Hacker News Reader

Comment by LAC-Tech | Hacker News Reader

Are you saying censorship is fine because people can just use other words?

There really is no point engaging with you then.

You call it censorship, I call it freedom of association. These are private organizations deciding what they allow on their own platforms.

But more importantly the “kind of humor” your originally highlighted is absolutely alive, as evidenced by your own point that people use words to get around whatever censorship there is of the most extreme versions of that humor.

The older I get the less useful I think this distinction between "official" and "unofficial" is. "Officially" King Charles can dissolve the UK parliament, but "unofficially" he can't. Power is power and we know it when we see it.

So yes I would call being banned or having your language limited by major global platforms "censorship", despite the fact that officially they're just private organisations.

You're just saying you only care about some people's rights and not others. Part of the 1a and the general concept of freedom is that you don't have to put up with people saying stupid shit everywhere, such as in your own home.

"My own home" and "twitter" are very different in scope.

How? What about a bar? A stadium? Is it just the number of people to you, then? If I can pack enough people who agree with me into a field, do I now own that field?

You either agree that people who own things get to decide how those things are used, or you think that people don't get to own things. There's no "well, a lot of people use this thing" exception to property ownership.

Or, I guess you could try to nationalize the space since so many people use it, but I'm guessing "as you get older" any form of government is objectionable, despite this being exactly what you seem to want.

Why do you believe that private corporations should be more powerful than the government?

Why do you believe some people should be more powerful than other people?

I don't. Where did you get that viewpoint from?

So why do you believe that private corporations should be more powerful than governments and have censorship powers that the government doesn't even have? Twitter, Meta, and Google affect our day to day life and control what we see far more than the government does. Why do you think this is a good situation to be in?

So why do you think some individuals should have their rights prioritized over others? Twitter, Meta, and Google are owned by people who want to do specific things with those companies, and you want to ignore their rights entirely. Why do you think ownership isn’t meaningful?

It's not censorship, it's new^H^H^Hbetterspeak (tm). A more friendly and inclusive version of the English language.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com