Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayq3423 | Hacker News Reader

> and the censorship he disliked may return.

Banning Nazis is not censorship, it's basic hygiene.

Pre-elon twitter banned some nazis, sometimes, there were still plenty of them around. It also banned a-lot of normal people who were questioning official narratives, people who just so happened to get report-bombed, people who were joking around with eachother about innocuous things that weren't against the ToS, people who governments wanted banned, etc etc.

All of that has gotten much better, and appeals are approved much faster, much more often. It used to be if you replied to a tweet disagreeing with someone, and their fans/followers report bombed you, you'd get banned with no recourse. That's fixed now.

Also, my impression of recent twitter is that it's very heavy on user silo's now, sure if you search for objectionable content you'll find it, that's not unique to twitter, but you don't really happen upon it unless you're following people who post things you find objectionable.

I don't really see anything wrong with that model, and if you're truly worried about nazi's, wouldn't you rather it's on a public cleartext platform instead of on something like session where it's mathematically unable to be seen/policed by -anyone- not directly involved?

And like, I'm no fan of Ol'Musky, I think his accomplishments are mostly him attracting talented people and then taking credit for it, but to say that twitter isn't safer/better now... idk, seems like it is by any measure, which might be because it was horrible before, and it's simply less horrible now, but, still, less horrible all the same.

To address one portion of what you wrote: no, I do not want Nazis and other bigots spreading cleartext hate online and radicalizing angsty teens. If that shit were shoved further into the margins I think we'd have fewer people showing up at pizza parlors with rifles.

Instead, we have racists who went antiquing for Nazi propaganda and dusted off the old classic "elite pedophiles who run international politics are trafficking children and drinking their blood." Something actual elected officials have been able to engage with and not lose significant support.

Do you have any data to back up these claims? My sense has been the opposition, but I also don’t have any data to back it up. So I could be wrong, which is why I don’t make seemingly factual statements like you are.

But you sound so sure that I assume you have data, would you share it?

> It also banned a-lot of normal people who were questioning official narratives

They really didn't. "Non official narratives" were usually conspiracy theories or hate speech. If anything, these accounts were given multiple opportunities before being banned. Only the worst of the worst were banned.

Did you just speedrun Godwin's law?

there's a parable of a Nazi bar, that was made famous ironically with a tweet.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar

> From an anecdote shared by Michael B. Tager (@IamRageSparkle) on Twitter in July 2020. In the multi-tweet thread, Tager recounted visiting a "shitty crustpunk bar", where he saw a patron abruptly expelled. The bartender explained that the man was wearing "iron crosses and stuff", and that he feared such patrons would become regulars and start bringing friends if not promptly kicked out, which would lead him to realize "oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now" only after the unwanted patrons became too "entrenched" to kick out without trouble

Godwin's on record saying it's fine to make the comparison sometimes.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law...

> Godwin wrote on Facebook that someone had asked him to post a statement about Charlottesville, because people bring up his law to shut down arguments all the time. Turns outhe was happy to oblige. "By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis," he wrote. "Again and again. I'm with you."

> In general, Godwin has always said you can bring up the Nazis in an online conversation, as long as you're doing some research first. "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician," he wrote in The Washington Post backin 2015. But in the case of the white supremacists in Virginia, there's no research necessary to make that comparison. The facts speak for themselves.

When referring to actual Nazis, using the word "Nazi" is acceptable.

Incredible that needs to be said, but here we are.

It is censorship. Whether you'd consider it acceptable or not is a different matter, but don't try to duck the important decision you'd have to make about it. Many groups throughout history have thought that silencing people they didn't like was a matter of hygiene—including the Nazis, as a matter of fact. It's an enticing concept, using different standards when it comes to people you hate.

Advocating throwing human beings into ovens isn't acceptable. If you find yourself on the other end of that opinion, do some deep, deep soul searching. It's not about speech at that point.

I edited my comment. Who was censored is not relevant, instead, the fact that Elon wanted no censorship is.

He didn't buy twitter for profit. He doesn't mind that it's losing money.

>> the fact that Elon wanted no censorship is.

You fell for his narrative, which is false.

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com