Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevenAthompson | Hacker News Reader

I see why you might be concerned, but your freedom of speech does not include a right to force others to repeat it for you.

YouTube is a business. If they don't want to use their platform to spread your ideas the government shouldn't force them.

Besides, YouTube is not a reputable peer reviewed journal. Actual science was not hindered.

View on HN

Also peer review in its current form was a postwar invention, meaning that for the majority its history it was not regularly employed, let alone considered to be a line of demarcation between science and non-science.

Having been on both sides of the peer review process many times, I can assure you that it does not pick out all and only “actual science”

It’s often unclear whether the decision to remove politically unfavorable content is a pure business decision or the result of informal lobbying of such companies by the government. The White House has often made requests about the removal of material about certain stories, including e.g. the Hunter Biden laptop affair, and it’s rarely clear whether these requests are entertained due to general political sympathy, the threat of unfavorable regulation, or what. If the government directly censors citizens’ speech that’s a 1st Amendment concern, but if they strongly insinuate that a company will face a hostile legal climate unless it censors a citizen’s speech, that is afaict not illegal.

Do you mean the Biden campaign rather than the White House? Twitter was fielding requests from the Trump White House at the same time since Trump was president then.

And of course we know this, and you probably got your slightly skewed take, from a supporter and member of the incoming President's team now owning Twitter.

> Do you mean the Biden campaign rather than the White House? Twitter was fielding requests from the Trump White House at the same time since Trump was president then.

lambdaphagy said "the White House". You seem to be arguing that it wasn't one specific occupant of the White House but more a property of the office.

It seems a bit weird to question whether lambdaphagy meant what they said when you seem to be trying to argue that what was said is literally correct. It is one of the most disagreeable supportive comments I've ever seen. Am I reading it right or have I misinterpreted you?

Let's all go yelling FIRE in crowded rooms then.

That's legal in the US if someone actually believes there's a fire.

Legal and moral are not synonyms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com