5 ms·

I think the downvotes you're attracting give some indication for the HN crowd.

Firmwarrior 4y ago
I didn't downvote him, but I could see how even a staunch COVID denialist would think his comment is taking the thread off the rails
- lettergram 4y ago
  I’m pointing out how censorship really works. It’s just as active here as anywhere else, just different topics
lettergram 4y ago
- elefanten 4y ago
  Well taking only this thread as a datapoint... your list of censored news stories wasn't convincing. In what sense were any of those "censored"? I read all those cases being made on the internet. Are you naming editorial choice of what to publish "censorship"? I'm just confused. Anecdotally from my own perspective, I see big waves of voting on HN that go in various political directions. Seems consistent with self-selection by topic combined with randomness. None of it inspires confidence in your assessment of being "censored" on HN, or diagnosing the audience as less curious.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    1. Are you serious? Why is Alex Jones censored? Why is Trump censored? Why did people get indefinitely banned for discussing many of those topics on social media? Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twitters-handling-of-the-posts-hunter-biden-laptop-story/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi... Idk what to say about that. It’s not editorial decisions when DMs are being censored or social media posts. Particularly when the FBI / government is suggesting it. 2. This is a perfect example of my point. Most people don’t even realize they are surrounded by censorship. Or they outright agree with it. Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees. Censorship in the US is different, but very apparent.
    - 4512124672456 4y ago
      > Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi... The main problem is that you compare the freedom of social media platforms to regulate the content they host, to outright government-controlled censorship of all media. If it was actually the government censoring the topic, you would not have been able to link to a nypost article talking about it, and Trump wouldn't be able to post on his own social media platform. > Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees. Why are those topics bannable? Could it be that there is some kind of "code of conduct" that makes sure people are respectful to each other? Those people disagreeing are still free to host their own service, if they desperately want to deadname someone.
      - lettergram 4y ago
        My point was censorship, not who’s doing it. There’s a faction / ideology (across all party lines) in the west that is doing the same thing as China. For the same reasons “to be respectful to one another”. That’s kinda the point I’m trying to make.
        ipython 4y ago
        Hey, great news! You can start your own site without censorship. The marketplace will determine whether your site succeeds or fails. Alex Jones makes a great living peddling his claptrap despite his claims otherwise- go forth and make your own fortune!
    - koprulusector 4y ago
      Seriously, what are you talking about? Last I checked Alex Jones has his own show and Trump has his own social network which has been (might still be) #1 in Apple’s App Store. I am confused on how this is censorship? That said, if a private company like Twitter thinks Alex Jones is a liability because he spreads conspiracy theories of shape shifting lizard people from alternate dimensions sabotaging the Trump Presidency via the deep state because he’s prepping the military and cia to take out the satanic cultists that worship and appease said lizard shapeshifting creatures via the blood of post-coital children, well…
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
snowwrestler 4y ago
Not a single one of those stories was suppressed by the government in the U.S., which is what the article details happening in China. In fact many government officials supported and promoted those stories. Disagreement among private parties, or getting less private promotion than you wanted to get, is not “censorship”. It’s free speech in action.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the US government? Zuckerberg was on Rogan recently explaining that the FBI told him the story was Russian disinformation and Facebook took that to mean they should suppress the story and they did. Presumably something similar happened to Twitter and possibly other platforms. If memory serves former intelligence officials do go to mainstream media and say the story was fake. In what sense is this not government suppression?
  - ipython 4y ago
    Good lord. If the government was so committed to “suppressing” those stories as you claim, they were awfully bad at it, as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. And I don’t see black helicopters anywhere picking you up to some secret prison. Unlike the ccp example here, where I would say they do have a great handle on what can and cannot be discussed on any public platform and dissenters are most definitely threatened with if not actually subjected to physical force.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > If the government was so committed to “suppressing” There's no need for quotes around suppressing as it was suppressed, objectively. > they were awfully bad at it It was done to sway an election, which went the way was desired, and without any legal blowback. That is not being "awfully bad at it". > as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. But at the time and when it was most important people were shut up regardless of whether they wanted to be.

