4 ms·

> Hackers usually are not in favor of censorship or information restriction. So who do you mean, with "you"? There are many comments on previous HN threads def

> Hackers usually are not in favor of censorship or information restriction. So who do you mean, with "you"? There are many comments on previous HN threads defending censorship and information restriction, precisely as the GP has described it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733038

ryanlol 6y ago
What you call “defending censorship” is perhaps better described as “defending free speech”. Forced speech is not free speech.
- swebs 6y ago
  Stong disagree. When a handful of tech companies that form an Oligarchy on modern communication decide to systemically oppress members of one political party, that's the antithesis of free speech.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    Lets not pretend that this has anything to do with their political party. Would you also say that tech companies banning ISIS is systematically oppressing members of one religion? > that's the antithesis of free speech It’s not. Companies enjoy freedom of speech too, but you’d force them to publish content they don’t want to publish. That’s the antithesis of free speech.
- alentist 6y ago
  Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are multibillion-dollar corporations that control a colossal share of online communications. Let's not play pretend here.
hutzlibu 6y ago
There are certainly peoole here defending censorship, but the parent poster spoke like "we" would follow US geopolicy in general. And in general I don't see the majority here in favor of kicking out parler etc. Rather the contrary. Anyway, by my tautological definition of hacker, no hacker would be in favor of banning a communication app, anyway, so ...

ryanlol 6y ago

What you call “defending censorship” is perhaps better described as “defending free speech”. Forced speech is not free speech.

swebs 6y ago
Stong disagree. When a handful of tech companies that form an Oligarchy on modern communication decide to systemically oppress members of one political party, that's the antithesis of free speech.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  Lets not pretend that this has anything to do with their political party. Would you also say that tech companies banning ISIS is systematically oppressing members of one religion? > that's the antithesis of free speech It’s not. Companies enjoy freedom of speech too, but you’d force them to publish content they don’t want to publish. That’s the antithesis of free speech.
alentist 6y ago
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are multibillion-dollar corporations that control a colossal share of online communications. Let's not play pretend here.

hutzlibu 6y ago

There are certainly peoole here defending censorship, but the parent poster spoke like "we" would follow US geopolicy in general. And in general I don't see the majority here in favor of kicking out parler etc. Rather the contrary. Anyway, by my tautological definition of hacker, no hacker would be in favor of banning a communication app, anyway, so ...