3 ms·

Again my point was most people don’t. It wasn’t a troll; it was a comment about censorship. How certain topics are also censored on HN and elsewhere. That peopl

Again my point was most people don’t. It wasn’t a troll; it was a comment about censorship. How certain topics are also censored on HN and elsewhere. That people whom we otherwise would expect curiosity are instead pro-suppressing discussion ie censoring. The fact you responded with “hello troll” is a perfect example. 1. The “election fortification” comment is in regards to https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ it’s a tongue in cheek title from a group which helped “ensure the outcome of the election” as they put it. 2. Hunter Biden's laptop was confirmed legitimate. It was easily confirmable by multiple people who knew the Biden’s. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tony-bobulinski-hunter-bidens-former-business-associate https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tony-bobulinski-hunt... The senate report further confirmed it https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep... I can keep going, but my general point was that if you didn’t read the reports in detail (not via a pundit). Particularly, if you didn’t / couldn’t review the source material. Then the censorship worked. There’s a great segment on CNN about wikileaks https://streamable.com/6g5v https://streamable.com/6g5v where you can’t read Hillary emails, you have to hear it from CNN. “Remember it’s illegal for anyone besides journalists to read her emails” a lie, but a form of censorship. It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, it’s wether the discussion is suppressed. That’s the censorship.

koprulusector 4y ago
The thing is, people and corporations saying they don’t really want to hear or spread bull shit isn’t censorship. It’s basic social contract/etiquette and a right. I have the right to hit “block user” - does this mean I’m censoring someone? If not, where is the distinction drawn? If yes, well, that’s a hell of a slippery slope…
- Banana699 4y ago
  Corporations are not people outside of idiotic law speak. They should have no rights to freedom of association once they reach a certain (law-defined) size. Banana699 has the right to block you or otherwise tell you to fuck off from their private property, the 10 million viewers Banana699^TM Inc Ltd does not. Media corporations picking and choosing the type of the story to serve is a very plausible reason for the intense polarization and Rage-As-A-Service ecosystem we are in.
  - ipython 4y ago
    So you’re saying that if I start a website dedicated to unicorn ponies that has user interaction, I should be forced to accept your comment on neonazi ideology? Perhaps the local Christian owned cake shop should be forced to make a cake for a homosexual couple? Where does that end?
    - Banana699 4y ago
      If your website is a corporation hitting all the legal prerequisites for fairness requirements (size, market share,...), then yes, you must accept my neo Nazi comment. You are allowed to make rules that ban views on other grounds than its content, such as being spammy or off topic to the conversation, but you would have to have objective and neutral criteria for those bans, and you should be obligated to justify yourself to your users with non-automated means, and the banned users should be able to sue you at little or no cost if they perceive unfairness. The local Christian cake shop are not a corporation and, by the very definition of 'local', almost certainly doesn't meet the legal prerequisites for fairness regulations, so they should not be forced to bake a cake against their will.

koprulusector 4y ago

The thing is, people and corporations saying they don’t really want to hear or spread bull shit isn’t censorship. It’s basic social contract/etiquette and a right. I have the right to hit “block user” - does this mean I’m censoring someone? If not, where is the distinction drawn? If yes, well, that’s a hell of a slippery slope…

Banana699 4y ago
Corporations are not people outside of idiotic law speak. They should have no rights to freedom of association once they reach a certain (law-defined) size. Banana699 has the right to block you or otherwise tell you to fuck off from their private property, the 10 million viewers Banana699^TM Inc Ltd does not. Media corporations picking and choosing the type of the story to serve is a very plausible reason for the intense polarization and Rage-As-A-Service ecosystem we are in.
- ipython 4y ago
  So you’re saying that if I start a website dedicated to unicorn ponies that has user interaction, I should be forced to accept your comment on neonazi ideology? Perhaps the local Christian owned cake shop should be forced to make a cake for a homosexual couple? Where does that end?
  - Banana699 4y ago
    If your website is a corporation hitting all the legal prerequisites for fairness requirements (size, market share,...), then yes, you must accept my neo Nazi comment. You are allowed to make rules that ban views on other grounds than its content, such as being spammy or off topic to the conversation, but you would have to have objective and neutral criteria for those bans, and you should be obligated to justify yourself to your users with non-automated means, and the banned users should be able to sue you at little or no cost if they perceive unfairness. The local Christian cake shop are not a corporation and, by the very definition of 'local', almost certainly doesn't meet the legal prerequisites for fairness regulations, so they should not be forced to bake a cake against their will.