Hacker News Reader

Comment by taurath | Hacker News Reader

I remember when the US was the one for a free and open internet instead of a segmented one.

I'd argue that banning apps from non-free and non-open economies encourages a free and open internet by aligning incentives.

Really, reciprocity (and the paradox of intolerance) is an implicit expectation in many situations and we need to talk about how to deal with it.

I believe in freedom of speech. Should I stop people who don't believe in it from speaking to encourage alignment of incentives?

If the question is framed, Should I stop someone trying to stop someone from exercising their freedom of speech? Definitely. This is the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Depending on whether the other group tries to undermine you.

We surely like freedom of speech but still we want to silence, for example, anti-vaxxer.

We stopped being for a free and open internet when we allowed Apple to ban Firefox and other apps on IOS.

You don’t see any difference between Apple doing something and the federal government doing something?

Apple has federal government granted monopolies on patents, copyrights, and trademarks that forward their plan of eliminating a free and open Internet and make it illegal to compete with them.

So no I don't think there is a real distinction.

How many years does the US need to keep pretending China will become equally open?

freedom ain't free, baby. We're in a cold war.

Freedom ain’t free, and we’ve gotta pay for it with our freedoms! Baby

Yup! It’s a digital embargo.

You always lose freedoms when fighting for freedoms. Some people even lose their lives.

The hope is that we only lose the freedom temporarily (e.g. the freedom to buy a Cuban cigar being reinstated).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com