3 ms·
Mark Zuckerberg admits censorship at behest of FBI
- dang 4y agoComments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32607698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32607698, which was posted earlier and also has a more...I don't want to say neutral, but at least more neutral-sounding source. The highstrung rhetoric of the current article ("We are ruled by unelected sociopaths" etc.) is not a great fit for HN.
- colordrops 4y agoMakes sense, thanks for the context.
- cpr 4y agoEven if it's true? ;-)
- dang 4y agoTruth is good and facts are fine, but that isn't a sufficient condition for a comment to be good one on HN. This should be obvious from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (Edit: there are infinitely many facts, and the choice of which ones to emphasize is a human activity - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22infinitely%20many%20facts%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It isn't a necessary condition, either, because people can be wrong in good faith and that's part of the process of finding the truth. (Rhetorical name-calling isn't true or false though, so I don't think your question really applies in this case.) What people usually mean by 'true' in the context of political rhetoric is 'I like it'. Liking and truth have little to do with each other—in fact the love of truth has mostly to do with disentangling the two.
- RickJWagner 4y ago"If you don't read the news, you are under-informed. If you do read the news, you are mis-informed." - Denzel Washington