Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pxtl | Hacker News Reader

Nobody who supports Twitter's (imho responsible) use of censorship thinks that Musk's plan to libertarianize Twitter should be illegal, unlike the folks who used to shout "First amendment! Free speech!" about Twitter's moderation. They're just saying that his actions are childish and will make the site substantially worse.

And having seen the arc of many social media sites with "libertarian" moderation, I'm firmly in that camp.

I mean, Hacker News would not be what it is today without firm-handed moderation.

View on HN

Hacker News is not a valid comparison. dang is not going around telling people what is "right" and what is "wrong" and what is "misinformation", or trying to control a narrative. Hacker News' heavy-handed moderation is specifically what allows a vast array of opinions to be discussed and debated honestly and openly, in a way that Twitter and YouTube would simply remove as "misinformation".

Dang is not without his biases. He seems more willing to tolerate nationalist flamebait when America is the target of it. And yes, I know his standard response of claiming whatever bias seen in him merely reflects your own bias... that is another of dang's biases.

My personal "anecdote is not data" has been that I was censured for arguing that opposing covid safety measures shows how American conservatism is post-truth, and delta's hospitalization rates showed the cost of that attitude. Repeatedly getting in arguments on this subject got me censored. It's his site, it's his prerogative.

However, I see similar commentary of "anybody who supports inclusive language is just giving stupid prizes to weenies" or something like that. This, by contrast, is fine.

It may be just that dang disagreed with my tone, or never saw the latter, or just thinks this is "my bias", or simply the large number of comments posted (which is kind of a natural effect of being heavily opposed -- agreement with the consensus on this site is intrinsically quieter than disagreement). I don't know.

Either way, their site, their prerogative. Either way, I'm trying not to get into politics on this site anymore.

No doubt, dang can moderate this website as he [and his employer] sees fit. That much at least seems beyond dispute.

> He seems more willing to tolerate nationalist flamebait when America is the target of it.

I thought you were gonna say when Americans are the ones doing it. (I think you mean the opposite, when non-Americans are flaming the US - let me know if I misunderstood you.)

I see far more toxicity allowed about China and (recently) Russia than about the US. I've even seen misinformation allowed in the titles of posts (which are usually heavily moderated to remove even hyperbole, much less misinformation), when the target is Russia.

This only reinforces your "Dang is not without his biases" point though. As a (presumed) political leftie, he's probably more inclined than the average US-ian to allow self-criticism of the US. But as an American in the first place, he's inevitably imbibed some of the caricature of places like China and Russia, and likely doesn't even see the toxic flaming of them for what it is. You see the first bias as the one stands out, while for me the latter is the one that seems visible and obvious.

I wish 1000 dangs could moderate / set moderation policy on most major platforms

I think your first and second sentences contradict each other. If content gets removed, it's removed. Why do you care if the moderators remove it as "misinformation" (which is probably is), or for being hate speech, or being stupid?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com