Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnwheeler | Hacker News Reader

You want to use the resources and influence of a large corporation to acheive your organizations goals. They don’t have to be on board with your mission, and it’s arrogant to think so IMO. Why should they let you do it, when they won’t allow it for others? Seems like you feel entitled because you think by default people should support what you’re trying to do.

The flipside of free speech you’re ignoring is that people get to abstain from using their voice in addition to using it.

View on HN

What part of the post shows they feel entitled to it?

The fact that they posted the e-mail from Amazon, so readers could direct the blame at them. You can’t read that blog post and say it’s the most unbiased and objective way they could have presented this, especially if they want to remain on good terms with Amazon, who has done nothing wrong at all.

I thought it was 100% objective, straight across. I don't see any barbs or negativity toward Amazon whatsoever, just the facts about that situation and an honest discussion of the facts looking forward.

I feel the phrasing of the title (the word "threatens", using the phrase "censorship circumvention", not mentioning that they're doing all that stuff without Amazon's consent) is definitely aimed at generating negative feeling toward Amazon.

One can have an opinion and disagree with Amazon without feeling entitled to anything from them.

I'm not objective; it's my subjective opinion that you're wrong. That doesn't mean I feel entitled to have you change your mind.

"One can have an opinion and disagree with Amazon without feeling entitled to anything from them."

That's a straw man. In this case, they don't only disagree, they also feel entitled; that's what I'm saying.

I understand; but you're saying you can tell they feel entitled by the fact that they're not objective or unbiased. And what I'm saying is that not being objective doesn't show they feel entitled.

Maybe they feel entitled, but I don't think there's anything in the blog post showing that. All I see is (fairly mild) disagreement with Amazon's actions.

The blame is with Amazon. They decided to help censorship.

No, it isn't. Signal didn't ask Amazon's consent to be dragged into their battle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com