5 ms·

```We all agree that stuff should be illegal, let's make it illegal," she told BBC News``` - I disagree. I think we should avoid any kind of censorship, whateve

by Lapsa 4y ago

```We all agree that stuff should be illegal, let's make it illegal," she told BBC News``` - I disagree. I think we should avoid any kind of censorship, whatever the content is, as long as possible, wherever possible. YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism or whatever else hot topic mentioned on the article. but I also think that at the end of the day - it's mostly just greed trying to amplify control. such agenda will never triumph.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Okay, let's suppose then that an idiot does something horrible, is the idiot to blame 100% for the horrible thing? What about the people that should know better? What about the people who repeatedly encouraged a rabid base to attack people? What about the people who exploit the morons to do their bidding? What if people start getting branded as "undesirable" by certain individuals, and others make sure to cleanse them? So let me make it more clear, how many innocents are you willing to sacrifice for free speech?
- scarmig 4y ago
  Is it better when the governing class decides certain individuals or thoughts are evil and makes sure to cleanse them from the world? Could that cause harm to people, or is the government always right? How many innocents are you willing to see die and suffer for the sake of purging bad thoughts from society?
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    Stawman. Who said the government should decide? > Is it better when the governing class decides certain individuals or thoughts are evil and makes sure to cleanse them from the world? Leave it to the people, let the people vote with their wallet. People clearly don't want that kind of speech available, exhibit all absolute free speech sites. The government dictating what is allowed to go on platforms and forcing companies to host vitriol and calls to violence to "cleanse" society is not any different to what you describe. It just adds a middle man so the government keeps their hands clean. Cut the strawmans. I didn't advocate for government control, you took it there, and the fact that I am even entertaining this response is well beyond what it deserves.
- lootsauce 4y ago
  And what if when it is government branding the undesirables? Only a problem when you disagree? But of course all the sane people agree with the ministry of truth and decency. Personal responsibility is a far better position to defend despite the garbage that comes along for the ride than say an overarching unquestionable central authority that dictates and enforces what is acceptable for all with threat of government sanctioned violence (imprisonment) for non-compliance.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    Who spoke about the government doing things? Yet another strawman. The government forcing companies to host speech they do not want to host as DeSantis wants to do with Apple, and has been done in Florida and Texas is inherently fascist. Where is the personal responsibility for the people who willingly taunt their followers and point the finger towards minorities? Why are republican figures not facing justice for the atrocities committed as a consequence of their speech?
concinds 4y ago
"We don't want people to be banned on social media if they're not committing crimes, but we want to make all these things crimes" is an insane position for the UK government to take. There are still far too many white-collar and violent crimes being committed for the government to be entitled to regulate common speech.
kylebyproxy 4y ago
> YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism Unfortunately, idiots can carry guns and have a propensity for acting on said racism. Refusal to confront that problem in the name of some free speech ideological purity is tempting history to repeat.
- Lapsa 4y ago
  how does free speech differ from [some] free speech ideological purity?
  - kylebyproxy 4y ago
    The recognition of harmful speech. See e.g., German restrictions on Nazi symbolism.
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      Which is a really bad example. It is clear why it is there, but in general it isn't a good solution.
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  > idiots can carry guns Not in the UK, usually.
  - kylebyproxy 4y ago
    Don't take that for granted
madeofpalk 4y ago
I presume you like Hacker News - you've been here for 11 years. What are some of the qualities you like about it? Hacker News is heavily "censored" so it can maintain what it believes to be a high quality posted links and discussion.
- throwarayy42521 4y ago
  I don't think moderation can even be compared to government censorship. Moderation leads to more diversity of viewpoints expressed, as different places on the internet moderates in different ways, and almost anyone can start a competing community that moderates differently. The opposite is true with government censorship.
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    Ironically someone flagged your comment.
- CleverLikeAnOx 4y ago
  There is a huge difference between having a post removed in a moderated community and having a post be punishable by the law of your nation.
- Lapsa 4y ago
  somewhat smart folks around here. that's about it
SyzygistSix 4y ago
>it's mostly just greed trying to amplify control. such agenda will never triumph. Sometimes it gains power for a long period of time with unfortunate results. Not that I think that is a valid argument against freedom of expression.
amelius 4y ago
> YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism or whatever else hot topic mentioned on the article. Advertising works, so does any other form of propaganda. It's taught in psychological manipulation 101. What you are doing is called victim blaming.

