Hacker News Reader

Comment by zozbot234 | Hacker News Reader

I agree with the sentiment in the comic, but am honestly asking here: was the content of asshole quality? Did it deserved to get the whole channel pulled down?

It sounds like you don't really agree with the sentiment in the comic, if you're asking that question?

It sounds like you think there are only black and white consequences in the world. Criticism and differences in opinion can, and should, occur before complete de-platforming if the level of disagreement is not too high (hence my question on the level of disagreement for the content).

That being said, there exists no innate right for content to be hosted on Youtube (or anywhere else for that matter).

I don't at all think there are only black and white consequences, what I think is that the comic's "it's just that people think [Cornell University is] an asshole and are showing it the door" is a rather black and white statement. I think the question you asked was a perfectly reasonable one, I'm also interested to know the answer. I just don't think it matches the sentiment of the comic.

Saying that I agree with the sentiment of the comic, does not impart any statements about how I feel about its application in this situation.

Perhaps the two align, I do not know. Until more is know, I reserve judgement.

The comic does not apply when it's a system controlled by sentiment of being advertiser friendly.

The real trick is that the comic has always been about what is "acceptable" content, which in the US is what advertisers deem acceptable.

When this comic was first printed it was partially a response to big platforms like Reddit having massive waves of bannings. It has always been about systems that are advertiser friendly, even if Munroe is too dense to realize that.

Exactly. The comic is content-agnostic.

The comic refers to communities who do not want to allow a certain type of speech and thus censor or ban it. There is nothing wrong with that.

Automated content flagging by AI on a platform like YouTube is completely different.

It really isn't, it's just an extension of the flawed mentality that people like Munroe exhibit.

The reality is that speech is ALWAYS a slippery slope, and those who believe it isn't are always surprised when they become the next target.

I tend to agree with the comic but it treats about "online community".

In the case of youtube we are talking about a platform. While it could relate, up to which level do we consider that it is a private platform? What about writing something on your own website that is hosted on a vps and you end up terminated by the hosting provider ? What if you end up terminated by your ISP and your mobile vendor ?

Do we have to draw the line and if so where ?

> Do we have to draw the line and if so where ?

When the government gets involved.

Till then, build your own internet backbone or get back in line.

Fwiw, I don't agree with this but net neutrality died a while ago. Both the left and right political movements have had ample opportunity to fix this problem but they've made their bed. Now they get to lie in it.

Organizations like Google, Amazon, and Apple have more capital and potential to do harm to individuals than most governments in the world.

> Both the left and right political movements have had ample opportunity to fix this problem but they've made their bed. Now they get to lie in it.

This is frankly nonsense. Net Neutrality is dead because organizations like Google aren't bothered by having more control on the net as well. For every "blackout" site when NN was a big pet issue, there are 10 people who were in favor of NN then that could not even explain what NN was.

Google doesn't push on the NN angle anymore because they make more money on a closed net, and pushing out anyone critical of mass media/advertisers.

NN is dead because the big institutional players are against it. It's as simple as that.

It's hard to tell if you're agreeing with the sentiment in the comic or using this event to illustrate its limits? I think probably the latter but...

Except in this case it wasn't "people listening" it was probably an AI who flagged it and a mindless human drone who clicked "OK" when prompted to block the Cornell account. Or alternatively, one or more asshole(s) reported them to Google and a mindless human drone agreed with the asshole(s). If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, is the asshole of someone I consider an asshole a non-asshole?

> it was probably an AI

The AI, despite recent rumors to the contrary, is not a self-aware entity. It is the creation of humans, and it reflects the biases and values of the humans that created it. It's simply that the people listening have created a tool to automate listening and reacting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_learning

And this is exactly Elon's goal for Twitter.

A private platform without uptight censorious people banning anything they deem offensive from the right or the left.

It's a fine feature for a company to say "we don't owe anyone their right as a US citizen to 1st Amendment 'free speech' but we'll certainly offer it because we think it's good (and profitable, obviously.)"

As shown by his actions of firing people from SpaceX who disagreed with him on Twitter. Lawsuit pending.

I am completely baffled by the attempt to equate valuing free speech on a broadly accessible platform and tolerating insubordination on operational issues within a private company.

Is it really hypocritical of Elon to want free speech on Twitter, but also say that employers can fire employees who violate policies and/or bad mouth their company to the public?

That doesn't seem inconsistent to me.

No one could truly be naive enough to believe that that man will not start imposing his own will and fancy over Twitter if the posibility presents it self to him, could they?

I don't necessarily disagree but good lord XKCD got awful preachy?? If you're so damn smart and witty and above the fray of petty bickerings, then you shouldn't feel compelled to lecture the bottom-feeders of the internet as such, unless you're self-important and feel as if you have a "duty" from your public soapbox to "put these people on notice" or whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com