Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose • Hacker News Board

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#51

Post by thenaturalist » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 12:54 AM UTC

Diggsey wrote: post #43

thenaturalist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like any freedom in an interconnected society, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against. It's really a rather simple concept entirely void of cencorship. In case of more interest, Kant is a good source for educating oneself: > Kant holds in contrast that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an i…

The "right to not be insulted" is literally censorship.

If you look up the definition of censorship, you'll find that it is not.

Censorship is suppression.

Insulting someone or discriminating against them is not supression, it's unlawful.

If that's not your cup of tea, I'd challenge you to forego any and all (!) ameneties of modern civilized society to enjoy your anarcho-freedom.

Don't pretend to be a tough one by sitting in a comfy chair and picking the raisins out of the dough.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#52

Post by thenaturalist » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 12:55 AM UTC

bdangubic wrote: post #48

thenaturalist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like any freedom in an interconnected society, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against. It's really a rather simple concept entirely void of cencorship. In case of more interest, Kant is a good source for educating oneself: > Kant holds in contrast that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an i…

(un)fortunately Kant is not one of the Founding Fathers :)

Way to display your pride of your own ignorance, bud.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#53

Post by cipheredStones » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 12:59 AM UTC

this_user wrote: post #20

wodenokoto wrote: post #9

> Of course, here it is ten years later, and the guy in charge just sent it back fifty years. Way to upstage me, dude. I feel like there's a link to a story missing there

It's about the company's recent course change, which includes Zuckerberg's Joe Rogan interview from last week. IMO this has a lot to do with the younger generations. Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election, and Zuck has probably realised that he needs to align Meta with them if they want to remain a relevant player in the social media space.

> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election

What on earth are you talking about? 18-29 year olds were the most Democratic age group, as usual. 18-29 year old men might have slightly favored Trump, but to a significantly lower degree than older men.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#54

Post by thenaturalist » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 1:00 AM UTC

llm_trw wrote: post #47

thenaturalist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like any freedom in an interconnected society, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against. It's really a rather simple concept entirely void of cencorship. In case of more interest, Kant is a good source for educating oneself: > Kant holds in contrast that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an i…

So when are we locking up everyone that's insulted Trump?

You know full well that Trump is a public figure. Where I live, different protections of personal rights exist for private people, such as typically engaged on social media and public figures.

Neither is or ever was charging anyone who writes an insult online a proposed or practiced option but simply deleting derogatory comments.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#55

Post by bdangubic » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 1:05 AM UTC

thenaturalist wrote: post #52

bdangubic wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(un)fortunately Kant is not one of the Founding Fathers :)

Way to display your pride of your own ignorance, bud.

heavy coming from someone who wrote freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against with the straight face.

your words have insulted me so imma hit up HN to have it be deleted and maybe file a lawsuit as well :)

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#56

Post by kcb » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 1:06 AM UTC

thenaturalist wrote: post #51

Diggsey wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "right to not be insulted" is literally censorship.

If you look up the definition of censorship, you'll find that it is not. Censorship is suppression. Insulting someone or discriminating against them is not supression, it's unlawful. If that's not your cup of tea, I'd challenge you to forego any and all (!) ameneties of modern civilized society to enjoy your anarcho-freedom. Don't pretend to be a tough one by sitting in a comfy chair and picking the raisins out of th…

Well once you bring law into it then you have to be accurate. Insulting someone is almost never unlawful in the US. And discrimination laws apply to specific matters for specific special classes.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#57

Post by mkl » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 1:11 AM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #32

fishstock25 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> watch -n1 date Um, that's a pretty inaccurate way to notice an offset in the millisecond range, isn't it?

That doesn't even show ms. Add something like +%s%N (ns) to the options if you want finer resolution.

The problem is using watch you have no control* over when in each second it's getting the time, so it could be nearly a second late (e.g. it's getting the time once per second, but happens to be doing it when it's a few milliseconds away from ticking over to the next second).

* Okay, you have a little control in that you can press enter, or otherwise set it running, at a particular moment.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#58

Post by lesuorac » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 1:11 AM UTC

Diggsey wrote: post #43

thenaturalist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like any freedom in an interconnected society, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against. It's really a rather simple concept entirely void of cencorship. In case of more interest, Kant is a good source for educating oneself: > Kant holds in contrast that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an i…

The "right to not be insulted" is literally censorship.

I do think this is the wrong way to look at this.

Prohibiting slurs is like prohibiting nudity in public parks. You're prohibiting an action so that people don't self-prohibit themselves from visiting.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#59

Post by thenaturalist » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 1:13 AM UTC

bdangubic wrote: post #55

thenaturalist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to display your pride of your own ignorance, bud.

heavy coming from someone who wrote freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but limited when it infringes on other rights: right not to be insulted or discriminated against with the straight face. your words have insulted me so imma hit up HN to have it be deleted and maybe file a lawsuit as well :)

Ridicule my words all you want, we both know full well that there are legal definitions of slander and that I did not mean censoring anything but legally valid infringements.

That's what a (functioning) court system is there for.

What's heavy is blowing up a nothingburger in so many words. :D

Good luck with your lawsuit!

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#60

Post by seneca » Mon, Jan 13, 2025, 1:21 AM UTC

thenaturalist wrote: post #51

Diggsey wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "right to not be insulted" is literally censorship.

If you look up the definition of censorship, you'll find that it is not. Censorship is suppression. Insulting someone or discriminating against them is not supression, it's unlawful. If that's not your cup of tea, I'd challenge you to forego any and all (!) ameneties of modern civilized society to enjoy your anarcho-freedom. Don't pretend to be a tough one by sitting in a comfy chair and picking the raisins out of th…

> Insulting someone or discriminating against them is not supression, it's unlawful.

It is not, at all, unlawful to insult someone. Your argument is absurd.