Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

Not sure why there should be a legal distinction between the two. There are many possible ways to interact with stuff online (view it, "like" it, comment on it, save it, share it etc.), and if it is government-sponsored content then no one should be barred from doing any of this.

View on HN

Well let’s say someone just spams a prominent account with bot accounts, such that any and all discussion beneath their posts is ruined. Or fills the mentions with slander, hateful comments etc.

twitter is the Wild West right now, full of bots and comments that violate rules but take a while to get enforced.

Blocks solve that. But also deprive people of being able to hear announcements.

Splitting the ability to listen to a broadcast and the ability to broadcast on a broadcast seems sensible. You could, after all, be removed from a courtroom or government press conference for being disruptive.

They can't just block speech using bots as the excuse. It's up to the government officials to provide a channel that allows free speech as the law defines.

I imagine this will more likely raise issue with the use of private social platforms for public statements rather than whether they can block comments.

It's perfectly legal for the government or government officials to post on government sites without comment sections. I'm happy of they disable replies altogether. I'm fine if they only show moderated replies.

The problem is that Twitter won't even let you link to a tweet by a user you've been blocked by. That's definitely not okay.

> I'm fine if they only show moderated replies.

Politicians are going to start creating their own Safe Spaces so they don’t have to read any discontent or criticism. Maybe we can get Butters to do the moderation?

They already do, most politicians refuse to be seen outside of rallies. It is not necessary to mock them to their face to mock them. And mock them you should.

I would somewhat disagree with this and say that if someone is to be barred from doing any of this, there needs to be some semblance of due process in the form of clearly defined circumstances when that can happen, for how long, etc.

And a private entity should have zero say or lever over this.

Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc. should have no right to censor public discourse.

y'guys need Natuonal Twitteritics and Spaces Administration. Or strict openness requirements for social media like telcos. Twitter as for-profit infinigrowth company don't make a huge sense just like wholly private buses and water supply don't work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com