4 ms·

>"The Crime of Curiosity" is a great way to put it, because we're already banned from questioning a lot of areas of science on most major tech platforms. I thi

>"The Crime of Curiosity" is a great way to put it, because we're already banned from questioning a lot of areas of science on most major tech platforms. I think the keyword that, in my mind, justifies the censorship here is "on most major tech platforms". Nobody is banning the discussion of these ideas in academic journals or HN or other places where curious people can go to discuss things - it's just making sure unverified, potentially dangerous theories aren't spreading like wildfire amongst the general population who _aren't_ curious and will assume whatever they're reading is absolute truth.

hnisfullofshit 5y ago
You can't actually discuss anything on HN that goes against the moderator's petty ideologies (or yc's profit motive) without being censored. Turn on show dead and take a scroll through nearly any topic. The irony is that many of the people who claim to be free-speech see nothing wrong with this platform blacklisting people who don't share in the groupthink.
- liamwire 5y ago
  I feel this is a dishonest take. I’ve seen the moderators leave up some pretty egregious violations of the site rules because it fostered good discussion, which seems to be at the heart of HN. However, good discussion ultimately requires respect for one another, and it seems maybe that thinking is not bilateral in your case. I’d encourage you to introspect on why you may be finding resistance wherever you look.
  - hncensors 5y ago
    So you're saying that you support censorship if it fits with what the mods claim is "good discussion"? Do you also think YouTube should have pulled down the author's video? What are the acceptable reasons to enact censorship in your mind?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      What was said: "I've seen mods allowing blatant rule violations because of good discussion" What was read: "I've seen mods censoring stuff because of good discussion". Sometimes you just want to give up.
      - hncircus 5y ago
        This is a disingenuous representation of the parent comment. HN is clearly censoring content. They're not shy about it. I have no idea what position you're trying to take? That it's good they control the topics of conversation with an iron fist?
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I've had showdead on for months, mainly to read old Terry A. Davis posts. Generally the people I see are actual trolls.
nradov 5y ago
That's such an arrogant, condescending statement. You're assuming that the general population is too stupid to be trusted with unfiltered information. But theories aren't dangerous. Actions are dangerous.
- amrocha 5y ago
  I think social media has proven pretty conclusively that giving the general population unfiltered information and enabling everyone to promote whatever they want is in fact a terrible idea
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    How so? Social media only started being a societal problem after it became heavily filtered.
    - bloopernova 5y ago
      I believe that is not correct. Social media is fine in basic forms, such as Reddit/HN style forum threads, and Facebook's keeping-in-touch-with-old-friends and arranging events. Mixing news into social media, sharing stories to Facebook, turned it from a coffee shop into a town square with a million soap boxes. Bad actors then seized that format and used it to spread propaganda and disinformation. That's not to say that the basic forms of social media were perfect, far from it. They're just as susceptible to manipulation. There's just something about Facebook's link to (mostly) real identities that elevates it to a hugely effective propaganda platform.
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
        > Mixing news into social media, sharing stories to Facebook, turned it from a coffee shop into a town square with a million soap boxes. That only happened after Facebook decided to editorialize everybody's main view. People were not even used to sharing news at that point, but it was the only thing that Facebook allowed to spread. Anyway, I'm not sure about causality. But claiming that fake news spreading through a heavily editorialized medium is proof that people can not handle self selecting their information is a complete non-sequitur.
drran 5y ago
> I think the keyword that, in my mind, justifies the censorship here is "on most major tech platforms". Nobody is banning the discussion of these ideas in academic journals or HN I was banned on HN after questioning of QM and BB theories. 240 downvotes in one day, then ban.

hnisfullofshit 5y ago

You can't actually discuss anything on HN that goes against the moderator's petty ideologies (or yc's profit motive) without being censored. Turn on show dead and take a scroll through nearly any topic. The irony is that many of the people who claim to be free-speech see nothing wrong with this platform blacklisting people who don't share in the groupthink.

liamwire 5y ago
I feel this is a dishonest take. I’ve seen the moderators leave up some pretty egregious violations of the site rules because it fostered good discussion, which seems to be at the heart of HN. However, good discussion ultimately requires respect for one another, and it seems maybe that thinking is not bilateral in your case. I’d encourage you to introspect on why you may be finding resistance wherever you look.
- hncensors 5y ago
  So you're saying that you support censorship if it fits with what the mods claim is "good discussion"? Do you also think YouTube should have pulled down the author's video? What are the acceptable reasons to enact censorship in your mind?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    What was said: "I've seen mods allowing blatant rule violations because of good discussion" What was read: "I've seen mods censoring stuff because of good discussion". Sometimes you just want to give up.
    - hncircus 5y ago
      This is a disingenuous representation of the parent comment. HN is clearly censoring content. They're not shy about it. I have no idea what position you're trying to take? That it's good they control the topics of conversation with an iron fist?
AussieWog93 5y ago
I've had showdead on for months, mainly to read old Terry A. Davis posts. Generally the people I see are actual trolls.

nradov 5y ago

That's such an arrogant, condescending statement. You're assuming that the general population is too stupid to be trusted with unfiltered information. But theories aren't dangerous. Actions are dangerous.

amrocha 5y ago
I think social media has proven pretty conclusively that giving the general population unfiltered information and enabling everyone to promote whatever they want is in fact a terrible idea
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  How so? Social media only started being a societal problem after it became heavily filtered.
  - bloopernova 5y ago
    I believe that is not correct. Social media is fine in basic forms, such as Reddit/HN style forum threads, and Facebook's keeping-in-touch-with-old-friends and arranging events. Mixing news into social media, sharing stories to Facebook, turned it from a coffee shop into a town square with a million soap boxes. Bad actors then seized that format and used it to spread propaganda and disinformation. That's not to say that the basic forms of social media were perfect, far from it. They're just as susceptible to manipulation. There's just something about Facebook's link to (mostly) real identities that elevates it to a hugely effective propaganda platform.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      > Mixing news into social media, sharing stories to Facebook, turned it from a coffee shop into a town square with a million soap boxes. That only happened after Facebook decided to editorialize everybody's main view. People were not even used to sharing news at that point, but it was the only thing that Facebook allowed to spread. Anyway, I'm not sure about causality. But claiming that fake news spreading through a heavily editorialized medium is proof that people can not handle self selecting their information is a complete non-sequitur.

drran 5y ago

> I think the keyword that, in my mind, justifies the censorship here is "on most major tech platforms". Nobody is banning the discussion of these ideas in academic journals or HN I was banned on HN after questioning of QM and BB theories. 240 downvotes in one day, then ban.