4 ms·

> [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in fav

> [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion. But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA. I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.

awb 6y ago
I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence. Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. > [Trump] Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
  - awb 6y ago
    > I didn't use the word "bizarrely" Sorry, I meant "ironic". > I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      > Maybe downvoted far down the thread No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself. > [Trump and parler again] Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talking about that. I'll just say that the first time I noticed generally well received[1] comments in favor of censorship was almost two years ago, in a thread that had nothing to do with Trump (and I'm not sure if parler even existed by then). According to what I've noticed, it has been growing in prominence since. [1]: Which is to say, they weren't downvoted nor pushed downthread and even though they had several replies disputing them; they had just as many agreeing.
      - awb 6y ago
        > Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself. Can you link to these posts? I've been following the threads, but haven't seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse". The only "censorship" I've seen people supporting is against speech that has never been protected by the 1st amendment, which isn't being "pro-censorship" or "censorship" at all, it's just the same laws we've had here in the US for centuries. Again, happy to take a look at what you're seeing on HN if you can link to a few threads.
        julianmarq 6y ago
        Before I give you one of the recent examples I saw, I'm curious about why you're asking for examples in the first place. You already seem pretty disinclined to agree with me as evidenced by how you keep trying to suggest that I'm talking about condemnation of unprotected speech, which I haven't and have said so several times. My first comment was merely asking someone for clarification on how he parsed these threads; I didn't even talk about the subject at hand because I have no interest to and yet that's almost exclusively what you have tried to talk about. Not sure what exactly would be changed in this conversation by my giving you an example. You've been assuming bad faith on my part from the get go so I feel it would be just another fruitless exercise, or lead into another discussion on the merits of free speech I certainly don't want to get into, again. By the way, you're completely free to defend these gigantic corporations deplatforming whoever they want; I wasn't talking about that in my original comment. That implication was already present in my first reply, but maybe my saying it outright will convince you that I don't mean anything bad with my comments.

awb 6y ago

I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence. Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.

julianmarq 6y ago
> I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. > [Trump] Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
- awb 6y ago
  > I didn't use the word "bizarrely" Sorry, I meant "ironic". > I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example. Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    > Maybe downvoted far down the thread No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself. > [Trump and parler again] Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talking about that. I'll just say that the first time I noticed generally well received[1] comments in favor of censorship was almost two years ago, in a thread that had nothing to do with Trump (and I'm not sure if parler even existed by then). According to what I've noticed, it has been growing in prominence since. [1]: Which is to say, they weren't downvoted nor pushed downthread and even though they had several replies disputing them; they had just as many agreeing.
    - awb 6y ago
      > Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself. Can you link to these posts? I've been following the threads, but haven't seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse". The only "censorship" I've seen people supporting is against speech that has never been protected by the 1st amendment, which isn't being "pro-censorship" or "censorship" at all, it's just the same laws we've had here in the US for centuries. Again, happy to take a look at what you're seeing on HN if you can link to a few threads.
      - julianmarq 6y ago
        Before I give you one of the recent examples I saw, I'm curious about why you're asking for examples in the first place. You already seem pretty disinclined to agree with me as evidenced by how you keep trying to suggest that I'm talking about condemnation of unprotected speech, which I haven't and have said so several times. My first comment was merely asking someone for clarification on how he parsed these threads; I didn't even talk about the subject at hand because I have no interest to and yet that's almost exclusively what you have tried to talk about. Not sure what exactly would be changed in this conversation by my giving you an example. You've been assuming bad faith on my part from the get go so I feel it would be just another fruitless exercise, or lead into another discussion on the merits of free speech I certainly don't want to get into, again. By the way, you're completely free to defend these gigantic corporations deplatforming whoever they want; I wasn't talking about that in my original comment. That implication was already present in my first reply, but maybe my saying it outright will convince you that I don't mean anything bad with my comments.