3 ms·

> allows some opinions while banning others Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation

> allows some opinions while banning others Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1050391663552671744 https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...

Banana699 4y ago
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  They're challenging you to be specific about the opinions. And you really need to explain how that proves your point about twitter. In general, if someone makes a really dumb response to you, that doesn't prove you right about anything. And if your argument is "twitter has bad comments" then a bad comment on HN doesn't prove that right.
  - Banana699 4y ago
- tehwebguy 4y ago
  Your other post got nuked but to explain more: It’s okay for some opinions to be suppressed in most places! Some opinions are almost universally considered to be bad, there are some really easy & gross examples that I think most of us can think of. Some are considered bad in a particular context. The ones you mentioned are great examples of reasonable policy: - banning covid misinformation to reduce deaths is good, look up “herman cain awards” to see some of the damage the misinfo has done - banning harassment in the form of misgendering / deadnaming is good Every rule that has ever existed for people is enforced with some degree of selectivity, if nobody reports a tweet there won’t be action. Posters and moderators are human, reported tweets are probably mostly different from one another and every human doing reviews is different. It’s okay if your opinion is that a website or all websites should have no moderation based on opinions or anything at all. But Twitter disagrees and I’d guess most people do too!
  - Banana699 4y ago
    Contradicting the official narrative on Covid19 isn't automatically 'misinformation', the official narrative held that masks are useless in the first months, then insisted on it religiously the following months, when, in fact, they are indeed mostly useless in the face of latest variants. Both of those convictions were held against evidence, and intelligent and knowledgeable commenters and organizations tried to point out what was wrong in them only to be met by "debonking" and censorship. Reality is not harassment. If somebody is upset they can't control someone's else words or perception, they can go to therapy about it. This remains true even if you invent a couple of dumb words to describe the words or perceptions that upset you, like 'deadnaming' or 'misgendering'. There is a difference between deliberate selectivity based on ideology, clearly and nakedly what twatter does, and simple errors and human variability. Yes, I'm entirely free to think anything I want and disparage any website or any other group\institution of people for not agreeing with me, and being happy that dumb anti-free-speechers are dragged to court and toyed with for months. What I don't understand is how your dumb role-playing of an imagined strawman of me in your first reply says anything about me or my opinions.

Banana699 4y ago

Dylan16807 4y ago
They're challenging you to be specific about the opinions. And you really need to explain how that proves your point about twitter. In general, if someone makes a really dumb response to you, that doesn't prove you right about anything. And if your argument is "twitter has bad comments" then a bad comment on HN doesn't prove that right.
- Banana699 4y ago
tehwebguy 4y ago
Your other post got nuked but to explain more: It’s okay for some opinions to be suppressed in most places! Some opinions are almost universally considered to be bad, there are some really easy & gross examples that I think most of us can think of. Some are considered bad in a particular context. The ones you mentioned are great examples of reasonable policy: - banning covid misinformation to reduce deaths is good, look up “herman cain awards” to see some of the damage the misinfo has done - banning harassment in the form of misgendering / deadnaming is good Every rule that has ever existed for people is enforced with some degree of selectivity, if nobody reports a tweet there won’t be action. Posters and moderators are human, reported tweets are probably mostly different from one another and every human doing reviews is different. It’s okay if your opinion is that a website or all websites should have no moderation based on opinions or anything at all. But Twitter disagrees and I’d guess most people do too!
- Banana699 4y ago
  Contradicting the official narrative on Covid19 isn't automatically 'misinformation', the official narrative held that masks are useless in the first months, then insisted on it religiously the following months, when, in fact, they are indeed mostly useless in the face of latest variants. Both of those convictions were held against evidence, and intelligent and knowledgeable commenters and organizations tried to point out what was wrong in them only to be met by "debonking" and censorship. Reality is not harassment. If somebody is upset they can't control someone's else words or perception, they can go to therapy about it. This remains true even if you invent a couple of dumb words to describe the words or perceptions that upset you, like 'deadnaming' or 'misgendering'. There is a difference between deliberate selectivity based on ideology, clearly and nakedly what twatter does, and simple errors and human variability. Yes, I'm entirely free to think anything I want and disparage any website or any other group\institution of people for not agreeing with me, and being happy that dumb anti-free-speechers are dragged to court and toyed with for months. What I don't understand is how your dumb role-playing of an imagined strawman of me in your first reply says anything about me or my opinions.