631–640 of 1001 posts
BBC coverage routinely, and correctly, classifies publications like the Daily Mail as tabloids - yet the NY Post is a "mainstream newspaper"? That's inconsistent.
I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on At this rate it will be the hill that the civilization dies on. The whole "absolute free speech is a sacrosanct human rights for everyone" is an ideal that simply would not scale with the 21st century civilization. Most users around here grew up firmly believing that value, and it is further reinforced by American/Western exceptionalism, so I can see how thi…
And yet,here you are, freely spouting non-sense, misinterpreting the second law of "thermal dynamics" and arguing for a very strict and highly-self-convenient notion of freedom of speech. I still wish you can express your views all over the internet without the risk of being cancelled.
Some ideas don't deserve to be amplified, and there is no guarantee that anyone and everyone gets to have their ideas amplified by everyone else. I see far too much right-wing kool-aid being guzzled today, and it seems like about 40% of America would rather die by suicide than live in a world where compromise happens with liberals, and for no good reason except misinformation, disinformation, and subterfuge.
So you'd really rather watch the world burn than accept that Twitter has no obligation to amplify anyone's lies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its is not censorship. No censorship has taken place. The article still exists on the NY Post web site and their newspaper. Their audience is still sizable. Their article included personal information and was consistent with policies that have been in place for almost a year. Twitter is not a public utility in the way that phone services are. They were (rightly) criticized along with others for letting mis-informatio…
How is failing to send private messages which contains ideas you disagree with not censorship? You've limited the definition to "taking down the originate reference" but that's too limited.
HN is no different. I know this because I've been dinged by dang.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New technologies brought new challenges. There was no social network in the 2000s and before. No retweet button, no "curated" timeline that showed you what you "like". YouTube did not try to push more videos like the ones you watched previously until the mid 2010s. Free speech does not have the same meaning as before. Before it just meant that you could say whatever you wanted. Now people use it implicitly to mean th…
I agree wholeheartedly: the "right to free speech" is not the same as a "right to be heard", but we have managed to conflate the two with all of this "free amplification", as you describe; there is a big difference between someone getting to say something to their followers and that content being broadcast and even recommended by Twitter to random people. I personally believe that if a website has a recommendation al…
If I convince millions of people that Example companies widgets kills kittens, when I have no reason to believe that to be the case, I would be held liable for the damage to the brand.
But the pseudo-anonymous nature of the internet and most platforms, and even trying to avoid problems like the Streisand effect allow damaging speech to avoid consequence.
I'm not advocating for any approach to fix the problem, this is just a curiosity of mine as of late.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speech, trust me the USA in its current state is hundred million times better and more just. Free speech is just super fundamental. So, in my opinion, nothing restricting free speech is acceptable - the downsides of that are just too enormous. We need to learn to l…
Counter point, I live in a country with no constitutional free speech and a government with a censorship office, and this country is free and open and a wonderful place to live. So you're going to have to find a better causation theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on At this rate it will be the hill that the civilization dies on. The whole "absolute free speech is a sacrosanct human rights for everyone" is an ideal that simply would not scale with the 21st century civilization. Most users around here grew up firmly believing that value, and it is further reinforced by American/Western exceptionalism, so I can see how thi…
I don't follow your argument. Free Speech doesn't mean that anyone has an obligation to listen. You can solve being saturated by noise on the listening side much better than on the sending side... much better because the listeners needs are diverse, because listeners must be robust against adversarial inputs (or otherwise the first madman with a random number generator floods you out), because the listeners time/sani…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Misinformation and hate speech are clearly important issues. But loosing free speech would be a colossal mistake. I used to live in a country with no free speech, trust me the USA in its current state is hundred million times better and more just. Free speech is just super fundamental. So, in my opinion, nothing restricting free speech is acceptable - the downsides of that are just too enormous. We need to learn to l…
Counter point, I live in a country with no constitutional free speech and a government with a censorship office, and this country is free and open and a wonderful place to live. So you're going to have to find a better causation theory.
I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s. I grew up during the late 90s (born in late 80s) learning about the internet and its philosophies. Allowing Free speech still is the hill I'd like to die on. But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship that I don't believe I'm in a proper reality/timeline anymore.
When you engage discourse within an institution, you are subject to an informal, sometimes formal social contract. If you entered a christian church in 1789 making certain statements, you would be removed (censored) from the church at the minimum. That still holds true today. Only today, this private institution is no small church with a handful of people, but billions. Still, under our current framework it is a private institution with a social contract that its users have agreed to, formally, or informally. There has been no violation of free speech because it is not a public institution. If you feel there's a moral violation, you can either choose not to participate as is your right, or you can petition, as is your right, to have the state get involved with how this private institution conducts itself.