Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

>> Having spoken with the man in person, I think your original post was entirely unfair and based purely on media representation.

No it's mostly based on direct quotes.

>> You'd be surprised how much worse candidates for the position are out there.

I'm sure there are far worse candidates out there! Let's hope none of them get a sniff of power either.

>> I'm no fan of censorship or filters, but can respect the man's work and the effort he put in to understand things.

Good for you, I find repressive, censorious measures pretty offensive so I'm sorry if I don't share your viewpoint.

View on HN

Mate, the last thought I'll leave with you regarding the censorship fiasco: it was party politics. There are elements within both major parties that salivate at the thought of censorship, some of which hold the reigns on some policy directions.

I still feel it's unfair to vilify the man personally like the Australian internet has done so for the past several years. When censorship and filtering proposals return with someone else at the helm, is it still Conroy's fault?

Only when he proposes it and fights for it. Anyone that does that will attract the same attitude from me.

Not to worry, I'm not even an Australian voter, I'm just a brit that bailed a year or so before citizenship was an option, though I do love the country and am under no illusions anywhere else is politically superior.

Your rage is directed at the wrong person. The guy up front isn't the guy who originally proposed it. That's not how political parties work.

He certainly championed the cause of censorship during his time in office, which is not something I could overlook in a politician, in fact I find it abhorrent.

Again, sorry, but I don't share your viewpoint, the censorship stuff is not something I would overlook because of other, more positive work.

You're not understanding, so I'll just stop.

You don't need to apologise for not sharing my view, but you do need to realise things aren't as black-and-white as you like to see them.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what?

I understand that a guy in high public office may have done a few good things while there, as well as being on the side of some stuff that many people consider inherently evil and anti-democratic.

I don't care who proposed it. I don't care if it was initially someone else's idea. I don't care if it's party policy and he just got the job of putting his face and political power behind it. He still did and said all those things and to my mind should have no place in politics as a result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com