wordsworst

Characterizing the state limiting the actions a corporation may take, by regulation, as the state “trusting” the corporation is absurd.

Acting like we are talking about nebulously “bad” speech when the primary subject is 1) denial of the factual event of the Holocaust and 2) incitement towards a future Holocaust is deeply insensitive to the present and growing fear of that exact thing.

Pretending that any white supremacist or anti-semitic propaganda which comes from a politician must simply be “algorithmically similar to hate speech”, and could not conceivably be hate speech per se, is the pinnacle of politically motivated reasoning.

And somehow we put all of that together to arrive at the dramatic conclusion that... the status quo is fine with me, and nothing should change. It’s a nice speech, mind you.

I can’t possibly replace HN with another platform— where else am I going to find such passionately incoherent arguments from the radical middlebrow?

It’s literally the opposite. “Opposed to moral consensus” is immoral. “Grey area” is definitionally amoral.

You’re complaining because “amoral” still sounds like a bad thing to call someone. And it is, exactly because history doesn’t tend to see that “it seemed like a grey area at the time” defense very charitably.