Hacker News Reader

Comment by weberer | Hacker News Reader

>To ensure users stay safe on the platform, we explicitly disallow:

>Misinformation & Conspiracy Theories

>Spreading false or misleading information that can cause harm to individuals or society is prohibited. This includes conspiracy theories that have been debunked or lack credible evidence.

Why? That sounds so dumb to waste resources policing it.

View on HN

Who determines what’s credible or not? This sounds like “if we don’t like what you have to say, you’re gone”.

And why is that a bad thing ? That's the free market. The business owns the platform and you don't have an innate 'right' to be there.

Why is it a good thing? What's the motivation behind it? It just seems like a really unnecessary restriction to have when you're trying to launch a FOSS alternative existing software.

It’s a good thing because it gives companies autonomy to do what they want (within the law). It’s your responsabilità to take it or leave it.

The alternative is an oligarchy type model where you are bound to the whims of some external party.

Why are you opposed to running your servers the way you want? Why do you support people that don't run your servers controlling what you can and cannot say?

This is for content on Revolt.chat itself. You can download and host your own servers and allow people to lie all you want. But on the servers they control, they can decide what they allow.

Why are you opposed to running your servers the way you want?

This sounds like a violation of freedom 0, if this extend to the software you run (self hosted).

They did not say they are policing it.

What is the point of disallowing without policing?

Probably same as most other social platforms. Selective enforcement, virtue signaling, a tool to use when they get bad press for a server.

I mean, bad press will chastise you even if you actually enforce stuff

It’s really fucking boring how every platform that hosts speech tries to nudge you in their direction these days.

I don't know why everyone think's they have a right to say and behave however they want using someone else's services.

If the platform or provider don't want to associate with you, that's their prerogative.

The hubris to assume otherwise is ridiculous.

No platform can allow you to 100% say whatever you want, just how it has limit to what it can enforce. Every platforms has to balance this fact. It is impossible to enforce clear borders on this as well, as human interaction is endlessly complex.

They can allow you to 100% say whatever you want as long as the law allows them to host your speech. If they try to limit you beyond that, they are censoring you, which is what is occurring here.

Anyone that feels this type of moderation is censorship can use/host an instance with different rules.

Why are you opposed to running your servers the way you want? Why do you support people that don't run your servers controlling what you can and cannot say?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com