I didn't downvote him, but I could see how even a staunch COVID denialist would think his comment is taking the thread off the rails

lettergram 4y ago
I’m pointing out how censorship really works. It’s just as active here as anywhere else, just different topics

lettergram 4y ago

elefanten 4y ago
Well taking only this thread as a datapoint... your list of censored news stories wasn't convincing. In what sense were any of those "censored"? I read all those cases being made on the internet. Are you naming editorial choice of what to publish "censorship"? I'm just confused. Anecdotally from my own perspective, I see big waves of voting on HN that go in various political directions. Seems consistent with self-selection by topic combined with randomness. None of it inspires confidence in your assessment of being "censored" on HN, or diagnosing the audience as less curious.
- lettergram 4y ago
  1. Are you serious? Why is Alex Jones censored? Why is Trump censored? Why did people get indefinitely banned for discussing many of those topics on social media? Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twitters-handling-of-the-posts-hunter-biden-laptop-story/ https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi... Idk what to say about that. It’s not editorial decisions when DMs are being censored or social media posts. Particularly when the FBI / government is suggesting it. 2. This is a perfect example of my point. Most people don’t even realize they are surrounded by censorship. Or they outright agree with it. Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees. Censorship in the US is different, but very apparent.
  - 4512124672456 4y ago
    > Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi... The main problem is that you compare the freedom of social media platforms to regulate the content they host, to outright government-controlled censorship of all media. If it was actually the government censoring the topic, you would not have been able to link to a nypost article talking about it, and Trump wouldn't be able to post on his own social media platform. > Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees. Why are those topics bannable? Could it be that there is some kind of "code of conduct" that makes sure people are respectful to each other? Those people disagreeing are still free to host their own service, if they desperately want to deadname someone.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      My point was censorship, not who’s doing it. There’s a faction / ideology (across all party lines) in the west that is doing the same thing as China. For the same reasons “to be respectful to one another”. That’s kinda the point I’m trying to make.
      - ipython 4y ago
        Hey, great news! You can start your own site without censorship. The marketplace will determine whether your site succeeds or fails. Alex Jones makes a great living peddling his claptrap despite his claims otherwise- go forth and make your own fortune!
  - koprulusector 4y ago
    Seriously, what are you talking about? Last I checked Alex Jones has his own show and Trump has his own social network which has been (might still be) #1 in Apple’s App Store. I am confused on how this is censorship? That said, if a private company like Twitter thinks Alex Jones is a liability because he spreads conspiracy theories of shape shifting lizard people from alternate dimensions sabotaging the Trump Presidency via the deep state because he’s prepping the military and cia to take out the satanic cultists that worship and appease said lizard shapeshifting creatures via the blood of post-coital children, well…

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

snowwrestler 4y ago

Not a single one of those stories was suppressed by the government in the U.S., which is what the article details happening in China. In fact many government officials supported and promoted those stories. Disagreement among private parties, or getting less private promotion than you wanted to get, is not “censorship”. It’s free speech in action.

ALittleLight 4y ago
The Hunter Biden laptop story wasn't suppressed by the US government? Zuckerberg was on Rogan recently explaining that the FBI told him the story was Russian disinformation and Facebook took that to mean they should suppress the story and they did. Presumably something similar happened to Twitter and possibly other platforms. If memory serves former intelligence officials do go to mainstream media and say the story was fake. In what sense is this not government suppression?
- ipython 4y ago
  Good lord. If the government was so committed to “suppressing” those stories as you claim, they were awfully bad at it, as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. And I don’t see black helicopters anywhere picking you up to some secret prison. Unlike the ccp example here, where I would say they do have a great handle on what can and cannot be discussed on any public platform and dissenters are most definitely threatened with if not actually subjected to physical force.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > If the government was so committed to “suppressing” There's no need for quotes around suppressing as it was suppressed, objectively. > they were awfully bad at it It was done to sway an election, which went the way was desired, and without any legal blowback. That is not being "awfully bad at it". > as anyone who ever wanted to learn about them certainly won’t shut up about it. But at the time and when it was most important people were shut up regardless of whether they wanted to be.