5 ms·

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 cau

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.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  I will not go into the specifics of ideology or politics, but I will point out that I think your statements are valid but ignore the current reality. Consider "Parler": - They were trying to cater to users who were banned from twitter. - They set up services using AWS. AWS Banned them. - They built their own infrastructure to get around the ban. - Google/Apple banned them from their mobile devices so no user could use them. I think the current reality is a bit more complicated than it used to be. Or should be. Perhaps.
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    In all of these cases the real problem is that the US Government is unwilling to enforce the monopoly rules and/or there is a company who has become too big and is now the only source of information. If alternative app stores were more popular (and useable at all on Apple devices) then Apple would not be able to unilaterally ban something. I am not defending Parler specifically here at all - that place is a dumpster fire.
- pessimizer 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”. How wide is the chasm between "The administration and congresspeople directly contact twitter and ask them to remove particular ideas and people from their website" and "government censorship of speech"? If you can do the first, why even push for the second? Chinese-style censorship involves approval boards, paperwork, and permanent records. What we have now involves government officials making deniable phone calls and veiled threats.

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.
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
I will not go into the specifics of ideology or politics, but I will point out that I think your statements are valid but ignore the current reality. Consider "Parler": - They were trying to cater to users who were banned from twitter. - They set up services using AWS. AWS Banned them. - They built their own infrastructure to get around the ban. - Google/Apple banned them from their mobile devices so no user could use them. I think the current reality is a bit more complicated than it used to be. Or should be. Perhaps.
- Melatonic 4y ago
  In all of these cases the real problem is that the US Government is unwilling to enforce the monopoly rules and/or there is a company who has become too big and is now the only source of information. If alternative app stores were more popular (and useable at all on Apple devices) then Apple would not be able to unilaterally ban something. I am not defending Parler specifically here at all - that place is a dumpster fire.
pessimizer 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”. How wide is the chasm between "The administration and congresspeople directly contact twitter and ask them to remove particular ideas and people from their website" and "government censorship of speech"? If you can do the first, why even push for the second? Chinese-style censorship involves approval boards, paperwork, and permanent records. What we have now involves government officials making deniable phone calls and veiled threats.