Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xDEEPFAC | Hacker News Reader

Do you think censoring people would help encourage vaccines?

The key point here is the treatment of those opposing certain views as clearly stupid and in need of protecting is toxic and non-productive. Is Joe Rogan a mindless Trump-voting retard?

You're not going to reach people by silencing creators - you're just going to make their viewers feel prosecuted, angry, and confused. They'll just move to other platforms and probably vote for Trump again...

The way to reach them would be through dialog etc. which is getting more impossible by the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0PYlLQn_YM

View on HN

It was a simple question. Do you want less people to be vaccinated?

The other person suggested that less people might be vaccinated, and your response was to talk about "bad think", and "changes or influences others", where the specific topic is "changes or influences others" to cause less people to be vaccinated.

This implies that you, for some reason want less people to be vaccinated, and that it was a good thing to "changes or influences others", in such a way as less people get vaccinated.

> other person suggested that less people might be vaccinated

And I am suggesting more people might get vaccinated if they are treated as intelligent and allowed to engage in dialog instead of being shadow-banned and removed.

> And I am suggesting

You previously suggested that it was be a good thing to "change or influences others" to not get vaccinated.

That is the statement that I am taking issue with. When you implied that it would be a good thing for less people to be vaccinated.

I am saying its a good thing that videos are allowed which encourage people to not get vaccinated or contain information about vaccines not coming from a news network, because the alternative (censorship) is barbaric and unhelpful.

> which encourage people to not get vaccinated

But that would be bad if that happened right? If people got encouraged to not get vaccinated, that would be bad?

> is barbaric and unhelpful.

You think that it is barbaric that a dislike button is not available on one single platform? Because that is what the other comment was about. It was about the dislike button.

It was not about videos being removed en-mass. Instead it was about a dislike button, on one platform.

> If people got encouraged to not get vaccinated, that would be bad?

Yea of course, and thats my point. I think banning these videos and the ability to show discontent makes the problem worse and further divides us on political lines. What exactly is your argument here?

> You that that it is barbaric that a dislike button is not available on one platform?

The removal of the dislike button is another step in an undeniable trend toward censorship against anything mega corps and governments decide is not moral or truthful.

People can tell when they are being herded around and silenced, and they dislike it.

> Yea of course, and thats my point.

Great, so then you would agree then, if someone's "opinions especially if it changes or influences others." caused other people to not get vaccinated, that that would be very bad, and that it would be a good idea to make sure this person is less successful, in their ability to influence others to do that.

No. I would not agree with that. I am opposed to limiting peoples' "ability to influence". People need to have a voice and debates and discussion need to be allowed to happen.

Otherwise you are not changing people's minds, you are simply making their voices disappear from your computer screen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com