Hacker News Reader

Comment by a_shovel | Hacker News Reader

All social media moderation is "banning people for saying stuff people don't like". Most people don't like e.g. spam, or death threats, or racism, so social media offer communication platforms where those kinds of speech are restricted, with varying degrees of effort and success. The goal of banning Vance would be to have a social media site that moderates against the kinds of things Vance says.

View on HN

This makes some sense if Vance was a minor, fringe figure. But he was on a ticket voted for by ~50% of US voters. This is effectively saying that the goal is to have a social media site where half the country is not welcome.

The problem with that is two-fold. One, it neuters any political impact - you're effectively driving away the very voters you need to convince. And two, it creates an echo chamber that distorts reality because everywhere you look people are agreeing with you. Then 2028 rolls around and you're shocked that "the bad guys" won again.

> This is effectively saying that the goal is to have a social media site where half the country is not welcome.

That seems like a good goal. I want to chat with friends about formula one or whatever, not have to have everything messed up by some weirdo who always wants to debate whether minorities have rights.

I don't like Vance at all, but him being on the same social media platform as you isn't the same thing as him showing up uninvited to your formula one conversation.

Sure, but banning him sends a signal to people who do like them that they also aren't welcome.

Exactly the GP's point though, that's essentially sending an indicator to 50% of the population that they're not welcome on the platform. Do you really think a platform that performs actions like that will be successful? In practice, it obviously just creates echo chambers where fringe beliefs are painted as the common majority, because all dissenting views are silenced.

Why wouldn't it be successful? Truth Social seems to be doing pretty well, and no one on the left pretends that they should be allowed post there, the left is happy for those people to fuck off and leave them alone.

Not everyone wants to debate politics all the time. Sometimes they just want to exist as trans people, share posts with their other queer friends and enjoy their day.

> Why wouldn't it be successful? Truth Social seems to be doing pretty well,

Is it? No one I know uses it at all, the only time I even remember it exists is when seeing screenshots of Trump's posts reposted on mainstream media and twitter from his account there. It's essentially the "trump-branded-twitter" and I never even hear of anyone else actually using it.

Compared to twitter, where most people I know still have an account in one way or another, including most notable mainstream figures.

> Not everyone wants to debate politics all the time. Sometimes they just want to exist as trans people, share posts with their other queer friends and enjoy their day.

Well they'd be poorly served by Bluesky, seeing as how someone merely existing on the platform without even breaking any rules has become a hot-button issue.

The whole platform is filled with politics, and people complaining about politics(/political figures). Perhaps politics they agree with are more tolerable than having to see opposing politics on their feed, but I find it hard to believe they truly are attracted to Bluesky for the total lack of politics.

Well, unless they go there for furry porn. There's so much of it for those that seek out such content, perhaps it really goes drown out any semblance of political discussion.

"Someone" in this case being Jesse Singal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com