Comment by soulofmischief | Hacker News Reader

Comment by soulofmischief | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Overgeneralization does no good here; I specifically shaped the conversation around censorship resistance, which is a net win for humanity. This isn't a conversation about allowing supranational companies free reign to do anything they want.

I am all for both individuals and organizations resisting governmental attempts to restrict freedom beyond what is absolutely necessary for a relatively safe and functioning society. If suddenly that individual or organization acts in an authoritarian or antisocial manner, I no longer support it.

This is the eternal battle. How much should a government control? How much control should people have over their government? What are the limits of collectivized resistance? Etc, etc. Obviously, Starlink has profit motives, but to say the company isn't built on ideology wouldn't paint the full picture; I absolutely want ISPs fighting for net neutrality and censorship resistance.

See, ultimately, it should be such that if the government allows something, it's because the people have allowed it. So in an ideal society, all anti-government behavior would be antisocial behavior as well. Unfortunately, that's not the reality we face. Collectivized resistance against overreaching governments is crucial in order to secure our free future.

That's a rather libertarian point of view. That's fine, I have no issue with that, but it's far from mainstream.

Any business or organization absolutely must work in the confines of a legal system. It's there to protect me and a lawful, ordered society. This whole "censorship is the worst thing ever" view is to me fatally flawed. Human rights are clearly somewhat hierarchical. The right to be protected from genocidal propaganda, for example, sits above absolute freedom of speech, in my books.

Besides, as many people point out, Musk has no issue censoring people himself on his platform. He only takes an issue when it's someone else.

I'm not libertarian, nor is advocating for the balancing of individual and collective rights a libertarian point of view.

> Any business or organization absolutely must work in the confines of a legal system.

Strict adherence to this policy effectively bans any meaningful collectivized resistance to the authoritarian ratchet. It traps large groups of people into adhering to autocratic policy in order to protect their livelihood.

You can see this as international businessmen refusing to call Taiwan a country, or individual workers being unable to enact effective resistance due to corporate policy that only exists a matter of governmental policy; for example, programming backdoors into websites.

> censorship is the worst thing ever

I know you're arguing in good faith, but I want to point out that this is a straw man; I specifically mentioned the importance of balance.

I totally agree that the ability for an organization to blast propaganda into another territory is quite the double-edged sword. I love the idea of sparking revolt among the most locked down authoritarian regimes, but I also don't want authoritarian regimes mind-controlling those around me into making decisions which harm everyone in the long run. What a hard problem to solve.

I think we can agree however that an individual should be able to access whatever information they please, provided it is available somewhere else and does not lead to harm. You can make a case for restricting access to CSAM, snuff, restricted nuclear technology specifications, etc. but it's pretty clear-cut that access to a social media platform is an individual right. It's a net good that Starlink initially attempted to resist this judge, even if there are implied edge cases which need to be considered carefully.

> It's there to protect me and a lawful, ordered society

Brazil is not Japan, Germany, or the United States. There is nothing even remotely "lawful" or "ordered" about their legal (or political) system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com