Hacker News Reader

Comment by tonystubblebine | Hacker News Reader

I would like to see people who are advocating for free speech on private platforms to expand what they are saying to also cover their position on property rights.

Fine, fine, I get that a lot of people here are chilled by threats to open discussion. But please go further, how do you balance that with a private company's right to do what they want with their own product?

I personally find it very threatening as a product developer that there might be laws requiring me to allow people to use my products in ways that are abhorrent to me. Yes, the government has defined protected classes and I will respect those (not hard for me). But if a bunch of Trumpers wanted to use my software to organize a coup, do people really think I have to support that?

Where is that line?

View on HN

It's easy to draw an arbitrary line based on market dominance. Compare to abortion laws — at some point, a fetus is considered a person. The exact point is contentious and arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Imagine if HN was not allowed to moderate its posts. They give a wider berth to comments than they need to, including some I have made (apologies and thank you hn). But I can't imagine I would want to be here if Trump's post were an unfiltered part of the experience.

edit: and to be clear the thing I am most disappointed in my comments is the brevity. I am disappointed in myself the most for making terse comments.

Exactly. There are many, many curated experiences that we all appreciate. Curation is good. I'm so sick of open commons. Not all voices are equal and, IMO, fringe opinions should have to work extra hard to earn their way into the mainstream. Speaking strictly as a consumer, I appreciate and pay for curators as a way to save time.

> how do you balance that with a private company's right to do what they want with their own product?

You're asking for logic from people who learned from a young age that doing bad things gets them attention.

Trump is their icon. He was quick and happy after the "capitol storm" riot to finally say there will be a peaceful transition on the 20th. Why? Because he was asked to do it and he feels he is being helpful by complying.

Nevermind that he created the problem in the first place. He's always felt, since a young age, that he didn't get enough attention, and only received it when he acted out. Like, when you use your fork to eat food for the first time and dad doesn't even look at you. Then you throw it on the floor and Dad is suddenly alert. Boom, that's a life lesson. Repeat that scenario 1,000 times, give the child a billion dollars and you get someone like Trump.

You think Trump is an icon for the people these threads here on HN? I don't think so. I think there's a free speech vein in this community that is independent of support for Trump. It might even be the majority.

I meant he's an icon for people clamoring for free speech on private platforms.

In my view the query posed by this conflict is, what is the solution when private platforms hold apparent monopolies over public discourse?

And IMO the answer to this is to encourage competition by lowering barriers to entry for new content providers. Bring back net neutrality with the FCC and FTC's Antitrust should crack down on regional broadband monopolies, content conglomerates, zero rating, etc.

Breaking up Google/Facebook isn't going to provide sufficient competition. We need to ensure there is space for new pastures.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com