Hacker News Reader

Comment by randrews | Hacker News Reader

Absolutely. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill to ban ads for firearms. Google and Facebook already ban that as well. If you have no problem with that then why should you have a problem banning ads against guns?

More right-wing personalities than I can even remember have been banned from various media, not least being a sitting President of the United States. The same platforms also have policies against certain "disinformation" that target anyone discussing some issues or events like the Hunter Biden laptop which were later determined not to be disinformation at all. As for it being Democratic policy, there was (briefly) a White House office under a Democratic president to coordinate these policies.

View on HN

That bill allows ads that say things like "Vote for X, because he will pass a law that all Californians be given a free pistol". It just doesn't allow ads that say "Glock is the best pistol".

Similarly, you cannot advertise cigarettes with cartoon characters, but can advertise a political candidate wanting to make that legal.

Meanwhile, right-wing people aren't being deplatformed because they are right-wing. It's because of other things they say and do.

>> More right-wing personalities than I can even remember have been banned from various media, not least being a sitting President of the United States. The same platforms also have policies against certain "disinformation" that target anyone discussing some issues or events like the Hunter Biden laptop which were later determined not to be disinformation at all. As for it being Democratic policy, there was (briefly) a White House office under a Democratic president to coordinate these policies.

> Meanwhile, right-wing people aren't being deplatformed because they are right-wing. It's because of other things they say and do.

I'm no fan of that right-wing nonsense (e.g. Hunter Biden, etc.), but your apologia isn't really compelling. The impermissible "other things they say and do" can be defined in slanted ways to deliver an ideological result that can be described in faux "neutral" terms. To flip things around, for instance, how would you feel if (hypothetically) some social media company de-platformed pro-choice advocates under a rule that bans advocacy of violence (because they're interpreted as advocating violence against "the unborn")? You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."

> You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."

I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."

Cancel culture types don't seem to understand that refusing a platform to other people based on their beliefs is a right, which comes along with the right to free speech. I'd prefer if pro-choice positions weren't banned, but if a website wants to ban pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay, or non-QAnon positions, then they have the right to become a cesspit by doing so. Likewise and in exchange, other websites retain the right to ban anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-gay, and QAnon/neo-nazi views.

>> You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."

> I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."

Even if it was major one with influence; like Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook/Instagram?

I should have been more clear, but I was specifically thinking of major social media sites like those when I wrote that sentence, not some marginal social media site like thedonald.win that's easy to ignore.

Also the main thing I was commenting on was defining things in such a way that describes a slanted result with faux-neutral language (e.g. "when it happens to us it's censorship, when it happens to you it's just enforcing the rules").

> It just doesn't allow ads that say "Glock is the best pistol".

Until, well, yesterday (edit: not yesterday, that says "June." My mistake), it was illegal in Germany to advertise where you can get an abortion. Abortion was and is legal there, but the doctors providing them weren't allowed to tell anyone that that's where they could go to get one.

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-parliament-bundestag...

This is a pretty analogous situation to what Newsom / his party want in California: guns legal (after a fashion) but for anyone part of the gun industry to be excluded from the public square.

Do you think that Germany changing their law is a step backwards, since you support an equivalent law in California? Or do you have a double standard between free speech applied to one kind of ad versus the other?

Those are examples, but not sources. Can you provide actual sources to these examples?

And is the action of large corporations that regularly donate to Republican candidates (as well as Democrats) really “part of [Democrats’] playbook for years”? Or are they just (perhaps selectively) enforcing their TOS in a way that they believe provides them the most value?

I always wonder about these sorts of comments. Do you think sources for these easily-googleable facts don't exist, or that the pretty uncontroversial events I'm talking about didn't happen? Am I supposed to somehow be argued down by having to post a couple links? Or is this just a way to shift the conversation to discrediting the particular links I reply with, instead of engaging with the actual issues I'm bringing up?

Anyway. Here's the WH Disinformation Governance Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Boar... This is the CA gun-ad law: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/gun-groups-challenge-califo...

As for it being just the unrelated actions of large corporations and not Democrats per se... Well, the White House part kind of disproves that, as does the California law. Yes, large corporations do act independently of the Democratic party, but the question here is does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do. And the WH Disinformation board shows that they're happy to use the large corporations as their tools to get it.

You claim deplatforming has been in a Democratic playbook "for years", then cite the introduction of a WH DGB which opened and closed this year, after being open for less than a month

>Do you think sources for these easily-googleable facts don't exist

>does the Democratic party want this sort of censorship against other people, and they self-evidently do

People ask for these "easily-googeable facts", and your response is 1 link to something not really relevant, and an assertion that it is "self-evident". Apologies if not everyone finds this to be a convincing argument

>ban ads for firearms

Source? That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming

>Google and Facebook already ban that as well

This is irrelevant - these are not Democratic organizations, and they do not have Democratic policies. Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats, and so supposedly Hulu is run by Republicans?

Pretty predictable responses.

> Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats

Again, there was a White House office made specifically to coordinate these platforms banning "disinformation" content. It was later shut down, but its creation in the first place shows that the Democratic party wants to censor discussion it doesn't like. Or are you somehow implying the White House is not run by Democrats?

> That sounds like a law to regulate advertisements, not a deplatforming

Which is exactly what we're talking about here: these are advertisements, Hulu doesn't want them on their platform. You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.

>Or are you somehow implying the White House is not run by Democrats?

Of course not, this is obvious?

>You're fine with Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, banning advertisements from gun manufacturers and retailers, presumably pro-gun, but you have a problem with Hulu not wanting advertisements that are anti-gun.

I may or may not be fine with either of those things, why do you assert something you don't know?

So far you've demonstrated an inability to source the information in your original claim, "this sort of deplatforming hadn't been part of [Democrat's] playbook for years."

I really don't think you're arguing in good faith here. This is a very common tactic for people of your political alignment, at least on HN: to nitpickily demand sources for completely obvious facts, and then if provided, shift the argument to discrediting those sources instead of engaging with the actual philosophical points being made.

I could probably write everything else you're going to say in this thread myself, so, I'm not going to bother continuing to argue with you. If you'd like to respond to the core point, which is why are Democrats justified in complaining about their own ads being refused while they celebrate Republican content being deplatformed, then we can continue.

> Are you somehow implying Google and Facebook are run by Democrats

Are you suggesting that they aren't?

> and so supposedly Hulu is run by Republicans?

That doesn't actually follow.

> If you have no problem with that then why should you have a problem banning ads against guns?

Are you really asking "if you want to ban advertising murder weapons, why should you have a problem banning adverts telling people not to murder"?

In this case, of course, Hulu have the right to carry any adverts they like. It turns out, they don't want adverts for either side of the argument, as is their right.

If Hulu decided that they wanted to ban adverts for guns, and promote the hell out of adverts for psychiatric services for people who want to own guns so they can get the mental health treatment they clearly need, then that is also something they have a right to do.

I'm sorry, did you just call all law-abiding gun owners mentally ill?

Yes. Why the hell would you want to run around with a weapon to murder people with?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com