2 ms·

The premise of this document is false: > [C]ompanies ... have used their structural power to silence conservatives and deny them access to goods and services t

The premise of this document is false: > [C]ompanies ... have used their structural power to silence conservatives and deny them access to goods and services the companies readily make available to liberal Americans. This is not happening. It is a lie. What happens is some folks decide they want to make violent threats towards others, or espouse ideologies that are inherently violent (e.g. white supremacy, which aims for genocide to create a white ethno-state), or decide that they want to be misogynist, or racist. The folks that do this are selfish and don't deserve to have their hate* and ignorance amplified. There's a difference between expressing an opinion and pushing ideologies that are incompatible with a free and open society where people are actually able to have civilized discussions on differences of opinion. (If you are unaware of this concept, brush up on "The Paradox of Tolerance".) tl;dr - This is 40 pages of absolute utter nonsense.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
> This is not happening. It is a lie. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. This document has deep details on moderation/censorship schemes across the industry. How can you claim it’s a lie when there is significant evidence throughout the document? > There's a difference between expressing an opinion and pushing ideologies that are incompatible with a free and open society where people are actually able to have civilized discussions on differences of opinion. (If you are unaware of this concept, brush up on "The Paradox of Tolerance".) Civilized discussions can happen if they aren’t censored. But using vague and highly subjective labels like “hate” to dismiss and censor discussions is what is incompatible with free societies. Obviously free speech is fundamental to any functioning democracy - why shouldn’t the same be true for online platforms when that’s where most citizens hold political discussions? It doesn’t make sense that this value is somehow only necessary for the government, when these large platforms have government-like power and influence.
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  > This document has deep details on moderation/censorship schemes across the industry. It's not deep. It's Ted Cruz. > How can you claim it’s a lie when there is significant evidence throughout the document? Quoting another's lie doesn't make it evidence.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    What specifically is a lie? You’ve clearly not read the document. Spraying vague accusations and labels is not convincing.
tivert 3y ago
> What happens is some folks decide they want to make violent threats towards others, or espouse ideologies that are inherently violent (e.g. white supremacy, which aims for genocide to create a white ethno-state), or decide that they want to be misogynist, or racist. The folks that do this are selfish and don't deserve to have their hate* and ignorance amplified. Oh, come on. While I may not agree with these things, the first page talks about things like lab leak theory, Hunter Biden's laptop, and questioning "that children needed to wear face masks." It is obnoxious and credibility-destroying to conflate that with stuff like "violent threats towards others" or "ideologies that are inherently violent."

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago

> This is not happening. It is a lie. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. This document has deep details on moderation/censorship schemes across the industry. How can you claim it’s a lie when there is significant evidence throughout the document? > There's a difference between expressing an opinion and pushing ideologies that are incompatible with a free and open society where people are actually able to have civilized discussions on differences of opinion. (If you are unaware of this concept, brush up on "The Paradox of Tolerance".) Civilized discussions can happen if they aren’t censored. But using vague and highly subjective labels like “hate” to dismiss and censor discussions is what is incompatible with free societies. Obviously free speech is fundamental to any functioning democracy - why shouldn’t the same be true for online platforms when that’s where most citizens hold political discussions? It doesn’t make sense that this value is somehow only necessary for the government, when these large platforms have government-like power and influence.

malcolmgreaves 3y ago
> This document has deep details on moderation/censorship schemes across the industry. It's not deep. It's Ted Cruz. > How can you claim it’s a lie when there is significant evidence throughout the document? Quoting another's lie doesn't make it evidence.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  What specifically is a lie? You’ve clearly not read the document. Spraying vague accusations and labels is not convincing.

tivert 3y ago

> What happens is some folks decide they want to make violent threats towards others, or espouse ideologies that are inherently violent (e.g. white supremacy, which aims for genocide to create a white ethno-state), or decide that they want to be misogynist, or racist. The folks that do this are selfish and don't deserve to have their hate* and ignorance amplified. Oh, come on. While I may not agree with these things, the first page talks about things like lab leak theory, Hunter Biden's laptop, and questioning "that children needed to wear face masks." It is obnoxious and credibility-destroying to conflate that with stuff like "violent threats towards others" or "ideologies that are inherently violent."