Mark Zuckerberg admits censorship at behest of FBI

caitlinjohnstone.substack.com

52 points·colordrops··5 comments

Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32607698, which was posted earlier and also has a more...I don't want to say neutral, but at least more neutral-sounding source. The highstrung rhetoric of the current article ("We are ruled by unelected sociopaths" etc.) is not a great fit for HN.

Makes sense, thanks for the context.

Even if it's true? ;-)

Truth is good and facts are fine, but that isn't a sufficient condition to be using HN as intended. This should be obvious from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. (Edit: there are infinitely many facts, and the choice of which ones to emphasize is a human activity - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

It isn't a necessary condition, either, because people can be wrong in good faith and that's part of the process of finding the truth.

(Rhetorical name-calling isn't true or false though, so I don't think your question really applies in this case.)

What people usually mean by 'true' in the context of political rhetoric is 'I like it'. Liking and truth have little to do with each other—in fact the love of truth has mostly to do with disentangling the two.

"If you don't read the news, you are under-informed. If you do read the news, you are mis-informed."

- Denzel Washington

Reply on news.ycombinator.com