Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Trying again. I wanted to focus on your theme of repressed voices, not which side is good or bad (a losing game of tribal warfare).

> dissenting opinions on U.S. politics were silenced on reddit

A quick googling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/29/reddit-...

It’s not as simple as you make it out and your framing of it suggests a significant bias on your part. Some speech doesn’t deserve a platform. You’re still free to think it, to say it out loud, to buy a domain and host it, and talk about it with like minded people — but you have zero god-given right to engage in that shit-talk in other people’s space in which you are a guest.

Censorship is a concern, free speech is a concern but it’s complicated. Add in the weaponization of social media and the lovely gift of the power of disinformation from your motherland and it gets messier still.

You’ve provided incredibly weak evidence to make your case (an article that didn’t praise T and an article that unnecessarily dunked on him). And all the while you conveniently ignore key factors (i.e., that T. treated his office as his personal kingdom and expressed contempt for those not loyal to him, ad nauseam).

Someday I should actually read it, but the theme itself is pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: