Also, love the presentation on this page.
I’d like to know how curious this would make non-HN people, and those living in more censored places.
My assumption is that they take it for granted and just continue to watch the show. It might be hard for them to even find the uncensored clips.
Anecdotally from my own perspective, I see big waves of voting on HN that go in various political directions. Seems consistent with self-selection by topic combined with randomness.
None of it inspires confidence in your assessment of being "censored" on HN, or diagnosing the audience as less curious.
Just a few days ago Zuckerberg was discussing banning / suppressing discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop - https://nypost.com/2022/08/25/mark-zuckerberg-criticizes-twi...
Idk what to say about that. It’s not editorial decisions when DMs are being censored or social media posts. Particularly when the FBI / government is suggesting it.
2. This is a perfect example of my point. Most people don’t even realize they are surrounded by censorship. Or they outright agree with it. Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees.
Censorship in the US is different, but very apparent.
The main problem is that you compare the freedom of social media platforms to regulate the content they host, to outright government-controlled censorship of all media. If it was actually the government censoring the topic, you would not have been able to link to a nypost article talking about it, and Trump wouldn't be able to post on his own social media platform.
> Look up the list of topics bannable on YouTube. On Twitter you can’t even call someone by the name their parents gave them if they disagree. In schools near where I live you can get suspended for using proper pronouns, if someone disagrees.
Why are those topics bannable? Could it be that there is some kind of "code of conduct" that makes sure people are respectful to each other? Those people disagreeing are still free to host their own service, if they desperately want to deadname someone.
That said, if a private company like Twitter thinks Alex Jones is a liability because he spreads conspiracy theories of shape shifting lizard people from alternate dimensions sabotaging the Trump Presidency via the deep state because he’s prepping the military and cia to take out the satanic cultists that worship and appease said lizard shapeshifting creatures via the blood of post-coital children, well…
Otherwise, I don’t know what you’re suggesting to be done. Do you want to expand the powers of the government to moderate these companies and their property?
There’s an implied threat. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this previously. I expect in the next couple years as court cases about the censorship work through the courts, the same thing will happen again.
If the government was silent and the censorship occurred then MAYBE it’s legal. That of course depends on if it’s a common carrier or public space. Both arguably are true for social media, but again it takes time for the courts to figure it out. I would concede that point, but again government asked for the censorship here.
There’s a faction / ideology (across all party lines) in the west that is doing the same thing as China. For the same reasons “to be respectful to one another”.
That’s kinda the point I’m trying to make.
Let me make an analogy to Alex Jones and Trump: if the water company cuts someone off, but they continue to run a huge fountain in front of their mansion, then you can't reasonably claim they're being deprived of drinking water.