Hacker News Reader

Comment by verisimi | Hacker News Reader

> It'd be nice if there was a platform that was specifically designed for People, not bots / propagandist.

I don't know how you can say this, when they were/are one of the main drivers? Did anyone ban Hillary Clinton from speaking? No. But, nevermind characters such as Alex Jones etc, they banned the sitting president from speaking on their platform!

Whatever your political position, I find it amazing that banning opinions that you disagree with seems to be acceptable or even desired. It used to be that people would say: I don't agree with you, but I'll fight for your right to say what you want.

Instead, it seems everyone wants to live in a comfortable echo chamber, parroting the apparent consensus opinions. So it comes as a shock to them when someone says something different.

People should try to become a bit more resilient of diverse opinions, rather than insisting on an imagined right to fragile homogeneity.

View on HN

You have to ban hate propagandists or you get people attacking the husband of a senior politician with a hammer, based on whatever weird combination of conspiracy garbage they participated in.

I was genuinely surprised the Brazilian election went as well as it did: there were reports of pre-election violence, but once all the votes were counted the losing candidate just conceded properly.

But America won't see or understand how terrorism works in the 2020s until it has another 9/11. At which point it will conduct reprisals against the wrong targets again.

> parroting the apparent consensus opinions

> People should try to become a bit more resilient of diverse opinions

Why is it hard to accept the "diverse opinion" that children were shot and killed at a school shooting, and that their parents were not actors trying to steal your guns from you? Does it trigger you that you didnt need to form a crew and go round and set them straight?

Here is a diverse opinion for you - not everything that happens in the world is done by crisis actors trying to force you to have interracial gay sex while taking your gun from you and giving it to an illegal immigrant.

Is it ok not to believe everything that is shown on TV?

Is it ok not to believe that the government there to help?

Can having an unpopular opinion (opinion, not an action) be hateful? Does it demand action from self-appointed custodians of morality?

Do you know the truth? Do you know the difference between right and wrong? Is it ok to act against someone who says 'wrong things'?

> opinion, not an action

Holding an opinion is not an action.

Going on twitter and banging on about your opinion is an action.

You're confused.

Expressing your opinion, even on twitter, is an act of (written, typed) speech.

Preventing someone from expressing themselves, when they have done no wrong, is an action.

An act of speech is an action.

Preventing someone from expressing themselves is an action.

To clarify, I mean an action against another person.

This is as per the golden rule, do no harm. If you speak, you are doing no harm. If you prevent someone speaking, you are.

the use of propaganda, which is effective, trivially invalidates your statement asserting that speech can do no harm.

But who is propagandising who?

Who has the truth? Is it the government and the media, or are they the worst of the worst? How would you know what the truth is? Is the truth a consensus, or can everyone be wrong? In this technological age, it is easy to conceive how a false message can be disseminated widely. How can you discern truth from reality?

In the absence of certainty, you have to allow the free flow of information. You might think that people are screening/filtering information for you, but it is surely evident that they can also be doing this for their own benefit?

Information is power, as it drives your beliefs, and then your actions.

> Instead, it seems everyone wants to live in a comfortable echo chamber, parroting the apparent consensus opinions

Isn’t exactly this happening on the other side of the fence as well?

Absolutely.

But I don't see them banning anyone from speaking.

The idea is that people are able to say whatever they like. Their unpopular opinion may enlighten you to some salient information that you were unaware of.

Banning, imprisonment, fines, etc, should be reserved for actions. Speaking your mind should be free. Even on privately owned platforms.

> But I don't see them banning anyone from speaking.

[1] disagrees. [2] disagrees. [3] disagrees. etc.etc.

[1] https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/heres-the-long-list-o...

[2] https://jezebel.com/republicans-are-trying-to-ban-speech-abo...

[3] https://truthout.org/articles/gops-banning-of-books-and-atta...

Wanting to ban something is different to actually banning people from speaking.

But, no doubt, there are republicans who would do this too. I would say the exact same thing to them, as and when they start actually banning something or someone.

Freedom of speech is not a political position; try not to drag me into the gutter, please!

Trump and friends were attempting to weaponize social media, and they were successful. They were causing harm in the real world. That’s why they were banned.

That's your opinion. And I'd argue that you can have it. I'd argue for your right to say what you like, even though I disagree.

In reverse, can you see how for others, the weaponisation has already occurred, and that they (trump etc) are already feeling the sharp end? Actions were taken to ban them after all.

Btw, I don't vote or care about the political charade at all, I'm not red or blue. My point is that if it is acceptable that the mainstream media marginalises certain voices and you don't complain when your side is winning, you are actually legitimising the loss of freedom of speech. And, in the end, everyone is a loser of we are unable to speak freely.

Not everything is just an opinion.

Thinking that everything is, is a symptom of consuming certain types of agitprop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com