Hacker News Reader

Comment by ImPostingOnHN | Hacker News Reader

There's a difference between, say, restricting posting of targeted harassing hate speech, or incorrect medical advice that can harm people, versus restricting people from posting about themselves, if it mentions things they can't change (their race, disability, sexual orientation, etc.)

Indeed, the two are so different that being in favor of the former doesn't at all weaken the argument against doing the latter.

It turns out there's a middle ground between "no content moderation" and "restrict people for discussing some innocent physiological aspect of themselves they can't change", and that middle ground can be totally ok

Just like there's a totally-ok middle ground between libertarians who oppose any regulation at all, and authoritarians who want to control literally everything

View on HN

That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't". The thing is, everybody draws that line in a different place. And it's just too easy to cast everything you don't like as "medical harm". It wasn't just people playing doctor who got censored for instance, it was also people just stating what decision they were making for themselves, not advocating anything for anyone else. And on the flipside, it's pretty easy for assholes on the other side to claim that they're "protecting children from medical harm (transgender operations, etc) from the LGBT community.

The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Anything short of that, and you're always going to run into people who draw the line in a way you find harmful.

> That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't".

Is it? According to who? After all, anybody can say "A is just another way of saying B" (especially if they ignore the differences), but it doesn't make it true. To wit: the differences I cited prove that there are differences.

> The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with.

Historically speaking, accepting violence against minorities, and the rhetoric which fosters it, has not "worked" for the minorities.

> Is it? According to who?

Medical advice was quite different between nations. Doctors and chief epidemiologists gave their advice, sometimes opposite advice to others, grounded in scientific beliefs that the individual held at the time. One of the biggest controversy and debates was the effectiveness of non-N95 surgical mask against airborne virus particles. Different studies gave different results, and depending on which culture, country and professional you asked you got different medical advice. It only got more muddled when it came to outdoor vs indoor.

That is just one example. It is well known in medical research that culture has a major impact on research findings and should not be overlooked. What is correct or incorrect is not obvious in a international context, and what help people in one place can be directly harmful in an other.

> The only way this works, is if we become more accepting of opinions we fundamentally truly disagree with. Anything short of that, and you're always going to run into people who draw the line in a way you find harmful.

We've tried this. This is what lead to Florida removing the vaccine mandate, something that is going to cause real harm because people have bought into a shared delusion. This tolerance of fundamental disagreements has metastasized into people committing real harm using the power of the state rather than any sort of centrist utopia.

1. Causing real harm via people buying into a shared delusion can describe more than one conspicuous left-wing position.

1. "We've tried this [and it doesn't work]" is not a position you really want to hold. If we, all, stop trying this, things are going to look very heterosexual and very White. The current progressive zeitgeist is a direct result of the majority accepting foreign opinions of minorities.

1. Removing a mandate is not "using the power of the state", it's explicitly not using the power of the state.

So, as an example, then, you would be ok with someone putting up billboards with your picture calling for you to be executed? I mean, you have to be accepting of an opinion you disagree with, right? Otherwise you're arguing in bad faith and showing that there is a line you feel can't or shouldn't be crossed.

While we're at it, maybe the billboard includes some false claims about the subject engaging in inappropriate and/or illegal behavior with children, etc.

After all, no line means no line, right? That's what the minorities in question are being subjected to, that's the sort of rhetoric we're discussing. Indeed, such a billboard would be as much about "protecting the children" as the example OP gave.

The point is not to allow anything, the point is to be more tolerant that we currently are. If it's legal, we should default to being accepting of it. There are obvious extreme cases where the law gets involved, but the law should do so reluctantly, and only in cases where the vast majority of people agree. Cases where the population are split 50-50 should be hashed out in public, without those in positions of power artificially inhibiting a fair and open dialog.

It sounds, then, like you'd be okay with the example in question: a billboard saying you're mentally ill, grooming children for sexual activity, and should be executed, because that is the rhetoric we're discussing, except that it is directed towards people who are LGBT (which you may or may not be)

I believe the law should be enforced, and that the legal system should be where these issues get hashed out. And that the legal system should be very suspicious of a need for censorship; they are few and far between.

My personal take is, it's very different saying "I'm against murder", and saying "that man is a murderer". We have libel laws to protect individuals from slander, and I think that's a good thing. But I don't think there should be any prohibition on talking about policy in general.

So it should be legal and tolerated for people to loudly proclaim "all white people are racist", but not put up a billboard of some white dude, and claim he is a racist, unless you're prepared to defend that allegation in court.

It still sounds, then, like you'd be okay with the example in question: a billboard saying you're mentally ill, grooming children for sexual activity, and should be executed.

Because again, that is exactly the rhetoric we're discussing: Rhetoric which says 'X is mentally ill, grooming children for sexual activity, and should be executed'.

If it's okay to say it when X is an LGBT person, or all LGBT people, then it is also okay to say it when X is you. So why try to sue for something you are okay with?

Conversely, if it is inappropriate censorship to try to moderate such messaging when X is an LGBT person, or all LGBT people, then it is also inappropriate censorship to try to moderate such messaging when X is you.

And what if the current administration changes the law to say that anything criticizing Trump is illegal?

What if they change the law to say that hate speech against ethnic minorities is legal?

Taking the current law, at any given moment, as our standard for ethics is not a tenable position.

"How come I am not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre, while you are allowed to yell your lines while performing your play?"

> That's just another way of saying "my opinion is acceptable, and theirs isn't".

No, it's not. There are laws in several countries of what kind of things you can publish in public. Sure, the line is definitely blurry, but there are lots of cases where it's not. Of course, Meta being an American company often means that local laws have less of an effect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com