Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#101

Post by tw04 »

peeters wrote: post #79
tw04 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s literally what the new Facebook policy is that she’s referring to in the article… it was previously banned, zuck has decided that it’s now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged behavior.

I understand your objection to the policy, I just don't understand where in this thread you latched onto anything objectionable. At most the OP said the slurs don't make sense (really they didn't even say that, they just clarified the subject of what they were saying made sense). Are you saying the slurs DO make sense? Or is it possible you added some words to what the OP actually said and then objected to that?

[flagged]

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#102

Post by dimensi0nal »

thenaturalist wrote: post #41
gred wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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…

"you can call people mentally ill but only if they're targets of the regime" isn't exactly in line with the principles of free speech in the first place.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#103

Post by dkresge »

tw04 wrote: post #101
peeters wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your objection to the policy, I just don't understand where in this thread you latched onto anything objectionable. At most the OP said the slurs don't make sense (really they didn't even say that, they just clarified the subject of what they were saying made sense). Are you saying the slurs DO make sense? Or is it possible you added some words to what the OP actually said and then objected to that?

[flagged]

I believe the intent was thus: “Aye, that makes sense (not the [reauthorization of] slurs, but the explanation). Thanks.”

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#104

Post by spoctrial »

tw04 wrote: post #71
lgats wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think singleshot_ is saying the slurs do not make sense but drewbug01's explanation of the article's meaning is clear

[flagged]

Or, you know, maybe your interpretation of what they said is incorrect?

It's quite obvious to me that the original poster was confused about what the end of the article meant and trying to communicate that the explanation they got made sense.

It's also quite obvious to me that they don't think the updated policy about using slurs being okay makes sense.

> Then proceeded to get downvoted to oblivion because there’s apparently a large subset of folks who think calling homosexuality a mental disorder is a perfectly normal thing to do.

If you are receving massive downvotes, instead of insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, maybe you can try to critically analyze your interpretation and see if there is another way to interpret what was said, instead of doubling down and believing that HN is the last bastion of LGBTQ hate.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#105

Post by jelder »

ghostpepper wrote: post #99

I wonder how much those broadcast/studio clocks are worth. I looked everywhere to find a digital alarm clock with orange LEDs and couldn't find one.

The cheapest one I could find was about $250:

https://timemachinescorp.com/ntp_poe_wifi_dotmatrix_clock_ti...

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#106

Post by dani__german »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #72
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> there is no way you would be censored (banned) for calling a woman a woman or a man a man. Now, speaking biological and factual truths can get you censored You can claim this and reach to the transphobic dog whistle but these "biological truths" aren't actually true and the only world in which they are is a grossly oversimplified version of reality that ignores all of the messy complexity of how biology actually wo…

to bring up the extremely rare occurrences of intersex people as some sort of justification for saying "male and female, and thus men and women are hopelessly useless/simplistic concepts in our world" is not a compelling argument. Biological reality exists, it defines us. No amount of socialization or education will convince a banana to write a symphony.

In much the same vein, men and women exist. We can fool ourselves into thinking a person can completely cross the divide between them, but it simply is something we tell ourselves/friends, an idea its not currently polite to deny. It is not objective reality itself.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#107

Post by dani__german »

thenaturalist wrote: post #41
gred wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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 not a right at all. if you don't like what the other person is saying, your recourse is to leave, not to imprison the other person, or some derivative thereof.

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#108

Post by DiggyJohnson »

thenaturalist wrote: post #41
gred wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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…

What is this “right to not be insulted”?

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#109

Post by DiggyJohnson »

onemoresoop wrote: post #94
forgetfreeman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed a distinct trend in the last month where even the most casual mention of the oligarchy attracts a bunch of downvotes. I'm trying to decide if this is an indication that some cohort of users here are deeply and passionately delusional about the political state of play, or merely uncomfortable about having it pointed out.

It could be bots as well

That’s a dangerous assumption to habitualize in its own right…

Re: Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose

#110

Post by dani__german »

cryptonym wrote: post #91
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so if a court system is what matters why do you support abusive censorship from private platforms that go well beyond what the law typically requires.

Their platform. As long as they are transparent on what they are doing, they should be free to do this. You are also free to not use it. Being deceptive is more questionable than doing your own censorship on your own platform. Removing things you don't like without justification while claiming your platform is freedom-land would be much more problematic. Same with shady algorithm favouring specific content without tr…

And yet the twitter files shows an interesting case, what you posit as the platform executing their own will (their platform), was in fact heavily influenced by government threats of removal of section 230 protections. Platforms should be free from undemocratic, top down influence from our highest officials, surely you would agree?

That would skew platforms far to the right from their current (2020-2024) political leanings though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files

Post reply on HN