Live data from Hacker News

The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

4chan.org

301–302 of 302 posts

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a ridiculous interpretation. It's the correct interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in…

Ah yes, the only possible reason somebody could disagree is failure to understand your perfect words. If my neighbor puts up your signs, I am allowed to express my opinions to him. If he decides to take down the signs, that is still not censorship. I'm even allowed to decide to not talk to him if he leaves them up. Exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association is not censorship. It can't be, bec…

Ah yes, the only possible reason somebody could disagree is failure to understand your perfect words. Well of course. That's because I'm correct.

Your analogy is irrelevant. Your example neighbor is only putting up signs for one person, and you don't explain why he takes down the signs.

Censorship is selective removal of unwanted ideas to prevent those ideas from spreading. Removing all ideas for some other reason is not censorship.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#302
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, the New York Times wasn't objective enough for you? [1] You prefer the Washington Post? [2] See, here's the thing: because of the way that GamerGate works, anyone who says that they're part of GamerGate is a part of GamerGate. To use just one example, the shooting threat in Utah was by someone explicitly claiming a link to GamerGate. (And I never said that GG killed dogs, I said they celebrated the dogs being k…

Regarding "What, the New York Times wasn't objective enough for you?": You really don't understand (or pretend you don't understand) how modern newspapers work. 1. Newspapers have ideological bias. In terms of domestic news, it's a liberal newspaper, so would automatically add a sexist anti-male spin. 2. Journalists are under heavy deadline pressure and badly paid. Typically most stories in a newspaper like the NYT a…

Some interesting speculation about branding and hoaxing that are pertinent here: http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-shanley-show-was-the-whole-t... .
Post reply on HN