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

Against Xkcd 1357

defmacro.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#21

Post by rbecker »

cgrealy wrote: post #13

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one: > Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but…

And if you're accused of murder, Facebook can use their free speech to censor anyone fundraising money for your defense, and crowdfunding sites and payment processors can use their free speech and freedom of association, and refuse to process any donations you receive: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri...

And if you're black, a business can use their freedom of association and refuse- oh, no, wait, no they can't. That would be a problem. Even though the constitution allows it. But this, this isn't.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#23

Post by cgrealy »

rbecker wrote: post #21
cgrealy wrote: post #13

There are so many things wrong with that article, but let's start with this one: > Yet in many other countries— perhaps still in most of them— mob justice, unethical businesses behavior without complaint, and complete disregard for any rights of criminals is a normal daily occurrence. Their citizens know that far away silly Americans bother with fair trials and non-ironically litigating the temperature of coffee, but…

And if you're accused of murder, Facebook can use their free speech to censor anyone fundraising money for your defense, and crowdfunding sites and payment processors can use their free speech and freedom of association, and refuse to process any donations you receive: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri... And if you're black, a business can use their freedom of association and refuse- oh, n…

Yes, because race is a protected class. Being a murderer... isn't.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#24

Post by rbecker »

cgrealy wrote: post #23
rbecker wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're accused of murder, Facebook can use their free speech to censor anyone fundraising money for your defense, and crowdfunding sites and payment processors can use their free speech and freedom of association, and refuse to process any donations you receive: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri... And if you're black, a business can use their freedom of association and refuse- oh, n…

Yes, because race is a protected class. Being a murderer... isn't.

I thought we were discussing what the law should be, not what it is. Or more broadly, how companies and people should act, not what they can get away with under the law.

As for the murderer bit... well, if we already know it was murder, why are we bothering with a trial? Lets just ask Facebook, and sentence him accordingly.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#25

Post by trogdor3000 »

I agree the article isn't well written but I do share some of the author's concerns about the right to free speech vs. the cultural norms of public discourse, private disagreements among friends, friendly debates, etc.

I read the book The Coddling of the American Mind [1] a while back and think I can sum it up with that modern American equate disagreeing with someone opinions as a personal attack and that we need to avoid touchy subject for the sake of tolerance.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Gen...

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#26

Post by SecurityMinded »

I am not sure what he was smoking when he wrote this blog post but he definitely was not thinking straight. Xkcd has hit the nail right on its head. Nobody is obligated to listen to you and agree with your half baked brain farts. It actually hits too close to home today, with this inclusion, BLM, etc. BS. If you suck at what you are doing, I do not care what your skin color is, what your political beliefs are, you deserve to be put out to pasture. Period.

Perfect example of a millennial snowflake, who thinks what he says is important no matter what.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#27

Post by SecurityMinded »

trogdor3000 wrote: post #25

I agree the article isn't well written but I do share some of the author's concerns about the right to free speech vs. the cultural norms of public discourse, private disagreements among friends, friendly debates, etc. I read the book The Coddling of the American Mind [1] a while back and think I can sum it up with that modern American equate disagreeing with someone opinions as a personal attack and that we need to…

Your right to free speech doesn't necessarily mean that I have to listen to you. If I am the ,edia platform you want to shout on top of, well, what you sy better be something that my audience wants to hear. Otherwise, I am not obligated to give you the time of day. That time is costing me money as a media broadcaster. If your half baked ideas is going to cause me a drop in audience following, hence advertising revenue, you can go find yourself another sympathetic ear. It ain't here. Second and fourth squares are saying exactly this and I could not agree with it any more. One of the best Xkcd strips. Good thing it was hashed out. I have forgotten about it.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#28

Post by montroser »

The intended audience for the "PSA" in the comic is exactly the author of the post. But apparently the message did not land.

> It’s wrong because it contains a profound misunderstanding— that America’s founding documents are nothing more than legal tools.

The constitution _is_ the foundation of the law in the US. That is its purpose. It may imply social norms or inspire other connotations, but fundamentally it is a legal document.

> Whenever I think about what did the most damage to internet culture over the past ten years, this comic comes out on top

This comic did not affect internet culture -- it just conveys a truth that conflicts with the author's understanding.

Yes, it is good to seek contrasting points of view and empathizing with earnest people who disagree with you. But no, we do not have the _right_ to use privately owned platforms like facebook and twitter as our stage, just as we don't have the _right_ to pen editorial articles in our local newspapers.

And this is where I think where maybe lies some of the confusion? It seems that the generation who never knew a world without massive social media platforms -- they seem to think of them as public utilities. Less like newspapers, and more like phone companies. So maybe from that perspective, there could be an argument that they should be regulated and/or broken into smaller entities. But in the present, that is only a dream and not much to do with reality.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#29

Post by yokaze »

rbecker wrote: post #24
cgrealy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because race is a protected class. Being a murderer... isn't.

I thought we were discussing what the law should be , not what it is . Or more broadly, how companies and people should act , not what they can get away with under the law. As for the murderer bit... well, if we already know it was murder, why are we bothering with a trial? Lets just ask Facebook, and sentence him accordingly.

You are right, there is a distinction between a murderer and bring accused of it. Still the point of the grandparent stands: being accused of a crime is not a protected class. People are ostracized when not even having to face court, or being judged not guilty. And I bet, there are cases were you feel entitled to do so too.

Point is, those are individual judgements and I kind of doubt that you really want to advocate being mandated by law not to do so.

Re: Against Xkcd 1357

#30

Post by AnonC »

haltingproblem wrote: post #15

I think this is a poorly written article devoid of substantiative argument. The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it. It has become fashionable to argue the "I might disagree with you but I will defend to death your right to express it" to which is appended "in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube and every private channel that exists." First, the disagreeable opinion part is wrong since ev…

> The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it.

Stretching the author’s argument, you’re not abiding by the culture that the First Amendment and other laws have wanted to create, and you’re as guilty as xkcd in unsubscribing (re-emphasizing that it’s according to the author).

Post reply on HN