5 ms·

This is one of those who/whom issues. People that were fine with Twitter interfering in elections and censoring people are now upset that X is interfering in el

This is one of those who/whom issues. People that were fine with Twitter interfering in elections and censoring people are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people.

greenie_beans 2y ago
you got some examples?
- systemstops 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - greenie_beans 2y ago
    those are well documented. i was talking about this statement > People that were fine with Twitter interfering in elections and censoring people are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people. particularly > are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people what are some examples of those same people being okay with this? edit: i did a quick search and couldn't find any examples where the writer of this piece did what you claim.
    - systemstops 2y ago
      I'm going to answer this is good faith, but I suspect you know exactly what I am talking about. I meant people in the plural, generic categorical sense - in the context of the public discourse. I am not picking out this author in particular, but the rather the institutions such as MIT Technology Review that frame the public debate. As an example, see how the NY Times covered these stories - that is what I meant by people - the people who contribute to the public debate.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
pmdulaney 2y ago
It should be a truism that down voting correlates with progressive views. Why? Because anti free speech is an integral component of critical theory. That's also why "tolerance" is a virtue that has completely fallen off our cultural radar. (If this post hasn't become grayed-out, give it a few minutes.)
- systemstops 2y ago
  In our complex society, we have to outsource our gathering of knowledge about the world to other people. If we know what these people are being censored or are censoring themselves then we can no longer trust this information. Our society will no longer have generally agreed upon truths (an epistemic crisis).
  - pmdulaney 2y ago
    It really is a crisis! There no longer is a Walter Cronkite that everyone trusts implicitly. And there are fewer and fewer people lately who fearlessly proclaim common sense truth, as George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens did.
Gunax 2y ago
It's a very jaded view, but I think I agree in the general sense. In 2008, Facebook was hailed as a tool of democracy, since it was leveraged by Obama's campaign. We heard glowing stories about how the internet (and Facebook in particular) was giving a voice to the voiceless. This was a new dawn in democracy! And now that Facebook is leveraged by conservatives, it's now considered a harbinger of everything bad in the world. Yet, the Trump movement is just as much a campaign of the disenfranchised as Obamas (probably more so). People were angry for decades and no one cared what they thought. I try to not make divisive comments on HN unless necessary, but I think I have to say this. My feeling is that the left wing were actually correct about the internet being a tool of democracy. It functions very well at free speech and connecting groups. But they misattribute their blame. Their problem is not tech per se, nor even big tech. It's that tech have people a voice. They just didn't like what the people had to say.

This is one of those who/whom issues. People that were fine with Twitter interfering in elections and censoring people are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people.

greenie_beans 2y ago

you got some examples?

systemstops 2y ago
[flagged]
- greenie_beans 2y ago
  those are well documented. i was talking about this statement > People that were fine with Twitter interfering in elections and censoring people are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people. particularly > are now upset that X is interfering in elections and censoring people what are some examples of those same people being okay with this? edit: i did a quick search and couldn't find any examples where the writer of this piece did what you claim.
  - systemstops 2y ago
    I'm going to answer this is good faith, but I suspect you know exactly what I am talking about. I meant people in the plural, generic categorical sense - in the context of the public discourse. I am not picking out this author in particular, but the rather the institutions such as MIT Technology Review that frame the public debate. As an example, see how the NY Times covered these stories - that is what I meant by people - the people who contribute to the public debate.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

pmdulaney 2y ago

It should be a truism that down voting correlates with progressive views. Why? Because anti free speech is an integral component of critical theory. That's also why "tolerance" is a virtue that has completely fallen off our cultural radar. (If this post hasn't become grayed-out, give it a few minutes.)

systemstops 2y ago
In our complex society, we have to outsource our gathering of knowledge about the world to other people. If we know what these people are being censored or are censoring themselves then we can no longer trust this information. Our society will no longer have generally agreed upon truths (an epistemic crisis).
- pmdulaney 2y ago
  It really is a crisis! There no longer is a Walter Cronkite that everyone trusts implicitly. And there are fewer and fewer people lately who fearlessly proclaim common sense truth, as George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens did.

Gunax 2y ago

It's a very jaded view, but I think I agree in the general sense. In 2008, Facebook was hailed as a tool of democracy, since it was leveraged by Obama's campaign. We heard glowing stories about how the internet (and Facebook in particular) was giving a voice to the voiceless. This was a new dawn in democracy! And now that Facebook is leveraged by conservatives, it's now considered a harbinger of everything bad in the world. Yet, the Trump movement is just as much a campaign of the disenfranchised as Obamas (probably more so). People were angry for decades and no one cared what they thought. I try to not make divisive comments on HN unless necessary, but I think I have to say this. My feeling is that the left wing were actually correct about the internet being a tool of democracy. It functions very well at free speech and connecting groups. But they misattribute their blame. Their problem is not tech per se, nor even big tech. It's that tech have people a voice. They just didn't like what the people had to say.