Hacker News Reader

Comment by n0nc3 | Hacker News Reader

Conversely, it has never been easier to inject true claims that are inconvenient for gatekeepers. What tilts the balance of equities in favor of censorship for you?

View on HN

It's coming from people that don't share his politics.

You won't find anyone on this board more quick to defend censorship along political lines.

I don't even have to reach this question to support my argument. You're effectively comparing 2020 to 2015. I'm comparing 2020 to 1980.

You can't just toss out core enlightenment principles because a handful of loud simpletons latch on to bad ideas. Not without explaining why.

I object to the claim that I've tossed out any "core enlightenment principles" by observing that we have drastically fewer gatekeepers now than we did in 1980.

It is my understanding that toleration, free association, and free expression are core enlightenment principles that enable a civilization to be governed by reason. These are threatened by the censorious attitude of boomers and aging gen-xers with home equity to protect.

It is not unusual for older, wealthier elements of society to question the value of free expression for the masses. [1]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/democratic-enlightenment-philosophy-r...

Do you implicate that we need gatekeepers? If so, then yes, if not, then it was falsely concluded.

Because it takes far longer to confirm if a claim is true or not than it does to make a claim.

The folks who makes lots of claims which are false know this, and do so anyway because it is effective at swaying public opinion.

"never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

Seems like it should be TRIVIAL; (if backed up by legal authority of governments - and that's the REAL trick) - to cause all claims to be properly categorized.

Either something is OPINION, or it's FACT. And anything that is Factual, could have the privilege to be labeled as such. Things that are proven not-true or misinformation, or unsupported - they could be permanently labelled "bullshit" and why the hell can't we do this?

Because people will skirt the system. Unless we have a government that supports rule of law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com