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

Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 783 posts

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#771

Post by tekknik »

peteradio wrote: post #760
tekknik wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of Republican's wet dream do you live in where those power dynamics are akin? Have we already forgotten that it’s the left pushing for the censorship? When will the left quit trying to flamebait and start focusing on repairing the divisions caused by attempting to demonize the other side.

You misunderstand my point.

No, I ignored your point because you reduced it to name calling. There’s a difference.

Quit being a democrat, my point stands.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#772

Post by hiatus »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #762
hiatus wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because I do disagree with them, and don't want them here? Is that not the case for you So you would prefer that they congregate in their own private echo chambers, rather than come to a place with differing ideals where their own convictions could be challenged? How can we ever bridge the gap if we push people into their own bubbles?

Yes! Holy shit yes! They are not a project for you to work on they are a force to be stopped. Debating nazi policies in public forums is already a win for the nazis . You don't debate people out of these views you prevent them accomplishing them. Bridging the gap is some liberal bullshit. If they want to repent and rejoin polite society the path is well established. These people will kill you if you stand in their wa…

I think you take it for granted that people are so set in their ways without realizing that all ideology is on a spectrum. Can you convince the most hardcore ideological adherent? Likely not—but someone on the fence can be swayed. And before you cast aspersions on fence-sitters, remember that Nazis were regular German citizens first.

Racists aren't born, they are molded. I don't anticipate I'll change your mind but I think it's worth stating nonetheless.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#773

Post by evandale »

DropInIn wrote: post #732
evandale wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust and affection are two different emotions that I'm able to separate. For example, I like Adidas shoes but when they boast about sustainability I question the truth in that and their intentions. I prefer Pepsi over Coke but I don't trust either to be truthful in their marketing. I think it's bullshit that Santa prefers Coke, for one he's not even a real person, but I don't dislike Coke for using Santa as a mascot…

Like in context of businesses/products/organizations/governments does not generally refer to "affection"... That's "love"... One can "love" something or someone but not "like" it.... Is that something you're not aware of?

What is the point of your comment? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Liking something and trusting something are different things. I don't trust a single company and it doesn't matter if I like, hate, or love them. They're two mutually independent feelings no matter what you want to call one of them.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#774

Post by evandale »

npunt wrote: post #717
brightlancer wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judicial opinions != Personal opinions It ain't the same ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same freakin' sport. Equating the two is like equating a sea sponge and a dish sponge. "Well, they're both sponges!"

Yes indeed, I was just being a bit cheeky given GP's other discussion of the definition of 'opinion' :)

Doesn't seem that cheeky from where I'm standing.

You admitted a judicial opinion is different from a personal opinion and you're making fun of my definition of a personal opinion? But you acknowledge a judicial opinion is different than a person opinion?

Why can't you extend that to a corporation? The "opinion" of a corporation or a judge is NOT the same as a personal opinion and there is a distinction that can/should be made. I'm not sure why you can agree with someone else that a judicial opinion is different than a personal opinion but when I say "not people opinions" are different from "people opinions" I'm wrong?

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#775

Post by roflyear »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #751
roflyear wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. "We think that info may put someone on our security team at risk, can you please take it down?"

That is not an opinion. It is a request at the best or a command when read pragmatically. Edit: Think about this. If it is just an opinion, they can say that in press releases and not communicate that in secret to social media companies.

It's obviously not something they can say in press releases, but it also may not be factual (or provable). There are "we think" situations which are important.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#776

Post by giraffe_lady »

hiatus wrote: post #772
giraffe_lady wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Holy shit yes! They are not a project for you to work on they are a force to be stopped. Debating nazi policies in public forums is already a win for the nazis . You don't debate people out of these views you prevent them accomplishing them. Bridging the gap is some liberal bullshit. If they want to repent and rejoin polite society the path is well established. These people will kill you if you stand in their wa…

I think you take it for granted that people are so set in their ways without realizing that all ideology is on a spectrum. Can you convince the most hardcore ideological adherent? Likely not—but someone on the fence can be swayed. And before you cast aspersions on fence-sitters, remember that Nazis were regular German citizens first. Racists aren't born, they are molded. I don't anticipate I'll change your mind but I…

Right, so let's allow them in here and "debate" them, giving them as many chances as possible to make more racists.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#777

Post by atlantic »

