←back to thread

707 points patd | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Traster ◴[] No.23322571[source]
I think this is going to be a discussion thread that is almost inevitably going to be a shitshow, but anyway:

There are people who advocate the idea that private companies should be compelled to distribute hate speech, dangerously factually incorrect information and harassment under the concept that free speech is should be applied universally rather than just to government. I don't agree, I think it's a vast over-reach and almost unachievable to have both perfect free speech on these platforms and actually run them as a viable business.

But let's lay that aside, those people who make the argument claim to be adhering to an even stronger dedication to free speech. Surely, it's clear here that having the actual head of the US government threatening to shut down private companies for how they choose to manage their platforms is a far more disturbing and direct threat against free speech even in the narrowest sense.

replies(42): >>23322601 #>>23322660 #>>23322889 #>>23322983 #>>23323095 #>>23323271 #>>23325355 #>>23327443 #>>23327459 #>>23327625 #>>23327899 #>>23327986 #>>23328982 #>>23329094 #>>23329143 #>>23329230 #>>23329237 #>>23329375 #>>23329616 #>>23329658 #>>23329911 #>>23330257 #>>23330267 #>>23330422 #>>23330438 #>>23330441 #>>23331115 #>>23331430 #>>23331436 #>>23331462 #>>23331469 #>>23331944 #>>23332090 #>>23332213 #>>23332505 #>>23332858 #>>23332905 #>>23332934 #>>23332983 #>>23333360 #>>23341099 #>>23346876 #
m0zg[dead post] ◴[] No.23329911[source]
This right here gentleman is in charge of what Twitter deems "factually correct" and "safe" for you: https://twitter.com/yoyoel/status/796186371408789505

Just wonderful, absolutely unbiased human being, 100% "site integrity" guaranteed: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8361349/Head-Twitte...

So no, let's not "lay that aside".

1. arrrg ◴[] No.23330467[source]
It’s factually irrelevant since no facts are expressed. That’s just opinion.

I guess the racist part could be arguable, but that’s more opinion than fact.

replies(1): >>23330970 #
2. m0zg ◴[] No.23330970[source]
That's factually very relevant, in fact, because you know which "facts" will be picked and chosen by this "executive", in spite of the pretense of impartiality.
replies(1): >>23331006 #
3. croon ◴[] No.23331006[source]
Extending benefit of the doubt: Are "some" facts worse than no facts?

What facts (either real or hypothetical) do you believe are missing?