Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

draw_down

When they ban someone you don't like: hey, it's their platform and I respect that.

When they ban someone you do like: free speech! Let every voice be heard! Tolerance! et cetera

View on HN

Everyone crying free speech always gets shouted down. The real arguments look like this:

When they ban someone you don't like: hey, it's their platform and I respect that.

When they ban someone you do like: hey, it's their platform but I don't respect that.

Each platform has a tos. All of the tos need to be applied.

But it should be applied equally, not just at whim.

Assuming it can be applied in an automated fashion, sure.

But if there's a person in the loop, there's always going to be a priority queue so some are going to slip through the cracks longer than others.

That is the root of the issue here. These TOS are being applied arbitrarily - there needs to be some form of punitive measure for companies that do this.

It's impractical for the same reasons it's impractical to prosecute every crime. This also means it's less than ideal, but with limited resources you apply them to those who are the most egregious.

TOS should be precise and applied uniformly, but that's not what usually happens. Instead, TOS are intentionally vague so they can be applied selectively according to a company's whims, which are often politically motivated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com