921–930 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judges do when a lawsuit happens under a civil rights violation case.
So HN needs a judge to remove spam?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies which spend millions on counsel every year are not going to blunder. They either have anterior motives (boost the story through censorship) or they had no choice. I don’t know what to think anymore because I don’t understand how this censorship will have any effect other than causing the story to spread like fire.
> other than causing the story to spread like fire. Does it really? I haven't seen anything on Reddit or the likes. Seems to me that the censorship has been rather successful so far.
This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason. There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging…
I would not characterize this story as speech but as carefully designed viral marketing content. If one is in the business of attracting people speaking with each other and selling that access to companies and political parties then dealing with viral content intended to undermine your sales is a continuous struggle. This one was deemed over the line and a case of potentially Russian disinformation laundering. When l…
God. I’m on the Left, but can you all not see the blatant paternalism behind stances like this? It’s a pretty explicit: “we know best, don’t worry your pretty little head about this misleading content, we will take care of it”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re being sincere that’s a false characterization of the freedom of speech. It is not the ability to say whatever you want but it is the ability to share legitimate information or dissenting opinions, the former being the topic of OP. Employers should not be able to deny people their rights.
> Employers should not be able to deny people their rights Freedom of speech means the government will not target you for expressing your opinion. It does not mean that your employer has to tolerate it. If I write an op-ed about how my employer makes a shoddy product, they are well within their legal rights to conduct their business how they see fit and terminate their business relationship with me. You seem to confu…
This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason. There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging…
> and prevent anyone from even private messaging the link to each other I can't find this stated anywhere except HN posts. What is the original source for this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't Twitter and Google already stated they want regulation? They are one of the few companies that actually can facilitate any form of large scale content scanning. Such mechanisms take years to develop if you even get the critical data needed.
Saying you want regulation is a classic of DC lobbying. Exxon wants “regulation” too. What it means in practice is that they want to be part of the conversation in choosing what regulations get passed, so actual serious regulations don’t make their way through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re being sincere that’s a false characterization of the freedom of speech. It is not the ability to say whatever you want but it is the ability to share legitimate information or dissenting opinions, the former being the topic of OP. Employers should not be able to deny people their rights.
Employers fire people all the time for comments on social media and they are well within their right to do so. Any suggestion otherwise is a violation of the company's freedom of speech.
This was a shockingly dumb move. Whether or not you think these actions were politically motivated or made in good faith, it just poured liquid oxygen on the "reform section 230" fire you're seeing from both sides of the aisle - one using the censorship reason, the other using the disinformation reason. There's no way you don't block a newspaper, and the press secretary, and prevent anyone from even private messaging…
I'm sure they've learned their lesson, and next time it won't be a ban, but a difficult-to-prove reduction in visibility.
For instance, many left news organizations that were critical of NATO have seen their posts substantially deprioritized on FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hacker news shouldn’t be allowed to censor legitimate information or dissenting political opinions, which is what is covered by the 1st amendment. It doesn’t mean you can literally say whatever you want, e.g. flood sites with spam.
What is being amended? Use terms that people understand, please. This is an international forum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not true. The 538 model was very close to the actual outcome in 2018.
By 'expected' I don't mean the models where wrong, I mean the country is on fire and the Democratic party could/should have run away with the election. Instead they lost seats in the senate and did not gain back all the ground they lost in the state governments. For comparison, the Republicans did very well in the 2014 mid term, convincingly taking over both houses of congress. The democratic party had every advantag…