3 ms·

For me some of the problem is how hard it is to find an alternate opinion from another source. Once you click on a shared link, you are down a rabbit hole. An

For me some of the problem is how hard it is to find an alternate opinion from another source. Once you click on a shared link, you are down a rabbit hole. Anyone can stick anything up on a blogpost or whatever, but whilst old information (news) sources were supposed to at least provide some manner of breadth in coverage. In theory anyway. Twisting facts is a neat trick, but ensuring people never read anything else is the real magic here imo

Applejinx 5y ago
That's where the entity doing the ensuring, has to step over the line into stuff that will not look good to anybody. Hence this story. This is what goes on. Cries of 'censorship! Stop censoring my right to this pro-disease opinion!' combined with more furtive but heavyhanded censoring of shall we say alternate motivations for the 'censored' opinions that must be, yea must be heard in the free marketplace of ideas. It's not magic. It's dead simple on Reddit and places like that: brigade things with downvotes. On twitter, some voices get such a height of harassment that it's pretty much impossible to continue. Apparently on Hacker News, content gets watched very closely so it can be stifled at birth in natural-looking ways, since raw brigading would likely be too obvious.