by Lapsa 4y ago

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

Okay, let's suppose then that an idiot does something horrible, is the idiot to blame 100% for the horrible thing? What about the people that should know better? What about the people who repeatedly encouraged a rabid base to attack people? What about the people who exploit the morons to do their bidding? What if people start getting branded as "undesirable" by certain individuals, and others make sure to cleanse them? So let me make it more clear, how many innocents are you willing to sacrifice for free speech?

scarmig 4y ago
Is it better when the governing class decides certain individuals or thoughts are evil and makes sure to cleanse them from the world? Could that cause harm to people, or is the government always right? How many innocents are you willing to see die and suffer for the sake of purging bad thoughts from society?
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Stawman. Who said the government should decide? > Is it better when the governing class decides certain individuals or thoughts are evil and makes sure to cleanse them from the world? Leave it to the people, let the people vote with their wallet. People clearly don't want that kind of speech available, exhibit all absolute free speech sites. The government dictating what is allowed to go on platforms and forcing companies to host vitriol and calls to violence to "cleanse" society is not any different to what you describe. It just adds a middle man so the government keeps their hands clean. Cut the strawmans. I didn't advocate for government control, you took it there, and the fact that I am even entertaining this response is well beyond what it deserves.
lootsauce 4y ago
And what if when it is government branding the undesirables? Only a problem when you disagree? But of course all the sane people agree with the ministry of truth and decency. Personal responsibility is a far better position to defend despite the garbage that comes along for the ride than say an overarching unquestionable central authority that dictates and enforces what is acceptable for all with threat of government sanctioned violence (imprisonment) for non-compliance.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Who spoke about the government doing things? Yet another strawman. The government forcing companies to host speech they do not want to host as DeSantis wants to do with Apple, and has been done in Florida and Texas is inherently fascist. Where is the personal responsibility for the people who willingly taunt their followers and point the finger towards minorities? Why are republican figures not facing justice for the atrocities committed as a consequence of their speech?

concinds 4y ago

"We don't want people to be banned on social media if they're not committing crimes, but we want to make all these things crimes" is an insane position for the UK government to take. There are still far too many white-collar and violent crimes being committed for the government to be entitled to regulate common speech.

kylebyproxy 4y ago

> YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism Unfortunately, idiots can carry guns and have a propensity for acting on said racism. Refusal to confront that problem in the name of some free speech ideological purity is tempting history to repeat.

Lapsa 4y ago
how does free speech differ from [some] free speech ideological purity?
- kylebyproxy 4y ago
  The recognition of harmful speech. See e.g., German restrictions on Nazi symbolism.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Which is a really bad example. It is clear why it is there, but in general it isn't a good solution.
chrisbaker98 4y ago
> idiots can carry guns Not in the UK, usually.
- kylebyproxy 4y ago
  Don't take that for granted

madeofpalk 4y ago

I presume you like Hacker News - you've been here for 11 years. What are some of the qualities you like about it? Hacker News is heavily "censored" so it can maintain what it believes to be a high quality posted links and discussion.

throwarayy42521 4y ago
I don't think moderation can even be compared to government censorship. Moderation leads to more diversity of viewpoints expressed, as different places on the internet moderates in different ways, and almost anyone can start a competing community that moderates differently. The opposite is true with government censorship.
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Ironically someone flagged your comment.
CleverLikeAnOx 4y ago
There is a huge difference between having a post removed in a moderated community and having a post be punishable by the law of your nation.
Lapsa 4y ago
somewhat smart folks around here. that's about it

SyzygistSix 4y ago

>it's mostly just greed trying to amplify control. such agenda will never triumph. Sometimes it gains power for a long period of time with unfortunate results. Not that I think that is a valid argument against freedom of expression.

amelius 4y ago

> YOU are an idiot, if you buy into racism or whatever else hot topic mentioned on the article. Advertising works, so does any other form of propaganda. It's taught in psychological manipulation 101. What you are doing is called victim blaming.