251–260 of 598 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not what common Cartier means. If I set up my own mail server does it become a common carrier?
If you host the email of as many people as GMail, I'd say yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems to be centered on politics/candidates, which IMO is the wrong motivation. Because political censorship is the worst censorship (you might argue that all censorship is political.) It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. If the powerful are censoring the political process, there are no means to make any of the powerful less powerful. It becomes self-perpetuating.
> It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. That’s an easy sign right up until you have to define “political prisoner”. According to some, people convicted of crimes committed during the January 6th insanity are “political prisoners”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't usually get banned for their opinions. They get banned for being jerks. Try enabling showdead. There are some accounts marked as [dead] that I don't get, but the vast, vast majority of flagkilled posts and banned accounts I've seen don't deserve the product of someone else's labor to propagate their speech.
Dang explicitly bans people for posting things which are too damaging to left-wing politicians. Just today he explicitly editorialized a post title (with a comment explaining why) because it exposed some government corruption; I don't even remember what because it was just so unremarkable and ordinary for HN. ETA: Oh lol it was the same subject as this post, but different title. I guess he let this one get away from…
The article mentioned that 11 federal agencies were involved in asking social media companies to remove posts. I guess Hacker News needs standards mentioned in the FAQ about how many federal agencies need to be involved in an activity before it can be referred to as "vast".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. That’s an easy sign right up until you have to define “political prisoner”. According to some, people convicted of crimes committed during the January 6th insanity are “political prisoners”.
Political prisoners are people imprisoned for their speech and influence. A Jan 6 person could very well be a political prisoner, and since I'm not a Democrat I can't be sure of their collective guilt without actually reading about their cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you say the sky is green, and NASA says "That's wrong", you call that censorship?
If someone writes a post saying the sky is green, NASA says "that's wrong", and then goes on to say that if the social media platform doesn't remove the post saying the sky is green, NASA will forbid the platform from sending any messages using communication satellites, then yes, that is censorship. Of course, they're unlikely to behave so blatantly, at least initially. They're more likely to just sort of hint at how…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's like how political prisoners are the easiest sign a place is a dictatorship. That’s an easy sign right up until you have to define “political prisoner”. According to some, people convicted of crimes committed during the January 6th insanity are “political prisoners”.
I would define those convicted of January 6th “insanities” as political prisoners when those responsible for the Summer 2020 violence were not convicted of crimes and when people like Ray Epps were not prosecuted for their role on January 6th.
First of all, Citation needed. Second of all, you realize that the people responsible for making prosecutorial decisions regarding Jan 6th crimes are not going to be the same people making those decisions for crimes committed during George Floyd protests and riots, right? You think they’re political prisoners because of perceived inconsistencies among decisions made by the DOJ on one hand and various people in local jurisdictions on the other? Just more of the same insanity that led to Jan 6th.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same Florida that passed a law specifically to punish Disney because they spoke out against the “Don’t Say Gay” law and passed the “Stop Woke” act?
putting the erroneous media-assigned name of the bill in quotes doesn't make it any less erroneous. while the bill has flaws and is justly upsetting, we should not continue to propagate a falsehood.
It does not ban nor prevent the use of the word "gay."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you about that, but I also (might) agree with them about this. Not that you said otherwise, but... I think we should go back to a transactional mix-and-match style of politics, with different coalitions per issue, instead of the "agree with your friend tribe and disagree with your enemy tribe about everything" style that we seem to be locked into these days. There shouldn't be any shame in being part of…
I am a one-issue voter (whenever it's on the ballot) and my issue is voting reform because, in my view, the two party system America (and almost Canada!) is stuck with is just making inter-party discussions on policies impossible. Once the political class has stratified like it has in America and can box out anyone who doesn't pass a litmus test of dozens of issues (Oh, you're pro-gun rights but also pro-abortion acc…
Uhm... you do realize there are plenty of us on the left who adopt exactly those positions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pro book banning in libraries I've seen tons of recent support for censorship from ideas and speech the (left? I wouldn't consider it actually left) doesn't like. Then you have conservatives moving against these books that promote woke religion and suddenly these same people are very pro free speech.
>I've seen tons of recent support for censorship from ideas and speech the (left? I wouldn't consider it actually left) doesn't like. The left has always been pro-censorship: Stalin and Mao, for instance, set up societies with lots of censorship. The right is also pro-censorship: think Hitler, or any religious conservatives for that matter.