The Crime of Curiosity • Hacker News Board

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#71

Post by jrochkind1 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC

donmcronald wrote: post #30

> I'm hesitant to say it worked because vaccines are complicated and we’d need further testing to confirm our results. That's the line that makes me interested enough to read more and think about what the author is saying. Misinformation doesn't typically come with a disclaimer saying it might be wrong, so that tells me the author isn't being intentionally deceiving or spreading information where they have no clue wh…

I agree that's an important bar, but intentional misinformation purveyors will learn to use that language too if necessary. It's necessary but not sufficient.

Note: I dont' think this guy should have been removed from youtube, and have no reason to doubt the veracity of his story, it seems plausible and interesting.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#72

Post by dragonsky67 » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #60

donmcronald wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. I fall pretty strongly on the side of combatting misinformation, but I disagree with outright removal of content. I think it should be flagged as misinformation, but left available. Put another way, I'm a fan of labelling, not censoring. I want transparency. "Our misinfo…

There is no such thing as a bot which can identify misinformation with 90% accuracy. Google has some very advanced natural language processing technology. Try this Google search: "What year did Neil Armstrong land on Mars?"

Wow, unless you happen to know that the Sea of Tranquility is on the moon (seas on the moon, no way), then you are well on your way to believing that Armstrong is relaxing on a Martian beach....

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#73

Post by vippy » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

reginold wrote: post #65

Barrin92 wrote: post #62

The author conflates two things. The right to biohack at home and Youtube's alleged obligation to let him broadcast his material. The first one is okay, as long as we're not talking about experiments that may be dangerous to the public. (which he seems to categorically reject for some reason, while home made bioterrorism is a real threat), the second one just doesn't follow at all. Youtube has no realistic way to tel…

Agreed - the lesson here is platforms like YouTube have a lot more control than most assume. An easy to use, censorship resistant, video host seems needed.

That's an interesting, and entirely unrelated, takeaway given what Barrin92 wrote.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#74

Post by hncensors » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:00 PM UTC

liamwire wrote: post #68

hnisfullofshit wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't actually discuss anything on HN that goes against the moderator's petty ideologies (or yc's profit motive) without being censored. Turn on show dead and take a scroll through nearly any topic. The irony is that many of the people who claim to be free-speech see nothing wrong with this platform blacklisting people who don't share in the groupthink.

I feel this is a dishonest take. I’ve seen the moderators leave up some pretty egregious violations of the site rules because it fostered good discussion, which seems to be at the heart of HN. However, good discussion ultimately requires respect for one another, and it seems maybe that thinking is not bilateral in your case. I’d encourage you to introspect on why you may be finding resistance wherever you look.

So you're saying that you support censorship if it fits with what the mods claim is "good discussion"? Do you also think YouTube should have pulled down the author's video? What are the acceptable reasons to enact censorship in your mind?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#75

Post by djoldman » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:10 PM UTC

You don't have a right to service from a private company. Why are people so surprised and or angered by this?

The law is clear: you can be denied service as long as the reason you are being denied is not your sex, religion, etc. [Protected classes].

If you go to a restaurant and they don't like you they can throw you out, and so can a hardware store, and a movie theater, etc. (Exempting the protected reasons).

Find another service.

This makes sense. Why should a company be forced to allow people on their property? Or use their property? They shouldn't be forced, as long as they're not discriminating.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#76

Post by reginold » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:13 PM UTC

djoldman wrote: post #75

You don't have a right to service from a private company. Why are people so surprised and or angered by this? The law is clear: you can be denied service as long as the reason you are being denied is not your sex, religion, etc. [Protected classes]. If you go to a restaurant and they don't like you they can throw you out, and so can a hardware store, and a movie theater, etc. (Exempting the protected reasons). Find a…

People are surprised and or angered by this because they aren't as clear on the law as you are. It's understandable, and they need help to better understand how it works.

With that in mind, got any other services that would be replacements?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#77

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

reginold wrote: post #76

djoldman wrote: post #75

You don't have a right to service from a private company. Why are people so surprised and or angered by this? The law is clear: you can be denied service as long as the reason you are being denied is not your sex, religion, etc. [Protected classes]. If you go to a restaurant and they don't like you they can throw you out, and so can a hardware store, and a movie theater, etc. (Exempting the protected reasons). Find a…

People are surprised and or angered by this because they aren't as clear on the law as you are. It's understandable, and they need help to better understand how it works. With that in mind, got any other services that would be replacements?

Note that even if there are no replacements, a private business can still refuse to provide you with service. It could be the only restaurant in town, and the next town might be 85 miles away and you might not have a car. Under US law, that's your problem, not the restaurant's.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#78

Post by tomlockwood » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

> ... monopoly speech platforms are also sloppily banning any form of science that doesn’t come from ‘ordained’ sources.

> ...

> I’m sorry, it’s complete bullshit. Science is not something to be believed or trusted. Trust is antithetical to science. Show me the data, and let me decide for myself.

Cool, agreed, but, these arguments sound identical to those made by anti-vaxxers who believe vaccines cause autism.

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#79

Post by djoldman » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

reginold wrote: post #76

djoldman wrote: post #75

You don't have a right to service from a private company. Why are people so surprised and or angered by this? The law is clear: you can be denied service as long as the reason you are being denied is not your sex, religion, etc. [Protected classes]. If you go to a restaurant and they don't like you they can throw you out, and so can a hardware store, and a movie theater, etc. (Exempting the protected reasons). Find a…

People are surprised and or angered by this because they aren't as clear on the law as you are. It's understandable, and they need help to better understand how it works. With that in mind, got any other services that would be replacements?

You're right and I posted in frustration :(

Other services... Well I think you can still view YouTube without an account.

As for publishing, Vimeo?

Re: The Crime of Curiosity

#80

Post by CheezeIt » Thu, Sep 16, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

djoldman wrote: post #75

You don't have a right to service from a private company. Why are people so surprised and or angered by this? The law is clear: you can be denied service as long as the reason you are being denied is not your sex, religion, etc. [Protected classes]. If you go to a restaurant and they don't like you they can throw you out, and so can a hardware store, and a movie theater, etc. (Exempting the protected reasons). Find a…

> Why are people so surprised and or angered by this?

People have self respect and don’t like being bossed around by nitwits and parasites in mega corporations.