Hacker News Reader

Comment by saurik | Hacker News Reader

This thread of thought was way more interesting than I assumed from the title: the issue is that some of the same groups that defend Section 230 happen to also be climate change deniers, and so it becomes this question of the morality of single issue politics (which affects normal people as well making decisions at the poll).

View on HN

I don't think it's controversial. Don't support groups unless you know what they're doing (and you support that).

Google either didn't know or didn't care. Neither are acceptable.

Google either didn't know

"Google" is also a verb.

It took me a moment to get that, but oh the irony.

> Google has defended its contributions, saying that its “collaboration” with organisations such as CEI “does not mean we endorse the organisations’ entire agenda”.

So, in your opinion, you should never engage with anybody that you disagree with on any issue? It would seem that you wouldn't have many people left to interact with.

Depends on the issue and whether they are actively pushing that issue. Should I be more inclusive to assholes in general? Maybe. Should I give comfort to those that threaten entire societies? You tell me.

Engage with and Shovel money into are subtlety different, aren't they?

We are talking about lobbying groups and a company with operating profits to rival some GDPs. If Google wanted to support a cause, it can do that without also subsidising climate change deniers.

Sounds like The Guardian is fighting against Section 230. Where is that headline? "Guardian pushes for big media to control all internet communication"

I think it's extremely short sighted to classify climate crisis as "single issue politics". If there was a single issue to impact all other issues than that would be it.

Totally agree, however the crude reality is that they are directly helping the cause of climate change denial with their funding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com