Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelgrosner2 | Hacker News Reader

None, because the government shouldn’t be interfering in speech.

The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech.

This one specifically is pretty strong IMO (Biden team telling Twitter to manipulate speech): https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064

Yes yes, someone has already said something about one of them being a dick pic, remove that one, whatever. But do you think they are ALL dick picks? This email is one out of many.

> This one specifically is pretty strong IMO

That was from October 2020. Biden was not in government then.

Conspiring to suppress true information to influence an election seems worse.

what if you use the report button to do the same, and succeed? have you influenced the election? perhaps marginally. your tweets do the same.

But that is still within the company's First Amendment right. This was settled when the Supreme Court ruled that political donations are a company's First Amendment right. So now companies are allowed to have a direct influence on elections.

Step back and think how your position is anti-free speech

I'm in favour of free speech, without censorship from government or private entities. Which is why I think censoring the laptop story was wrong.

So tell me, how is that anti free speech?

How are non-consensual dick pics free speech?

The point being made by the commenter you replied to, which I think you missed, is that if the government passed a law preventing one private entity (a political campaign) from emailing another private entity (a business), that would be government interference in speech.

> The whole point of this is that government is already interfering in speech.

Nah. The point of this is right-wing propaganda.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com