3 ms·

> I'm curious about why you're asking for examples in the first place Because you said: "I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this)

by awb 6y ago

> I'm curious about why you're asking for examples in the first place Because you said: "I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately", "[1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it." I haven't had that experience and don't understand the irony. Just trying to understand where you're coming from and thought links might help. I think I misunderstood "lately" to mean the censorship / violent speech debate about the resulting Big Tech deplatformings, which is why I keep bringing those up. In the US, taking down violent, insightful speech is not considered censorship, which is why I was confused about who you're referring to that is "pro-censorship", but again maybe I crossed some wires there. I care about free speech a lot and if there's a growing trend that speech that's always been protected by the 1st amendment is being targeted, it's a line we all need to be very sensitive to and vigilant in defending.

julianmarq 6y ago
Just in case, the irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is better. And here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25715809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25715809 (It bears noticing how the post whose thread that comment belongs to is certainly not about the banning of Trump or parler).
- awb 6y ago
  Ok, so that is a good example of protected speech that we might not like. I read through the thread and you did a good job explaining the perils of censoring viewpoints. The US has long done a “controlled burn” in banning violent speech, but we do need to be vigilant that it doesn’t turn into a wild fire. I don’t understand why they removed the tweet instead of labeling it if they really want to be in the fact checking business.

by awb 6y ago

julianmarq 6y ago

Just in case, the irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is better. And here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25715809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25715809 (It bears noticing how the post whose thread that comment belongs to is certainly not about the banning of Trump or parler).

awb 6y ago
Ok, so that is a good example of protected speech that we might not like. I read through the thread and you did a good job explaining the perils of censoring viewpoints. The US has long done a “controlled burn” in banning violent speech, but we do need to be vigilant that it doesn’t turn into a wild fire. I don’t understand why they removed the tweet instead of labeling it if they really want to be in the fact checking business.