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

In Support of Free Speech

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#91

Post by abpavel »

notcolin wrote: post #64
notacoward wrote: post #25

The headline is offensively misleading. A boycott, or severance of commercial relationship, is not censorship. It's people using commerce to express their values, which is also a form of free speech. Unlike true censorship, which comes from the government, both parties are free to seek other partners in promoting their products or messages. Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous, an…

> Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous Is it? "To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t? If we start b…

So you're saying that Shopify can be used for porn and that Shopify does not have TOS and does not enforce it?

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#92

Post by diyorgasms »

tomp wrote: post #81
diyorgasms wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a serious question? It should be evident why it's okay to ostracize an ideology founded on the belief in genocide of "lesser" people. While some interpretations of Islam lead to violence, the same can be said about probably any religion, and Islam is not foundationally rooted in violence. If you legitimately can't tell the difference between a genocidal ideology and a religion then I cannot continue this conv…

Islam (like any religion) is based on the idea that this religion is better than any other religion (or belief system, like atheism). Nazism is based on the idea that being white/Aryan is better than others. You could argue that Islam was foundationally rooted in violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

If this is true for any religion, as you claim, then why the inordinate focus on Islam? It seems like bigotry against Muslims is the most likely explanation.

Also claims of being the "one true religion" no not inherently incite genocide, whereas Nazism does.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#93

Post by grzm »

lightedman wrote: post #57
grzm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submissions are by HN members. The guidelines clearly state that the title should not be modified unless clearly link bait: [P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When the mods are aware that a title has been unnecessarily editorialized, from what I've observed they always update the title, either back to the original or to something con…

Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. If you couldn't see the bias off the bat, make room for those who do, please, so this site may continue to improve unlike the rest.

Please bear with me, as I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what you mean here.

Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification.

Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias? Or that the title submitted by 'jletroui, "Shopify refuses to censor Breitbart", includes obvious bias?

If the former, I don't see that it's egregiously biased. It appears to be an accurate representation of what the author describes in the piece. It's definitely not biased enough to warrant changing the title.

If the latter, I agree with the guidelines: the article title should stand unless it's clearly link bait, which I don't think this is. I think the modified title definitely editorializes and adds the bias of the submitter, which is definitely against the guidelines.

As an aside, these aren't my guidelines any more than they are yours. They're the site guidelines.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#94

Post by tomp »

diyorgasms wrote: post #92
tomp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Islam (like any religion) is based on the idea that this religion is better than any other religion (or belief system, like atheism). Nazism is based on the idea that being white/Aryan is better than others. You could argue that Islam was foundationally rooted in violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

If this is true for any religion, as you claim, then why the inordinate focus on Islam? It seems like bigotry against Muslims is the most likely explanation. Also claims of being the "one true religion" no not inherently incite genocide, whereas Nazism does.

In principle, it's the same for any religion - I don't think that discrimination on the basis of religion is any different from discrimination on the basis of any opinion (not that Jewish can be an ethnicity as well as religion). However, religions such as Judaism and Christianity don't punish heretism with death, and in general their proponents seem to be much less radicalized than many of the proponents of Islam (there are exceptions, of course - e.g. Mormons or Hasidic Jews). I'd guess Christianity was also similar before enlightenment, and sometimes even after it!

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#95

Post by grzm »

lightedman wrote: post #59
lightedman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. If you couldn't see the bias off the bat, make room for those who do, please, so this site may continue to improve unlike the rest.

To boot, on a prior subject - give me a font that works in BRAILLE for capitalization, please. Because most of the traffic which I direct to YOU is from BLIND PEOPLE - in which my ALL CAPS is the ONLY thing they can discern as NOTHING exists for italicization font-wise in that domain.

Going quite off-topic, I believe you're referring to this exchange:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006

Thanks for clarifying the context of the prior comment. I think this may be something you'd like to email the mods about (at hn@ycombinator.com). This isn't a domain I have any experience in. Back in the day, I read pieces on accessibility by Joe Clark[0] with interest, and had hoped by now the tech had reached a point where elements such as would be interpreted by Braille devices. I'm sorry to hear that doesn't seem to be the case.

[0]: http://joeclark.org/weblogs/

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#96

Post by tomp »

mikeash wrote: post #88
tomp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link? I found this [1], but the label suggests it's the US eagle instead... [1] https://store.breitbart.com/collections/mens/products/e-plur...

I found this one, but basically the same: https://store.breitbart.com/collections/all-products/product... The US eagle has its wings going up, not straight sideways. And the head is pointed to the eagle's right, not the left. (This is also the difference between the reichsadler, which is a more generic symbol of Germany, and the parteiadler, which is a Nazi symbol: the riechsadler's head points to the eagle's right,…

I think the shape is quite dissimilar to either (e.g. the Nazi one has legs and no tail). I wanted to agree with you on the head thing, but it seems that Nazis used both directions... I'm not sure I'd call the Reichsadler a "generic symbol of Germany" if it was used during the Third Reich...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Germany#Nazi_G...

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#98

Post by mikeash »

tomp wrote: post #96
mikeash wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this one, but basically the same: https://store.breitbart.com/collections/all-products/product... The US eagle has its wings going up, not straight sideways. And the head is pointed to the eagle's right, not the left. (This is also the difference between the reichsadler, which is a more generic symbol of Germany, and the parteiadler, which is a Nazi symbol: the riechsadler's head points to the eagle's right,…

I think the shape is quite dissimilar to either (e.g. the Nazi one has legs and no tail). I wanted to agree with you on the head thing, but it seems that Nazis used both directions... I'm not sure I'd call the Reichsadler a "generic symbol of Germany" if it was used during the Third Reich... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Germany#Nazi_G...

The reichsadler goes back a long way and has been used in other times. That particular style appears to be used in the third reich, but the distinction remains: the right-pointing head signifies "Germany," and the left-pointing head signifies "NSDAP."

In any case, that shirt design screamed "Nazi!" to me the moment I saw it. I didn't set out looking for Nazi symbols, either, I was just browsing to see if there was anything that might be considered offensive. I was rather surprised that they would be so brazen. I can understand if you don't think it's sufficient, but I do.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#99

Post by paulgb »

tomp wrote: post #72
paulgb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has the obligation to help fundraise for hate speech.

Can you point to any examples of hate speech by Breitbart?

"If for no other reasons than manners and aesthetics, we ought to think about shoving the next generation [of gays] back into Narnia."

Yes, I know Milo is gay, doesn't mean this isn't advocating violence against a group of people, fitting most definitions of hate speech. I feel dirty linking to the article but you can google it for the source.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#100

Post by cholantesh »

thedevil wrote: post #28

How freedom of speech has changed in ten years: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech... From: "'Freedom of speech' is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracy." To: "'Freedom of speech' is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal…

>implying Wikipedia is the authority on freedom of speech

None of this is censorship, because Breitbart may still sell their merchandise using other storefronts and have not been impeded from publishing their authors' work.

Post reply on HN