>a racist message board
>a wellspring of racism, violence, and criminal activity online and in the physical world
The irony of this being posted on Twitter is not lost on me. Twitter, the site where bullying, racism, illegal content, calls for violence & discrimination, political extremism etc. are much larger in numbers than on any of the 2/4/8/whatever-chans.
What accounts for the difference? IMO it's all about paying lip service - and occasionally providing a feature to help users. The feature may get yanked out anyway, like "Quality Filter Discrimination" was.
Even more ironic when the OP of this threat is an unabashed communist. HackerNews seems to be devolving, noticing more and more of these people openly posting their agenda with no moderation
'Unsavory' is an interesting way to describe speech that instructs, encourages, or incites the commission of murder, which has a terminal effect on the speech of the people who die and and a chilling effect on the speech of those around them.
Logically, it would appear that murder is the ultimate form of censorship, by not merely constraining speech but eliminating its very possibility. Perhaps you could articulate how you resolve this philosophical conundrum?
The problem free speech message boards will always have is that the only people who seem to be genuinely motivated to post on free speech platforms are people who can't get on normal platforms. As a result free speech platforms almost always end up dominated by extremists and racists. Partly because they're the ones with the biggest motivation to use the platforms, but partly because their use of the platform drives away more moderate users. Plenty of people believe you have a right to free speech but also believe in their own right not to hang around and listen to you.
But after reading the thread I see the intended public
That seems an oddly teleological argument; judging the intention of a speaker by extrapolating from the response of a single person who replies to them enables drawing almost any conclusion you want.
Given that you've commented to my post, isn't that like saying you are my intended audience - despite my having no way to know you were going to create a HN account yesterday?
13 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 43.3 ms ] threadThe irony of this being posted on Twitter is not lost on me. Twitter, the site where bullying, racism, illegal content, calls for violence & discrimination, political extremism etc. are much larger in numbers than on any of the 2/4/8/whatever-chans.
What accounts for the difference? IMO it's all about paying lip service - and occasionally providing a feature to help users. The feature may get yanked out anyway, like "Quality Filter Discrimination" was.
But after reading the thread I see the intended public: https://twitter.com/DevinFaux/status/1127956035552120832
I support free speech.
Logically, it would appear that murder is the ultimate form of censorship, by not merely constraining speech but eliminating its very possibility. Perhaps you could articulate how you resolve this philosophical conundrum?
That seems an oddly teleological argument; judging the intention of a speaker by extrapolating from the response of a single person who replies to them enables drawing almost any conclusion you want.
Given that you've commented to my post, isn't that like saying you are my intended audience - despite my having no way to know you were going to create a HN account yesterday?
https://popular.info/p/exclusive-how-money-flows-from-amazon
Can we update this post to reflect please. Thanks.