931–940 of 983 posts
Meanwhile flat earth videos are okay
Flat earthers don't have the effect that their viewers go around shooting people. Far-right content creators on the other hand enable terrorists like the Christchurch perpetrator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you don't even reference a popular youtube content creators to support your stupid argument shows its value. Also, both last links are from a cherry-picking entertainment and blog sites, not news sites that actually have editors and the desire to check sources.
Because if the 4th branch of government doesn't report it, it didn't happen. Oddly enough, the older white woman who was shot a block from my house Friday night in a random drive-by shooting didn't get reported. The gunshot and scream must have been faked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read again lease, it has nothing to do with what the people that got banned this time say. Ads puts people in charge of censoring things who have profit trough ads in minds. They don't give a flying f* about wrong or right, they are not our internet moral compass and have zero qualifications for that anyway.
If you think advertisers refusing to have anything to do with platforms that refuse to serve as a check against hate speech is worse than platforms refusing to serve as a check against hate speech, then you very clearly don’t give a flying duck about right or wrong, either. Get your priorities in order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think advertisers refusing to have anything to do with platforms that refuse to serve as a check against hate speech is worse than platforms refusing to serve as a check against hate speech, then you very clearly don’t give a flying duck about right or wrong, either. Get your priorities in order.
That's absolutely correct I don't seem myself as the judge either. I can however decide on my own what I want to read/hear/see and what not and I make use of that. I have no need to brush things right or wrong for others I want to decide for myself and I want other to be able to decide for themselves. The order of priorities is quite clear, its choice and freedom on top and not correctness as defined by whoever is in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary. Here's an example of the NYT providing anonymity to a therapist with a political blog in 2015: https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144 Here's the NYT protecting the anonymity of female gamers to protect them from harassment (on the same day that Scott took down his bl…
Good find. There were also tweets from the reporter, who said in effect "what do you [Scott] have to hide?" about the SSC story. Scott's attempt to spin it as a positive story in his farewell letter is, I think, an attempt to both influence the NYT in that direction, but also to keep the focus on the doxxing, and not on why SSC might be controversial. He's trying to keep that part out of the public debate entirely, w…
Woah, really? That's bad.
> Scott's attempt to spin it as a positive story in his farewell letter is, I think, an attempt to both influence the NYT in that direction, but also to keep the focus on the doxxing, and not on why SSC might be controversial. He's trying to keep that part out of the public debate entirely, which seems smart.
That's actually a pretty reasonable interpretation, and probably flips the script in a way that they weren't prepared for. A couple days ago the NYT ran a piece begging people not to cancel their subscriptions. I didn't read the piece to see if it reference SSC, so it could just be a coincidence, but I know there was the #ghostnyt campaign on Twitter in response Scott closing his blog.
The Daily Beast also reported that some of the staff internally at the NYT (mostly the tech folks) were rather irate at learning (from Hacker News, no less) about the planned doxxing of Scott.
> Also: I'm sorry you're being downvoted so badly, I don't think it's deserved.
Thank you. It's really not that bad and my net karma is actually up quite a bit overall from this thread, but kind words and interesting arguments matter more to me than votes. I won't speculate as to the motivation behind the downvotes, and they won't change my opinions, but I do treat them as an opportunity to look at how I could improve the usefulness of my comments here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flat earthers don't have the effect that their viewers go around shooting people. Far-right content creators on the other hand enable terrorists like the Christchurch perpetrator.
I've seen dozens of instances of serious racial violence by blm activists recorded in the last few weeks and cheered on by thousands of YouTube videos demanding even more, surely that counts as "enabling terrorists"? Hate crimes units across the country are investigating racially motivated attacks spurring entirely from blm. You won't see these people happily wanting a race war being banned though. https://m.youtube.…
"hate speech" is a made up word and neither illegal or "bad". You're applauding a rebranded social score and a secondary justice system.
I can form a trivial argument for why almost any hot-button political opinion is "hate speech", even through the most charitable definition of "advocating violence or diminishing essential human dignity". - Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe women are "less-than". - Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you believe pre-birth infants are "less-than". - P…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absolutely correct I don't seem myself as the judge either. I can however decide on my own what I want to read/hear/see and what not and I make use of that. I have no need to brush things right or wrong for others I want to decide for myself and I want other to be able to decide for themselves. The order of priorities is quite clear, its choice and freedom on top and not correctness as defined by whoever is in…
You appear to be admitting in plain — though horribly ungrammatical — English that you don’t care about the difference between right and wrong. Why should anyone value the opinion of someone incapable of making simple moral judgements?
There are people who openly say that division though zero gives infinite. There are people who openly say the earth is flat. There are people who openly say there is a dude in the sky that will burn you for you wrongdoings after you die. There are people who openly say some races are subhumans. There are people who openly say gays can be healed.
Where is the difference in all of them? We probably agree that all of them are wrong so that can't be the factor that makes some of these opinions bannable and others not. I'm not incapable of moral judgement for me, I don't want moral judgements be part of the decision making. Because what is banned and what not should not depend on moral judgement of someone. Moral judgement is biased. My own moral judgement is, so why would I want anyone else's moral to be enforced for all. Id rather have 99 garbage opinions not banned than a single falsely banned opinion. Because I can ignore the 99 garbage opinions but I can't "nu-ignore" what I don't knew was there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we? HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last… In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended u…
Linking to one flagged comment from a green account doesn't really support your position that the entire community is "racist-adjacent". Neither does linking to a blog post that claims Scott shut SSC down to protect his patients support your position that he did it to evade justice.
This is likely why above poster says "racist-adjacent" and not racist-friendly.
I have no particular opinion on HN, but I have noticed that the tech community in general is usually not the most politics-aware group. This makes us pretty vulnerable to this kind of behaviour.