restricted. This is the same exact mechanism that distinguishes subreddits with high-quality comment sections (/r/science, /r/askhistorians) from the rest. And it's worth noting that even the rest have some forms of moderation. You'll be hard-pressed to find anywhere on the Internet with no moderation that hasn't become an absolute cesspool dominated by the worst possible actors. > As far as I know and saw, @dang and co try to be involved the minimum with the platform If I'm reading this right, you acknowledge that @dang and co have the power to moderate Hacker News essentially however they see fit, and yet you simultaneously recognize that they're capable of exercising these powers judiciously and only when needed. Maybe sit back and reflect on that for a minute. > ...in a few years I never saw content that was censored by the moderator. You can literally see a graveyard of three dead comments on this very thread, that are invisible to anyone who doesn't have `showdead` flag turned on. It's not remotely difficult to find accounts whose posts are hidden by default from the community as a whole, to the point where some people make a point of notifying individuals who've been commenting for years without realizing that nobody can see their posts. The fact that you don't personally see moderation is not evidence that there's no moderation. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html