3 ms·

This is a prime example how fighting something can simply give it more eyeballs. I just heard about this through HN. Maybe we can just ignore people who don’t a

by human 5y ago

This is a prime example how fighting something can simply give it more eyeballs. I just heard about this through HN. Maybe we can just ignore people who don’t agree with us…

tmpz22 5y ago
Core societal issues shouldn’t be hand waved away like a disagreement over a referee call.
dylan604 5y ago
Not on this one. This one literally has people being able to turn people in for something like driving someone to a medical procedure under the guise of "aiding and abetting". This is not a movie that offends a religious group that gets riled up and tells people to not watch it which only encourages people to watch it. These are state laws that affect everyone in the state. Ignoring horendous laws is not the answer. They need to be discussed, and then have people get motivated to have them changed.
lsiebert 5y ago
It's a privilege to be able to ignore people who don't agree with you, one that people who can get pregnant in Texas don't have atm.
noduerme 5y ago
I suppose this is why almost none of the news articles I found about the .com site being deplatformed actually mentioned its name or URL. I personally believe that kind of information control ("we're not going to tell you the site's name") is fine for any individual news organization, or any given hosting company or message board moderator to make. But when it seems to be a widely agreed-upon decision to censor something, I think it's corrosive to free speech and it lowers trust in journalism. I don't think "we" trying to keep the visibility of a site low is actually going to stop people who want to snitch on their neighbors from doing so; and most people going to that site are probably going as if to a freak show, to look at a donkey with two heads. It's worth noting that the .net site's ranking probably has a lot to do with the fact that no mainstream press is willing to link to the .com site. On principle, I think the press should treat adults as adults, not a mob to be managed and lied to; that's exactly why so many people now distrust basic public health information. They see the source as lying and suppressing information (and they're not entirely wrong). But given the idiocies that go viral these days I can see why editorial boards make the decisions they do. Hopefully most people would recoil in horror at seeing a form to snitch on your friends and family. The .net and .com site should both be free to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >Hopefully most people would recoil in horror at seeing a form to snitch on your friends and family. Except for the people in favor of it. They are probably giddy with anticipation about being able to fill it out for the first time. Not sure where you live, but in Texas, this is being cheered by those in favor. --Under his eye
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Be that as it may, those people are not learning about it from Gizmodo or from the .net site. Likely the fact that Godaddy deplatformed it gave them the biggest boost in eyeballs they could ever hope for. And that's what led to the media attention. But it's hubris for the press to think they can suppress basic facts and make them go away; it just looks dishonest, propagandistic, and as if they're all going off the same memo. You can't make bad ideas go away by pretending they don't exist.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      >gave them the biggest boost in eyeballs Where are you from? In Texas, it's all in the news right now. The people that are for this new law are singing praises. This isn't something being swept under the rug hoping nobody notices it. They are advertising it. >Likely the fact that Godaddy It's more likely the people in favor of this wouldn't know what Godaddy was except maybe when their preacher railed against their ad campaigns from the pulpit. > You can't make bad ideas go away by pretending they don't exist. Who is advocating to pretend like this. If that was the case, we'd all be sitting back hoping nobody found out about this. Instead, those opposed to this law are making as much noise as possible.
      - noduerme 5y ago
        Okay, so... what's the problem with SEO warring it, or putting out iOS macros to spam their tip submission form? I'm the OP. I was responding to a parent comment saying that posting this was tantamount to giving the .com site more eyeballs. I'm arguing that posting the .net ruse site is _not_ giving them any more attention from their target audience (Texas, anti-abortion) than they're already getting.

by human 5y ago

This is a prime example how fighting something can simply give it more eyeballs. I just heard about this through HN. Maybe we can just ignore people who don’t agree with us…

tmpz22 5y ago

Core societal issues shouldn’t be hand waved away like a disagreement over a referee call.

dylan604 5y ago

Not on this one. This one literally has people being able to turn people in for something like driving someone to a medical procedure under the guise of "aiding and abetting". This is not a movie that offends a religious group that gets riled up and tells people to not watch it which only encourages people to watch it. These are state laws that affect everyone in the state. Ignoring horendous laws is not the answer. They need to be discussed, and then have people get motivated to have them changed.

lsiebert 5y ago

It's a privilege to be able to ignore people who don't agree with you, one that people who can get pregnant in Texas don't have atm.

noduerme 5y ago

I suppose this is why almost none of the news articles I found about the .com site being deplatformed actually mentioned its name or URL. I personally believe that kind of information control ("we're not going to tell you the site's name") is fine for any individual news organization, or any given hosting company or message board moderator to make. But when it seems to be a widely agreed-upon decision to censor something, I think it's corrosive to free speech and it lowers trust in journalism. I don't think "we" trying to keep the visibility of a site low is actually going to stop people who want to snitch on their neighbors from doing so; and most people going to that site are probably going as if to a freak show, to look at a donkey with two heads. It's worth noting that the .net site's ranking probably has a lot to do with the fact that no mainstream press is willing to link to the .com site. On principle, I think the press should treat adults as adults, not a mob to be managed and lied to; that's exactly why so many people now distrust basic public health information. They see the source as lying and suppressing information (and they're not entirely wrong). But given the idiocies that go viral these days I can see why editorial boards make the decisions they do. Hopefully most people would recoil in horror at seeing a form to snitch on your friends and family. The .net and .com site should both be free to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

dylan604 5y ago
>Hopefully most people would recoil in horror at seeing a form to snitch on your friends and family. Except for the people in favor of it. They are probably giddy with anticipation about being able to fill it out for the first time. Not sure where you live, but in Texas, this is being cheered by those in favor. --Under his eye
- noduerme 5y ago
  Be that as it may, those people are not learning about it from Gizmodo or from the .net site. Likely the fact that Godaddy deplatformed it gave them the biggest boost in eyeballs they could ever hope for. And that's what led to the media attention. But it's hubris for the press to think they can suppress basic facts and make them go away; it just looks dishonest, propagandistic, and as if they're all going off the same memo. You can't make bad ideas go away by pretending they don't exist.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    >gave them the biggest boost in eyeballs Where are you from? In Texas, it's all in the news right now. The people that are for this new law are singing praises. This isn't something being swept under the rug hoping nobody notices it. They are advertising it. >Likely the fact that Godaddy It's more likely the people in favor of this wouldn't know what Godaddy was except maybe when their preacher railed against their ad campaigns from the pulpit. > You can't make bad ideas go away by pretending they don't exist. Who is advocating to pretend like this. If that was the case, we'd all be sitting back hoping nobody found out about this. Instead, those opposed to this law are making as much noise as possible.
    - noduerme 5y ago
      Okay, so... what's the problem with SEO warring it, or putting out iOS macros to spam their tip submission form? I'm the OP. I was responding to a parent comment saying that posting this was tantamount to giving the .com site more eyeballs. I'm arguing that posting the .net ruse site is _not_ giving them any more attention from their target audience (Texas, anti-abortion) than they're already getting.