LexiMax wrote: post #283
atlantic wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What followed the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars was one of the most peaceful 99 years on the European continent since Pax Romana. This was the period when the Austro-Hungarian empire was dissolved, the Ottoman possessions in Europe were lost, the Prussian empire formed, the Italian nation formed, and many European monarchies fell during the liberal revolutions. Amongst the conflicts between the leading Euro…

Hey, I'm not the one who coined "Pax Britanica." People can read for themselves why this period of history is called that, and why it compares favorably to Pax Americana and Pax Romana as opposed to the rest of history on the continent, instead of relying on what you or I say. :)

I don't think you understand what the term Pax Romana means (or the other derivative terms you cited). It's a period of unnatural political calm, after every instance of rebellion has been crushed by overwhelming force, and the "rebels" put to torture or death. It has nothing to do with peace, and doesn't really contribute much to your argument.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#778

Post by DropInIn »

evandale wrote: post #773
DropInIn wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like in context of businesses/products/organizations/governments does not generally refer to "affection"... That's "love"... One can "love" something or someone but not "like" it.... Is that something you're not aware of?

What is the point of your comment? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Liking something and trusting something are different things. I don't trust a single company and it doesn't matter if I like, hate, or love them. They're two mutually independent feelings no matter what you want to call one of them.

JFC... I said it doesn't matter rif you like them and then you went on a long winded diatribe about "affection" for the companies.

I made the distinction between like and affection because they aren't the same at all.

You subsequently failed at basic comprehension.

Drink some coffee and try again.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#779

Post by soundnote »

mistermann wrote: post #707
JasonFruit wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would an absolute frame of reference with regard to political opinion look like? I'm having a hard time conceiving such a thing, since not only does the range of opinion shift over time, but issues move into and out of relevance unpredictably.

It ain't easy!! It would be something like "select * from [reality]", except there are various problems like physically manifest reality is not the entirety of it, and our records of reality are often technically from the fantasy realm and the truth has been lost to time without our knowledge. In the case of allsides.com, they're only comparing ~mainstream US media outlets against each other, but there are many cultu…

That applies both ways - there's no shortage of religious-rightist cultures on the planet that'd treat many sections of the U.S. right as quite left-leaning.

Even comparing to Europe, the memes that the US is to the right or left of Europe is just grossly wrong, often driven by taking one pet issue like public healthcare and using it as the base, when it's just one aspect of policy and there are others where Europe is markedly more moderate or conservative compared to the US.

Oftentimes those sorts of bias-rating sites also report clearly left-leaning outlets as more centrist than they are, and I wouldn't be surprised if outlets like the NYT get far higher ratings for factuality than they deserve.

Re: Injunction issued in case about social media pressure from US Government

#780

Post by dillondoyle »

kyrra wrote: post #757
dillondoyle wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'lean' lol. the wsj opinion section has gone wildly off the rails. love their journalism. can't read half the crap they allow to be published in opeds. at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies? it actually feels like a similar persecution complex vibe to these lawsuits and congressional hearings to me that somehow if we aren't forced to listen to them, or that their megaphone isn't as loud a…

> at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies? I'd love to hear some examples. From what I can tell, they don't lie, but they will leave out details that may provide additional context (much like the NYT and WP opinion pages tend to do). There is a careful line between opinions and facts. From what I can tell, the editorial board doesn't allow outright facts that can be disputed from being publ…

this is my all time favorite. which i get is a while ago, but i think the nsa cyber will resonate on hn more than current 'hot topics' (gender. biden policies. the guate piece this week really rubbed me the wrong way. worse it was doing the same thing the author critiqued of u.s. insiders lying to support corrupt interests)

the piece: torture and spying is great and stops terrorists! trust me. because of reasons. damned the research saying this isn't true and lack of any proof i could provide as the ultimate insider. that tan suit wearing barack will kill us all!!!

also having the temerity to publish this during peak bush hate too. balls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/0...

though true that what used to be taken as facts are contested now. and history will never be fully settled timestamped and logged.

it just feels like they are winning with purpose. the christian right has built up an entire infrastructure to churn out 'academic' research, opinion pieces, outright buying news media or creating outlets. all of which is then quoted in judicial opinions by their judges and then taken as the full stop truth; when often most other sources disagree or call it less severe and the source is at a minimum insanely biased

Post reply on HN