3 ms·

Regarding your other point, while you are theoretically right that this is a dangerous precedent. But I think this week's events were extraordinary. At the end

Regarding your other point, while you are theoretically right that this is a dangerous precedent. But I think this week's events were extraordinary. At the end of the day humans are running these platforms and it becomes very hard to ignore developments like these. As much as I love free speech we have seen throughout the world that there is a real human cost to not censoring these things.

antirez 6y ago
I agree that it was extraordinary and extremely worrying, but: + Trump is not running out of channels to speak, just who supports him will believe he is censored and will develop a deeper attachment to him. Democracy works when you are able to understand somebody is fool even if you can read what they write. + Twitter censored his tweets partially even before what happened recently. When he claimed he didn't lost elections. + This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platforms. Next time it may be different.
- actuator 6y ago
  > Trump is not running out of channels to speak, just who supports him will believe he is censored and will develop a deeper attachment to him. Democracy works when you are able to understand somebody is fool even if you can read what they write. Yeah, but what we have seen in social media is that the discourse gets polarized. Everyone hangs around in groups/channels/subreddits/blogs that are of the side they identify with. They are echo chambers which shape their own reality in many ways. So people often tend to believe one version of the events. Over the years we have seen fractures between ideologies grow deeper. So, I am not sure if this strategy works. > This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platforms. Next time it may be different. Completely agree on this. It is definitely dangerous.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platform There's different types of acceptable that get confused (for some people they may be equivalent, but the problem is that they fail to recognize that for other people they are distinct, and also that they fail to realize that making them equivalent is the essence of totalitarian control), specifically: “Is it right that the private actor makes this decision?” vs. “Is it right that the private actor is free to make this decision?” Twitter has made several curation decisions I thought were not acceptable in the first sense, because my political views are not aligned with Twitter's, such as deciding to lift the rules applicable to most participants from those that met a new leadership position test in response to widespread complaints about Trump’s routine violations early in its term. But I don't find those decisions unacceptable in the second sense because I believe in freedom.of speech and the press, which exactly means that Twitter ought to be free to decide on what content it will carry, including whether and how to take the social position of the source of the content into account.

antirez 6y ago

I agree that it was extraordinary and extremely worrying, but: + Trump is not running out of channels to speak, just who supports him will believe he is censored and will develop a deeper attachment to him. Democracy works when you are able to understand somebody is fool even if you can read what they write. + Twitter censored his tweets partially even before what happened recently. When he claimed he didn't lost elections. + This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platforms. Next time it may be different.

actuator 6y ago
> Trump is not running out of channels to speak, just who supports him will believe he is censored and will develop a deeper attachment to him. Democracy works when you are able to understand somebody is fool even if you can read what they write. Yeah, but what we have seen in social media is that the discourse gets polarized. Everyone hangs around in groups/channels/subreddits/blogs that are of the side they identify with. They are echo chambers which shape their own reality in many ways. So people often tend to believe one version of the events. Over the years we have seen fractures between ideologies grow deeper. So, I am not sure if this strategy works. > This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platforms. Next time it may be different. Completely agree on this. It is definitely dangerous.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This time we believe it was acceptable because our political views here in HN, mostly are aligned with the ones of folks running social platform There's different types of acceptable that get confused (for some people they may be equivalent, but the problem is that they fail to recognize that for other people they are distinct, and also that they fail to realize that making them equivalent is the essence of totalitarian control), specifically: “Is it right that the private actor makes this decision?” vs. “Is it right that the private actor is free to make this decision?” Twitter has made several curation decisions I thought were not acceptable in the first sense, because my political views are not aligned with Twitter's, such as deciding to lift the rules applicable to most participants from those that met a new leadership position test in response to widespread complaints about Trump’s routine violations early in its term. But I don't find those decisions unacceptable in the second sense because I believe in freedom.of speech and the press, which exactly means that Twitter ought to be free to decide on what content it will carry, including whether and how to take the social position of the source of the content into account.