Hacker News Reader

Comment by CryoLogic | Hacker News Reader

Even if they are wrong they should not be censored.

Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis.

Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past.

I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons opinions on what is right especially when it is not written in stone and enforced sitewide on all accounts.

View on HN

Nah, I'd rather not have the bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the website that I use. Youtube is not all of web. Youtube has no obligation to give you a platform to express whatever you want.

If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.

It seems like a good solution to CryoLogic and your discussion might be for services to allow you to choose what you would like censored. For instance 'yzmtf2008' could simply say, don't show me content like this.

Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism.

The sad part is that 'yzmtf2008' will exist inside of a vacuum and will miss out on things that appear crazy and may actually be true, but perhaps the upside is that this person may be more productive in other areas of life by defocusing on distractions.

I agreed with that until I found some people on HN who thought PizzaGate was a real thing. Even then I was open to the idea, but when someone turned up with a gun at Comet Pizza and started shooting I decided individual decisions about conspiracy theories are insufficient.

The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.

So it's not just you wanting high quality content? You also want to stop others from reading content you disagree with? Seems like a pretty drastic solution to a pretty small problem. You want to suspend democracy over an event where no one was even injured.

I don’t want to suspend democracy. I don’t want to stop others reading content I disagree with.

Even if they are wrong they should not be censored.

I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam.

Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com