5 ms·

As long as you're honest, philosophically even-keeled, and apply the rules consistently, let's go. But for some reason, I have this feeling that that's not the

As long as you're honest, philosophically even-keeled, and apply the rules consistently, let's go. But for some reason, I have this feeling that that's not the case. If you're pro-safetyism, you're anti-truth, anti-facts, pro-illogic, and are against wrongthink.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Well, I admit that the first location was a purely rhetorical ploy, because even I don't post on my personal blog anymore, and we'd prefer not to have a forum site about a digital audio workstation cluttered with unrelated posts. But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Even here on HN, you can say a great deal of stuff that others will consider wrong without being "censored". I'm certainly against "wrongthink" which is just a stupid re-use of a literary trick currently being massively over-referenced online in response to various events today. There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world.
- throwawaygulf 6y ago
  >But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Awesome, so we agree there are oodles of places BLM and leftists can protest that are not high traffic roads, freeways, main streets, federal courthouses, etc. They can protest in the Mojave desert, they won't be censored there. >I'm certainly against "wrongthink" ... There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world. Awesome, so we both agree with the objective fact that Blacks commit more violent crimes per capita than any other race. That's a fact, that's neither wrong, false, nor stupid.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Conflating arbitrary electronic messaging systems and public protest, despite obvious relationships between the two, doesn't seem very relevant or useful to me. And sure, your second paragraph states a fact. But facts are fairly useless without context, and as David Byrne sang 3 decades ago (and no doubt many others wrote in centuries before that) "facts all come with points of view". A fact by itself is just a fact, and in many contexts (particularly if the fact is an observation about human behavior/society), not very interesting. The interesting part is: what do you plan to do with it?
    - throwawaygulf 6y ago
      >Conflating arbitrary electronic messaging systems and public protest, despite obvious relationships between the two, doesn't seem very relevant or useful to me. There's no conflation, Twitter and Facebook are the modern day public square. >But facts are fairly useless without context False. >The interesting part is: what do you plan to do with it? Nothing. That mere fact will most likely get [flagged] and [dead]ed within the next 24 hours specifically because it is "wrongthink". If you don't agree with my above post being flagged and deaded due to being an inconvenient fact, then we are actually in agreeance.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        > There's no conflation, Twitter and Facebook are the modern day public square. I've argued against this POV here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648997 That said, I'm not opposed to them becoming the modern day public square. It just doesn't happen because a bunch of people think it already has. New legislation to make social media a public utility? I'd support appropriately constructed forms of that. But de facto isn't de juris, and for now these are private corporations running their own private messaging systems.
        throwawaygulf 6y ago
        >I've argued against this POV here And spoonjim and ghaff kicked your teeth in. >That said, I'm not opposed to them becoming the modern day public square. Saying that "you don't need to use FB/Twitter, you can write your own blog" is like saying in 1789 "You don't need to be allowed to distribute your pamphlets in front of Faneuil Hall in Boston, you can exercise your free speech on the top of a mountain in Colorado." To which you said: >Being able to speak "only" from one's own blog only makes discovery difficult, it does not limit people's access post-discovery. This applies to a random mountain in Colorado as well. Discovery is difficult, but after people discover it, they're free to go back ad much as they want. >But de facto isn't de juris That's literally how "town square" is defined, de facto, not de jure. You're literally arguing for our position without realizing it.
- awhitehat 6y ago
  What if, like parler or what happened to Alex Jones, there isn't 'oodles of places' to go, because silicon valley acts in a coordinated-like fashion? Is it censorship then?

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Well, I admit that the first location was a purely rhetorical ploy, because even I don't post on my personal blog anymore, and we'd prefer not to have a forum site about a digital audio workstation cluttered with unrelated posts. But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Even here on HN, you can say a great deal of stuff that others will consider wrong without being "censored". I'm certainly against "wrongthink" which is just a stupid re-use of a literary trick currently being massively over-referenced online in response to various events today. There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world.

throwawaygulf 6y ago
>But I think my point is clear: there are oodles of places you can write and post whatever you want. Awesome, so we agree there are oodles of places BLM and leftists can protest that are not high traffic roads, freeways, main streets, federal courthouses, etc. They can protest in the Mojave desert, they won't be censored there. >I'm certainly against "wrongthink" ... There's wrong, there's false, there's stupid. There isn't any wrongthink in my conception of the world. Awesome, so we both agree with the objective fact that Blacks commit more violent crimes per capita than any other race. That's a fact, that's neither wrong, false, nor stupid.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Conflating arbitrary electronic messaging systems and public protest, despite obvious relationships between the two, doesn't seem very relevant or useful to me. And sure, your second paragraph states a fact. But facts are fairly useless without context, and as David Byrne sang 3 decades ago (and no doubt many others wrote in centuries before that) "facts all come with points of view". A fact by itself is just a fact, and in many contexts (particularly if the fact is an observation about human behavior/society), not very interesting. The interesting part is: what do you plan to do with it?
  - throwawaygulf 6y ago
    >Conflating arbitrary electronic messaging systems and public protest, despite obvious relationships between the two, doesn't seem very relevant or useful to me. There's no conflation, Twitter and Facebook are the modern day public square. >But facts are fairly useless without context False. >The interesting part is: what do you plan to do with it? Nothing. That mere fact will most likely get [flagged] and [dead]ed within the next 24 hours specifically because it is "wrongthink". If you don't agree with my above post being flagged and deaded due to being an inconvenient fact, then we are actually in agreeance.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      > There's no conflation, Twitter and Facebook are the modern day public square. I've argued against this POV here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25648997 That said, I'm not opposed to them becoming the modern day public square. It just doesn't happen because a bunch of people think it already has. New legislation to make social media a public utility? I'd support appropriately constructed forms of that. But de facto isn't de juris, and for now these are private corporations running their own private messaging systems.
      - throwawaygulf 6y ago
        >I've argued against this POV here And spoonjim and ghaff kicked your teeth in. >That said, I'm not opposed to them becoming the modern day public square. Saying that "you don't need to use FB/Twitter, you can write your own blog" is like saying in 1789 "You don't need to be allowed to distribute your pamphlets in front of Faneuil Hall in Boston, you can exercise your free speech on the top of a mountain in Colorado." To which you said: >Being able to speak "only" from one's own blog only makes discovery difficult, it does not limit people's access post-discovery. This applies to a random mountain in Colorado as well. Discovery is difficult, but after people discover it, they're free to go back ad much as they want. >But de facto isn't de juris That's literally how "town square" is defined, de facto, not de jure. You're literally arguing for our position without realizing it.
awhitehat 6y ago
What if, like parler or what happened to Alex Jones, there isn't 'oodles of places' to go, because silicon valley acts in a coordinated-like fashion? Is it censorship then?