5 ms·
Ironic that my comment was censored on a thread complaining about censorship.
by ETH_start 2y ago
Ironic that my comment was censored on a thread complaining about censorship.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoNo one has censored you... are you talking about your comment being flagged? That's from user votes, not HN directly.
- jtbayly 2y ago“The algorithm decided it. That’s not censorship.” “The majority decided it. That’s not censorship.” “The law decided it. That’s not censorship.” “The users decided it. That’s not censorship.” “You were just scared your neighbors would kill you, so you didn’t say anything. That’s not censorship.” I’m having trouble drawing lines.
- Twistyfiasco 2y agoThe comment was made and still stands.
- jtbayly 2y agoCensorship by the majority is still censorship. I’m not opposed to all censorship. I’m just opposed to refusing to acknowledge it for what it is. If you have your comment flagged by a couple of people, and removed, that is censorship. Plain and simple.
- wordofx 2y agoSo… censorship. Just because you don’t like what someone said does not make what they said wrong. Flagging comments is censorship. Plain and simple. You’re trying to remove opinions you don’t agree with.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoIt's not censorship. Just because you call it that doesn't make it true.
- defrost 2y agoI read your comment about maybe "censoring STI prevention information" might reduce the frequency of gay males having sex. Seems unlikely, not suprising it got flagged to death, however it's there for anyone with ShowDead enabled to read.
- ETH_start 2y agoI was saying censoring LGBT material, not STI prevention literature, might reduce STI transmission rates. I was responding to one speculation, with another, to show that the parent speculation — that censorship of LGBT information would lead to more death by denying sexually active people in the LGBT community with information on STI prevention drugs — was over simplifying the factors involved, to present their speculation as a matter of fact. If my comment — which I disclosed as mere speculation — is to be censored on those grounds, the parent comment should definitely have been.
- ETH_start 2y agoBut after re-reading my comment, I see now that it could be read as me suggesting that censorship of STI prevention information could lead to less male-to-male sexual contact and thereby reduce STI infection rates and with it deaths. That wasn't what I intended to convey. I was referring to censorship of LGBT material in general potentially having that effect.
- defrost 2y agoRe-reading comments in the light of feedback is always interesting, we often project and appear to say what we don't actually intend - I'm prone to that more and more now that I'm getting older. I'm still not sold on the notion that limiting public infomation reduces the incidence of gay sex in a society; the Victorians famously did that and ended up with Polari, rent boys, Green Carnations, and generally no end of coded communication. It made the puritans feel better but did little good otherwise.
- ETH_start 2y agoI'm not sold on the idea either. But it's plausible enough to consider as a possibility in my opinion. Even with all sorts of work-arounds and coded language, the overall volume of male-to-male sexual contact and STI infection might decline with such censorship. Regardless, censorship is not the path to a healthy society and should be rejected on principle.