The Big [Censored] Theory

Again my point was most people don’t. It wasn’t a troll; it was a comment about censorship. How certain topics are also censored on HN and elsewhere. That people whom we otherwise would expect curiosity are instead pro-suppressing discussion ie censoring.

The fact you responded with “hello troll” is a perfect example.

1. The “election fortification” comment is in regards to https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ it’s a tongue in cheek title from a group which helped “ensure the outcome of the election” as they put it.

2. Hunter Biden's laptop was confirmed legitimate. It was easily confirmable by multiple people who knew the Biden’s. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tony-bobulinski-hunt... The senate report further confirmed it https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Rep...

I can keep going, but my general point was that if you didn’t read the reports in detail (not via a pundit). Particularly, if you didn’t / couldn’t review the source material. Then the censorship worked. There’s a great segment on CNN about wikileaks https://streamable.com/6g5v where you can’t read Hillary emails, you have to hear it from CNN. “Remember it’s illegal for anyone besides journalists to read her emails” a lie, but a form of censorship.

It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, it’s wether the discussion is suppressed. That’s the censorship.

The thing is, people and corporations saying they don’t really want to hear or spread bull shit isn’t censorship. It’s basic social contract/etiquette and a right. I have the right to hit “block user” - does this mean I’m censoring someone? If not, where is the distinction drawn? If yes, well, that’s a hell of a slippery slope…

First off, opening a comment with "Hello Troll" has to be the most childish and reddit-like way of opening an HN comment I have ever seen. If you think GP is a troll, you can simply not reply, indeed you are practically obligated by the guidelines not to. Once you reply, you are obligated to at least pretend you take the claims that you reply to seriously.

Secondly, why are you responding to "Those topics are censored" claim with "Here are all the correct answers to those topics that my media tells me to believe"? GP didn't say whether they think there is a correct answer to a topic and what, if any, may that answer be, GP has simply observed that those topics are heavily and nakedly suppressed in legacy media and social media, often with hilarious results (e.g. Instagram banning Cochrane, a medical database of the highest quality, simply for mentioning Ivermectin).

Contradicting GP here would consist of bringing up evidence that those topics were, on the contrary to GP's claim, discussed fairly and found wanting. Talking about correct answers are irrelevant, we're talking about whether all questions and answers are allowed for discussion. Because Americans are often shocked that China hates things they consider elementary and bans them, GP is simply saying their own society frequently and obviously engages in this as well, often with cheering from those self same people.

Third, some of your points about masks are self-contradicting. If the CDC lied about masks once, why wouldn't they lie twice or third or tenth? You would be a fool if you trust a liar after the 1st time, and medical institutions have proven to be thoroughly partisan and rotten and corrupt during the entire crisis, anybody taking a covid-related claim from a medical institution at face value is a prime target for bridge selling.

Another point is that masks come in types, and only very few types protect adequately against the latest covid variants, and the vast majority of people don't buy those types (N95 or KN95) or don't wear them correctly. So masks, as worn in practice, are indeed very close to useless, as evidenced from the fact that they're not predictive of viral spread (i.e the fact that a country's population wears masks has no better than random chance correlation with whether it has lower infections, i.e masks are statistically useless).

This why your correct answers are wrong, at least in part, some of the time. This is why you need to be constantly questioning them, and not rushing to defend the censorship loving institutions and corporations who have no particular interest in you or your well being, and all the interest in Power and Money and Status.

Fourth, why the hell are you bringing up more evidence for censorship as evidence against GP? You're supporting them, not contradicting them. GP never claimed the censorship is done by only 1 party, only that is done. You're arguing for GP's claim while thinking you're arguing against.

Corporations are not people outside of idiotic law speak. They should have no rights to freedom of association once they reach a certain (law-defined) size.

Banana699 has the right to block you or otherwise tell you to fuck off from their private property, the 10 million viewers Banana699^TM Inc Ltd does not. Media corporations picking and choosing the type of the story to serve is a very plausible reason for the intense polarization and Rage-As-A-Service ecosystem we are in.

So you’re saying that if I start a website dedicated to unicorn ponies that has user interaction, I should be forced to accept your comment on neonazi ideology? Perhaps the local Christian owned cake shop should be forced to make a cake for a homosexual couple? Where does that end?

If your website is a corporation hitting all the legal prerequisites for fairness requirements (size, market share,...), then yes, you must accept my neo Nazi comment. You are allowed to make rules that ban views on other grounds than its content, such as being spammy or off topic to the conversation, but you would have to have objective and neutral criteria for those bans, and you should be obligated to justify yourself to your users with non-automated means, and the banned users should be able to sue you at little or no cost if they perceive unfairness.

The local Christian cake shop are not a corporation and, by the very definition of 'local', almost certainly doesn't meet the legal prerequisites for fairness regulations, so they should not be forced to bake a cake against their will.