When Google and Facebook (among others) are explicitly enforcing censorship favoring the leftist worldview it really makes me wonder who stands to benefit and whether it is done with good intentions.
> their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were?
Certainly there is a very well-established and long history, and continuing practice, of prejudice in government against (almost any group besides white Christian males, as a shorthand for a long list). There is also now a countervailing force, protecting the freedoms and asserting the interests of the oppressed groups. The existence of both forces can't seriously be questioned.
But going back to my first sentence: Really, that's the fundamental debate going on in this HN thread and in many others: Some assert, implicitly, that the hate groups are just another point of view, and that they are inherently no better or worse than other POVs. Others, including Google, disagree.
Sometimes that argument is made using extreme relativism or political correctness: All POVs have the same merit and deserve equal treatment; it's politically incorrect to discriminate at all. While that's an interesting and valuable philosophical discussion - how do we distinguish perfectly between good and bad - we can and must still distinguish between them. We don't have to wait for the perfect philosophical solution.
But we can approach the question with reason: First, I believe that many (not all) arguing that the hate groups should be heard simply support the hate groups - it has nothing to do with public interest or freedom of speech; probably that's true on the other side too. Second, a more reasoned argument: Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.
That said, I do actually think the terrorists have an inherently worse POV. That's one of the reasons I'm ok with them spouting it.
>Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.
That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract.
Interestingly, not only is it almost universal, but it's even present on HN and in our immediate interaction.
It sure is not. If you take the dictionary definition of the word hate. But what a lot of people do is use one word which have different meaning for them than for the public. When hate comprise any contrary view from yours, suddenly being against hate is not a healthy worldview.
You have the exact same word-play with equality, equity, meritocracy etc.
Set a good goal which everyone can accept, then swap the meaning of the words used to describe your goal and go after those who "don't think of the children".
I believe that view is hatred. A necessary premise is that some group of people is inferior to your own.