Hacker News Reader

Comment by junofan | Hacker News Reader

> these terrorism cases are about wanting platforms to take down more content, to step in more to prevent bad things from happening. And I think everybody sympathizes with that goal, whatever we think is the right set of rules to achieve it without a bunch of collateral damage.

Interviewee is a bit biased. I don’t think everyone sympathizes with the goal of taking down more content.

View on HN

It's the same manipulative argument you see with "protecting the children". Everybody agrees with the goal, so obviously we're doing the right thing by curtailing everybody's freedoms.

How about instead of "curtailing freedoms" we attach some really aggressive consequences for poor choices as regards broadcasting obvious bullshit in public spaces? We good now?

How about we treat freedom of speech like the inalienable right it is? We better now?

We pretending freedom of speech means you can say literally anything you feel like in any venue at any time without repercussions? Care to review any of the laws barring communicating threats, hate speech, slander, libel, etc? If what you're trying to defend is folks shilling obvious falsehood and intentionally misleading rhetoric what's your agenda here?

> you can say literally anything you feel like

Yes, by definition.

> any of the laws barring communicating threats, hate speech, slander, libel, etc

By definition, such laws are incompatible with free speech.

> what's your agenda here

Free speech

Having proposed we legalize calling in bomb threats I feel like you've thoroughly invalidated any argument you may have been trying to advance here.

I'm absolutely fine with not necessarily being able to say anything and everything. I'm generally supportive of anti-hate speech laws and I'm not a free speech absolutist. However, just because I might agree with their goal doesn't mean I agree with how they choose to achieve it and I'm skeptical of the above approach.

You support this until you and the arbiter of "obvious bullshit" begin to disagree.

As facile arguments go that's a real gem. Claims require proof, problem solved.

4chan and early Reddit are classic examples of this.

There are people for whom abhorrent content is what they prefer and will defend.

And they want this content on mainstream sites so they can feel like they are normal.

Yes that's true. And there are others who believe governments are the peddlers and enablers of the most abhorrent crimes, from slavery to arms trafficking to war and assassination and "intervention" to human experimentation, and should absolutely be fought at every step of the way in their neverending thirst for more power and control, particularly where private speech is concerned.

The former group sadly does make a great strawman for people who are emotionally hysterical and don't care to think very deeply about the issue though.

> And there are others who believe governments are the peddlers and enablers of the most abhorrent crimes, from slavery to arms trafficking to war and assassination and "intervention" to human experimentation, and should absolutely be fought at every step of the way in their neverending thirst for more power and control, particularly where private speech is concerned.

Which is an (in my opinion) very inmature position to take. Look at the governments of western Europe, particularily Scandinavia

Oh, well I looked at them and in my opinion it is not a very immature position to take. Solid debate.

>And they want this content on mainstream sites so they can feel like they are normal.

I think they want this content on mainstream sites because they know it pisses off people and makes them laugh

4chan and reddit are both mainstream sites

Reply on news.ycombinator.com