4 ms·
Yes, it definitely is censorship, because scientists employed by the government may not report findings, existing government information is being erased, and th
by jaybrendansmith 2mo ago
Yes, it definitely is censorship, because scientists employed by the government may not report findings, existing government information is being erased, and the public cannot access it. So studies about racial concerns are cancelled, programs measuring the rate of climate change are being cancelled and the data and even the data collecting instrumentation is destroyed. This list of banned words is just one aspect of the censorship ... taken as a whole, this is an unconstitutional censorship of data that has public health and public safety implications. Does it qualify as Hacker News? Well, does Hacker News even exist when we no longer have access to critical data? Is that not topical? And does this kind of post suddenly become relevant when the government starts censoring the website directly? And how would we know when that starts to happen? Are you going to magically send us all letters in the mail? Or will you just silently acquiesce?
- torstenvl 2mo ago[flagged]
- jaybrendansmith 2mo agoAnd that is flat ignorance of all the other context of destruction of data going on right now. Ignoring that research data is being maintained by private citizens to protect it doesn't support your point. Censorship of government websites is just a small piece of this, ignoring it doesn't help anyone but a rank partisan, which you clearly are.
- torstenvl 2mo ago[flagged]
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo agoYour refusal to look up "censor" in a dictionary doesn't make you right. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned discussion about the downsides of what the administration is doing, in particular the censorship, which is the problem with articles like this being flagged, especially when it's justified with partisan hyperbole such as what can be found in your comments here.
- torstenvl 2mo agoThe government choosing not to engage in or endorse certain speech does not suppress others engaging in that speech. What is your argument here?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2mo ago> "Censorship of government websites" is an oxymoron. > The government choosing not to engage in or endorse certain speech does not suppress others engaging in that speech. The second sentence is not related to what I'm saying. I'm responding to the notion that government resources can't be censored. > What is your argument here? There is no argument, but an observation: government resources can be censored. I'm not going to insult you by copying a definition of "censor" and explaining how it is possible to apply that action to government documents. You're smart enough to figure that out on your own.
- torstenvl 1mo agoYou are quite simply wrong. It would appear willfully so.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo agoThis is a perfect example of a psychological projection. Your comment describes itself.