Hacker News Reader

Who gets to decide who doesn’t get to speak? If an individual, we suppress popular opinion unpopular with leadership. If the collective, we suppress unpopular data and ideas that may be accurate or innovative.

You can’t have selective freedom of speech.

View on HN

I agree selective freedom of speech is hard. Probably too hard.

I tend to support selective augmentation of other people's speech - "fact checkers have shown this to be inaccurate" next to a conspiracy fan's latest comment. As long as it is more precise than just downvoting to oblivion.

And who's to object to that! Speech is free and visible, and no information is withheld, it's just not passively amplified without reasonable vetting.

>And who's to object to that!

I take it you didn't see the outrage around here when Twitter "fact-checked" Trump's statements - even that was denounced as propaganda and censorship.

> Who gets to decide who doesn’t get to speak?

The platform owner, then potentially a judge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com