2 ms·
> The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company a
by orbisvicis 1y ago
> The latter is absolutely an editorial standard.
It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state.
Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally.
> If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.
To clarify, it would be fair for hackernews to be sued for failing to remove or geoblock such content? Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? The cesspit of social media is due to forced bias and the solution is to introduce more bias?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> It is the editorial standard of the community not the company Passive moderation, i.e. upvoting and downvoting, is a standard of the community's. Active moderation, e.g. @dang removing a comment, is a standard of the company. > Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? We passed that turn-off a decade ago.
- orbisvicis 1y agoIn my mind @dang works for the community. I think my argument stands under such a hypothetical. I didn't realize @dang was employed by Y Combinator.