171–180 of 1001 posts
In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.
When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.
Censorship, as you call it, is a requirement for any platform. It's better to call it moderation. Without it platforms would be 99% spam. I assume you support "censoring" spam so that means you support some level of moderation.
When the platforms starting censoring during the pandemic and last election cycle I remember saying they better get it right 100% of the time because the moment they get it wrong their credibility is shot. Hear we are. Censorship, beyond what’s required by law, is doomed to fail.
Also, can we get some common sense here? You're posting on hacker news. You're allowed to post a very narrow set of things here. There are no shitposts and memes, that's half the content of the internet being censored on this platform. Are you not outraged?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were already doing censorship, just for different things - there was never a free for all because that eventually ends up like 4chan which is not advertiser-friendly. If you look at every attempt to create "The Uncensored Free Speech Version Of [ANY_SERVICE]," they all, inevitably turned into a 4chan-like trashfire. You've got to have some kind of moderation.
This is where I really feel my age. Every message board and chatroom (bbs, forums, irc, icq, aol, et all) on the young internet was virtually uncensored and a 100% free for all, yet we all mostly got by. You went to the places you knew to go to. The communities mostly self moderated by kicks/bans. It worked really well. So whats changed? Well, I have my thoughts, but one thing is for sure, as soon as the platform its…
> self moderated by kicks/bans
Also smaller communities tend to be easier to keep from becoming a cesspool
[flagged]
The idea that a private social/sharing/communications platform should be required to carry the messages of the head of government is strongly authoritarian and quite unconstitutional. It’s incredible to me that people will argue the government’s lack of control over mass media platforms is censorship. IMO, nobody should be required to carry government propaganda.
In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.
Zuck Vs Elon on the 2028 presidential ticket would be.... something
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put simply, people in these brackets don’t need more options for tax breaks.
Just curious, is "a ppp [lication]" an alt for "a[ndy] ppp"? Both arguing the same points at the same time is quite the Baader–Meinhof coincidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
EDIT: I’ve misunderstood your comment, I don’t have any alternative accounts on hacker news!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just that. Knowledgeable academics who argued that the costs of lockdowns in schools would far outweigh any possible benefit were suppressed by non-scientists. All talk of vaccine side effects was labelled misinformation and suppressed, even when accompanied with legitimate and accepted studies. Etc. The only common thread between all the possible examples of censorship - from side effects to lockdown effectivene…
It was even here in HN a community of pretty normal people. Remember the discussions of Sweden’s approach to lockdowns? Any mention of it and you were shouted down and blood was surely going to run in the streets of Sweden by dawn the next day. I lost a lot of faith in the HN community then. The pandemic and the compliance and the us vs. them mentality really opened by eyes. It’s how terrible things happen, people wi…
- some people cannot think abstractly about speech, because it is skewed because of actions of Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, or other individuals - it is certain that governments want to control the narrative, and it is not always done in our interests - sometime actions are done to help us, but [disinformation enters the room] - Everything at CEO level is "political" - centralization of social media and forums allowed f…
My hand-wavy proposal:
1. there needs to be something akin to a constitution where all players involved (users of social media, social media companies) can express some shared set of values. For example kids shouldn't get depressed, data should be private, widely spread information should be reasonably accurate.
2. There needs to be a few institutions with enough power and checks and balances to be able to steer the system towards these values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this narrative is appealing to people when someone they disagree with is in the white house but it isn't true. If you are a member of a country club and then Biden or Trump (whichever you dislike more) has you kicked out of the country club, it doesn't become a free speech issue due to their involvement. There may be other issues but it isn't a free speech issue. So it is with private platforms which already d…
> I know this narrative is appealing to people when someone they disagree with is in the white house but it isn't true. If you are a member of a country club and then Biden or Trump (whichever you dislike more) has you kicked out of the country club, it doesn't become a free speech issue due to their involvement. There may be other issues but it isn't a free speech issue. So it is with private platforms which already…