Hacker News Reader

Comment by recursivedoubts | Hacker News Reader

The Guardian has no problem with the unaccountable power of platforms and banks.

The Guardian merely has a problem with this particular application of it.

Absolutely true. Whoever is downvoting leave a comment to explain. Are we okay with banks discriminating against free speech but not against porn?

What's your point? That someone at the Guardian does not share your personal opinion?

As for me, I'm not okay with either banks discriminating against free speech and banks discriminating against porn. For example, I was vigorously against banks blocking Wikileaks payments. Therefore, I'm fine with the Guardian article.

What about banning Proud Boy accounts or Gab/Andrew Torba?

That's an absurd false dichotomy. We don't need to choose between being okay with banks discriminating in all circumstances and discriminating in no circumstances. If you support banks serving the Proud Biys are you okay with them serving Jihadi terrorist groups and autocratic dictators? Porn isn't trying to establish a white ethnostate.

I think you are drawing a false equivalence between the Proud Boys and jihadi terrorist groups. A better comparison would be between Proud Boys and members of Antifa.

I'm fine with them serving jihadis so long as they serve the counter-jihadis!

crickets

What is to explain?

The article is an Opinion and not representative of The Guardian. It is written by Jillian C York, the author of Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism.

Trying to conflate this opinion piece with The Guardian itself is dumb and shows a failure to understand what an Opinion is.

Bingo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com