Hacker News Reader

Comment by bratwurst3000 | Hacker News Reader

I meant that. Telegram was symbolic for how the freedom of some can impair the freedom of others. I have nothing against e2e encryption or privacy but as I said my liberterian worldview starts to crumble … toward what? I dont know

View on HN

If you deny them Telegram, Facebook, Parler or any other online platform, people would gather offline and have their echo chambers there. Just as they did before Internet. So you're basically saying 1st amendment harms society, not online platforms.

Hmm no I am not saying that. The problem is that if they would meet offline they wouldnt be a group of 20.000 people or so in one room with the easy possibility to spread their worldview. Free speech is something valuable but beeing able to downstream information to thousand of people instant that easy is a problem. There is a difference between free speach and lying with intent to spread a certain world view.

Edit; As I said I’m a libertarian and a group of whatever people talking what ever where ever is totally fine with me but manipulating people with intent is not protected by the First Amendment And shouldn’t be confused with free speech

I'm not sure what you mean by "manipulating people with intent", but certainly many kinds of manipulation are well within the bounds of freedom of speech as it is generally imagined, and especially within the bounds of what should be legally protected according to even minimal theories of civil liberties. So it sounds like you're less libertarian than even fairly non-libertarian people.

As I said, how big the number is, is the problem. I dont say they should ban telegram or sth. The problem is how easy it is to misuse this platforms for malintent. Thats has nothing to do what someone is saying. It has somethig to do how the message is distributet and if the intent ist the articulating of ones free mind or manipulating the others for benefit….

I think the issue less about finding a good number and more about promoting critical thinking so people can go to a space, consume the words and then call bullshit as they wish.

>beeing able to downstream information to thousand of people instant that easy is a problem

Was it a problem a couple centuries ago, when offline media emerged and blossomed? It was the same effect, just smaller scale. Yet, free press is valued as essential for democracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com