Hacker News Reader

Comment by imode | Hacker News Reader

I see a lot of people not wanting to offer alternative solutions to the treatment of this particular individual's content: if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is.

I'm sure you'd complain about any measure other than leaving this individual alone. If so, you deserve to be angry, because you're part of the overall problem.

Edit: To remind all of you, downvotes should be reserved for things that are strictly disruptive or not contributing to discussion. Unless we're free to disregard the rules, now.

View on HN

We could not tie hosting and media discovery and ad sales all together. No “social” crap or “you might also like” bubble-prompting algos on the site hosting the video and also selling the ads. That’d be a good start.

Same as “it sure sucks that Facebook has to abuse low-paid workers with gore porn but what else can we do?” I mean. We could not? Allow sites that require doing that to exist? Just a thought.

[edit] my point is that we look at these problems through a very narrow lens that excludes solutions that serious harm the profits of Internet giants. I think that’s silly. If their business model causes awful things maybe it shouldn’t be possible to have that business model.

Don't consider the downvotes as not contributing to the discussion, think of them as ... deplatforming your idea. It cannot be allowed to stand as-is, after all.

It's nice that you can't contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion. Means I'm right.

> if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is.

have youtube put on a warning saying that this content is misinformation/wrong. But not censored because censoring "wrong" content just gives those who blindly believe it to feel that they're being targeted - it doesn't change their mind.

Censoring it is just promoting it to other underground channels that are more difficult to censor.

> censoring "wrong" content just gives those who blindly believe it to feel that they're being targeted - it doesn't change their mind.

And having warnings slapped on it doesn't?

it looks less conspiratorial. if you see a warning, but you have the freedom to view it, you won't get emotionally triggered to think that you're being attacked. it's like banning books, vs putting a warning out about it, but continue to allow it to be sold and read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com