4 ms·

The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want. You cannot simultaneo

The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want. You cannot simultaneously hold that - for the good of us all - we have to remove people from internet services (see 'paradox of tolerance') and then pretend that the government shutting people out from the internet is bad. Too harsh? No. Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501

svnpenn 4y ago
> Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 I did check that link. It doesn't seem to support your argument. Can you be more specific? It is some HN comments? If so link them. Is it the article itself? If so quote at least one part.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  If I call out particular comments and users, I think I would come close to violating HN rules. I think I can talk about a few comments, not linked, without causing dang issues. I hope. - Second highest root comment talking about how people being removed from twitter isn't a big deal, its not 'my freedoms' and the real threat is the government putting people in prison and this other stuff just doesn't matter. - ctrl-f paradox - ctrl-f intoleran We, the people and the people on HN in particular, feel justified to silence those who disagree with us because its for the greater good. More to the point, are you saying you have never seen folks on here talking about how we should censor/remove-from-services/silence/shadow-ban people that state believes opposite them? A country gets the government it deserves - I feel like we are going to get one that is quite happy to silence individuals.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    There is a giant chasm between “Twitter gets to decide what it wants to host on its own web site” and “government censorship of speech”. It’s not in the same ballpark. It’s not even the same sport. Nobody has the obligation to publish, broadcast, or amplify someone else’s speech. If you don’t like one particular social media’s content policy, choose from one of the dozens of others or one of the thousands of web forums, or post in your own blog, or use one of hundreds of chat apps, the telephone, newsletters, or the (real) public square.
    - d0gsg0w00f 4y ago
      "You have every right to go protest in that empty square over there."
      - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
        You say this as a metaphor, but it is already the physical reality. I was at a US National Park in 2010, and in the parking lot outside the visitor's center (where it would get in nobody's way) was a roped off "Free speech zone." Despicable.
        pessimizer 4y ago
        "Free Speech Zones" date from the WTO protests in the 90s, and were generally upheld by the courts. More a direct nullification of the first amendment than the beginning of a slippery slope. Maybe not coincidentally, I remember the major usage of free speech zones being to defend Democratic Party Conventions.
        Melatonic 4y ago
        This is the kind of stuff protests specifically ignore and/or exploit. Are the police going to harass you if a ton of protesters gather just outside the steps to city hall and effectively block access just by sitting there and hanging out? Definitely. And that huge increase in inconvenience is exactly what gets your cause noticed and covered and in the front of peoples minds. The trick is, of course, to not actually cause inconvenience in a way that hurts anyone (so do not protest obviously outside the doors of a hospital emergency room entrance) while simultaneously maximizing inconvenience for those that matter.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Removing some people from certain services in population X that are bad actors according to those services != removing everyone in population X from some or all of the Internet These aren't equivalent and don't contradict.
bombcar 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32661638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32661638 is probably a better comparison than Twitter doing whatever Twitter does.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  What a disappointing link. Not because it was unhelpful - it explained the issue rather well - but because it shows our colleagues eagerly lining up to beg a corporation to silence people they disagree with.

svnpenn 4y ago

> Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501 I did check that link. It doesn't seem to support your argument. Can you be more specific? It is some HN comments? If so link them. Is it the article itself? If so quote at least one part.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
If I call out particular comments and users, I think I would come close to violating HN rules. I think I can talk about a few comments, not linked, without causing dang issues. I hope. - Second highest root comment talking about how people being removed from twitter isn't a big deal, its not 'my freedoms' and the real threat is the government putting people in prison and this other stuff just doesn't matter. - ctrl-f paradox - ctrl-f intoleran We, the people and the people on HN in particular, feel justified to silence those who disagree with us because its for the greater good. More to the point, are you saying you have never seen folks on here talking about how we should censor/remove-from-services/silence/shadow-ban people that state believes opposite them? A country gets the government it deserves - I feel like we are going to get one that is quite happy to silence individuals.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  There is a giant chasm between “Twitter gets to decide what it wants to host on its own web site” and “government censorship of speech”. It’s not in the same ballpark. It’s not even the same sport. Nobody has the obligation to publish, broadcast, or amplify someone else’s speech. If you don’t like one particular social media’s content policy, choose from one of the dozens of others or one of the thousands of web forums, or post in your own blog, or use one of hundreds of chat apps, the telephone, newsletters, or the (real) public square.
  - d0gsg0w00f 4y ago
    "You have every right to go protest in that empty square over there."
    - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
      You say this as a metaphor, but it is already the physical reality. I was at a US National Park in 2010, and in the parking lot outside the visitor's center (where it would get in nobody's way) was a roped off "Free speech zone." Despicable.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        "Free Speech Zones" date from the WTO protests in the 90s, and were generally upheld by the courts. More a direct nullification of the first amendment than the beginning of a slippery slope. Maybe not coincidentally, I remember the major usage of free speech zones being to defend Democratic Party Conventions.
      - Melatonic 4y ago
        This is the kind of stuff protests specifically ignore and/or exploit. Are the police going to harass you if a ton of protesters gather just outside the steps to city hall and effectively block access just by sitting there and hanging out? Definitely. And that huge increase in inconvenience is exactly what gets your cause noticed and covered and in the front of peoples minds. The trick is, of course, to not actually cause inconvenience in a way that hurts anyone (so do not protest obviously outside the doors of a hospital emergency room entrance) while simultaneously maximizing inconvenience for those that matter.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

Removing some people from certain services in population X that are bad actors according to those services != removing everyone in population X from some or all of the Internet These aren't equivalent and don't contradict.

bombcar 4y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32661638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32661638 is probably a better comparison than Twitter doing whatever Twitter does.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
What a disappointing link. Not because it was unhelpful - it explained the issue rather well - but because it shows our colleagues eagerly lining up to beg a corporation to silence people they disagree with.