3 ms·
That is not free speech. That could be called something like "quality speech". With free speech, as defined now, low quality arguments hit the same bar as high
by Griffinsauce 6y ago
That is not free speech. That could be called something like "quality speech".
With free speech, as defined now, low quality arguments hit the same bar as high quality ones.
Yes we should strive to emphasise high quality arguments (even though I fear this is a near impossible task programmatically) but this is not what free speech means.
Tldr: according to free speech the dummies and assholes deserve to be heard.
- skynet-9000 6y agoI think HN strives to achieve this (as you point out, very high bar) and does a pretty good job with it overall. I do believe that dang's and the moderator teams' light touch has really aided a free-ranging discussion among people of wildly divergent viewpoints, and I for one appreciate this dynamic. That we're even having such a high-quality discussion now really speaks volumes to the seemingly effortless way in which the HN team has developed into a great place to have such a conversation or debate. To be honest, I do not think that HN is always fair to everyone, but it does seem like the moderators do try to be. With that said: Twitter and FB have wildly missed the mark.
- Griffinsauce 6y agoI think any mildly political topic disproves your point. Technological discussions mostly stay high quality but any politics(-adjacent) topic turns into an obvious struggle of moderation and quality. The same goes for Twitter but the balance of topics is heavily skewed towards the latter.
- the_only_law 6y agoI mostly agree, in fact there are certain topics that I will absolutely ignore and block as experience shows there is no room for intellectual discussion about them on here. That being said, I do agree with GP on this point: > To be honest, I do not think that HN is always fair to everyone, but it does seem like the moderators do try to be