6 ms·

Way to display your pride of your own ignorance, bud.

bdangubic 2y ago
heavy coming from someone who wrote freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against with the straight face. your words have insulted me so imma hit up HN to have it be deleted and maybe file a lawsuit as well :)
- thenaturalist 2y ago
  Ridicule my words all you want, we both know full well that there are legal definitions of slander and that I did not mean censoring anything but legally valid infringements. That's what a (functioning) court system is there for. What's heavy is blowing up a nothingburger in so many words. :D Good luck with your lawsuit!
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Ok so if a court system is what matters why do you support abusive censorship from private platforms that go well beyond what the law typically requires.
    - cryptonym 2y ago
      Their platform. As long as they are transparent on what they are doing, they should be free to do this. You are also free to not use it. Being deceptive is more questionable than doing your own censorship on your own platform. Removing things you don't like without justification while claiming your platform is freedom-land would be much more problematic. Same with shady algorithm favouring specific content without transparency.
      - dani__german 2y ago
        And yet the twitter files shows an interesting case, what you posit as the platform executing their own will (their platform), was in fact heavily influenced by government threats of removal of section 230 protections. Platforms should be free from undemocratic, top down influence from our highest officials, surely you would agree? That would skew platforms far to the right from their current (2020-2024) political leanings though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
        bdangubic 2y ago
        have you actually read the twitter files? doubt that you did and also wrote this comment. you can also just read the above-the-fold part of the link you provided ... :)
        dani__german 2y ago
        Here is a better link, woth direct quotes of the source material, that back up my claim. An editorialized wikipedia article written by people who do not want the story to be true was not a good choice on my part. My apologies. I'd also suggest listening to Mark Zuckerberg's appearance on JRE if you want to get info from the horse's mouth so to speak. [1] https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-files https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...
        cryptonym 2y ago
        Mark Zuckerberg made big claims but unfortunately he didn't provide proof, no trails of relevant threats. He blamed left for his own communication during covid but at that time Trump was at the Whitehouse. That sudden change from Zuckerberg may not be entirely motivated by genuine freedom of speech support.

heavy coming from someone who wrote freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against with the straight face. your words have insulted me so imma hit up HN to have it be deleted and maybe file a lawsuit as well :)

thenaturalist 2y ago
Ridicule my words all you want, we both know full well that there are legal definitions of slander and that I did not mean censoring anything but legally valid infringements. That's what a (functioning) court system is there for. What's heavy is blowing up a nothingburger in so many words. :D Good luck with your lawsuit!
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Ok so if a court system is what matters why do you support abusive censorship from private platforms that go well beyond what the law typically requires.
  - cryptonym 2y ago
    Their platform. As long as they are transparent on what they are doing, they should be free to do this. You are also free to not use it. Being deceptive is more questionable than doing your own censorship on your own platform. Removing things you don't like without justification while claiming your platform is freedom-land would be much more problematic. Same with shady algorithm favouring specific content without transparency.
    - dani__german 2y ago
      And yet the twitter files shows an interesting case, what you posit as the platform executing their own will (their platform), was in fact heavily influenced by government threats of removal of section 230 protections. Platforms should be free from undemocratic, top down influence from our highest officials, surely you would agree? That would skew platforms far to the right from their current (2020-2024) political leanings though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
      - bdangubic 2y ago
        have you actually read the twitter files? doubt that you did and also wrote this comment. you can also just read the above-the-fold part of the link you provided ... :)
        dani__german 2y ago
        Here is a better link, woth direct quotes of the source material, that back up my claim. An editorialized wikipedia article written by people who do not want the story to be true was not a good choice on my part. My apologies. I'd also suggest listening to Mark Zuckerberg's appearance on JRE if you want to get info from the horse's mouth so to speak. [1] https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-files https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...
        cryptonym 2y ago
        Mark Zuckerberg made big claims but unfortunately he didn't provide proof, no trails of relevant threats. He blamed left for his own communication during covid but at that time Trump was at the Whitehouse. That sudden change from Zuckerberg may not be entirely motivated by genuine freedom of speech support.