41–50 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit like asking what the threshold amount of mouse droppings is in your soup before you would stop eating it.
This is actually a number that the FDA/USDA regulates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: the guidelines of Hacker News promote civility, good faith, and logical argument, which drastically reduces the amount of trolling, flaming, and general vitriol. Without moderation, forums quickly become unusable. If you disagreed, you'd be on 4chan, not Hacker News. So I think you recognize the utility of at least some level of content moderation, which is a specific type of speech restriction.
But I'm on HN and on 4chan, for different reasons. While I find no joy in the tone on 4chan, I love how more open minded a lot of people there are on certain topics (that aren't related to politics).
Fair?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.
Except that these are “actual Nazis” who have shown up. We’re talking about publications that, in some cases, use terms like “national socialist” and “reich” in their name and/or bio.
What is up with the lack of good faith from so many in this thread (not you, the parent)?
They don't want to be confronted with the breaking points of their ideology, but instead have to misdirect with some straw-man about another scenario.
And like a misdirected fool, I take the bait and comment on it.
I'm of the mindset that it takes work to keep democracy, freedom and egalitarianism alive. You can't just let anyone publish anything and think that it will all work out in the end. It is tough because separating freedom of expression from hate speech is hard and prone to errors, but the alternate is to let Nazis and other hate groups to grow and strengthen. History has shown that when evil is given a platform, it gr…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
I'm of the mindset that it takes work to keep democracy, freedom and egalitarianism alive. You can't just let anyone publish anything and think that it will all work out in the end. It is tough because separating freedom of expression from hate speech is hard and prone to errors, but the alternate is to let Nazis and other hate groups to grow and strengthen. History has shown that when evil is given a platform, it gr…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Ideals require integrity to function, not unlike how cheating during a diet won't get you anywhere. If you think the ideals of liberal democracy aren't strong enough to weather a few naysayers in the public forum then you probably never believed in them in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is treating anything like an inevitable force of nature, nor is anyone claiming that it can be eternally contained. But it should be obvious given the last decade or so, if you've been living above a rock, that the internet and social media provide a force multiplier for speech that, due to the priorities and incentives of algorithms, prioritizes speech many might consider harmful and dangerous. One can no lon…
krapp here sounds exactly like a Catholic Pope in the 16th century. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it," indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Every time I see "The Paradox of Tolerance" referenced in these kind of discussions, it continues to reinforce my view that it's pure sophistry. There is no paradox, it's simply a convenient tool for justifying censorship, which is ironically what it pretends to protect us from. Ideals require integrity to function , not unlike how cheating during a diet won't get you anywhere. If you think the ideals of liberal demo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: the guidelines of Hacker News promote civility, good faith, and logical argument, which drastically reduces the amount of trolling, flaming, and general vitriol. Without moderation, forums quickly become unusable. If you disagreed, you'd be on 4chan, not Hacker News. So I think you recognize the utility of at least some level of content moderation, which is a specific type of speech restriction.
But I'm on HN and on 4chan, for different reasons. While I find no joy in the tone on 4chan, I love how more open minded a lot of people there are on certain topics (that aren't related to politics).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would get kicked out for the same reasons as if you were a group of fanatical libertarian anarchists talking about politics sufficiently loudly to be overhead by staff and patrons. You seem to be badly missing the point here. A forum for eating is not a place for broadcasting political views. A newsletter platform is. The two aren't comparable.
Restating your words: > A newsletter platform is [a place for broadcasting political views] I'm not saying that your assumption is wrong. I'm asking: 1. Why is it reasonable to make that assumption? 2. How much say does the platform owner have over the extent to which the platform is "a place for broadcasting political views"? Put another way, how much leeway should a general purpose newsletter platform have to ban c…
Spam isn't newsletters, so that seems like a non sequitur. Newsletters are meant to go to people who signed up for them.
As for how much say does the owner of the "printing press" have, the answer is that in a civilized society they should have the final say. In less civilized societies than the USA the government thinks it's smarter than the populace, and should control their information. History shows us that governments which smash up the printing presses were rarely smart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.
Except that these are “actual Nazis” who have shown up. We’re talking about publications that, in some cases, use terms like “national socialist” and “reich” in their name and/or bio.