Recent submissions

Comment · 7 years ago
Millions read it only because of the backlash, but what about all the people who didn't speak up because of the fear of getting abused by angry mobs and fired? You can't pretend a censorship attempt isn't one just because it backfired and failed.
Comment · 7 years ago
Frankly, all those things that people are going "is it deplatforming?" pretty much are deplatforming, but I figured pointing out the distraction tactic was worth more than engaging in the argument over definitions.
Comment · 7 years ago
It's hard to measure, but it does often bring attention to them when we have these discussions. I do feel the left's online attitude is firing back more than it's helping them. More than anything it makes people who had no position to take a side, which benefits those that are banking on the controversies the most.
Comment · 7 years ago
I think we mostly agree. I was just replying to the idea that people are calling for the government to force speech, which felt like a weird notion (though when it comes to the political extremes, I'm sure both sides would love nothing more than total control over what's acceptable speech).
Comment · 7 years ago
No, that's ebg13 trying to narrow the scope of the discussion so they don't have to address the issue. The same thing that's happening in this subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143570

Your quote is a response to throwawaysea's comment, which is clearly much more general than that:

>Leaving aside culture wars waged by individuals, I see institutional tightening on free speech all over America. I see it in big tech companies, where only a progressive monoculture exists with no psychological safety for other viewpoints. I see it in censorship applied by defacto digital public squares like YouTube. I see it in the left's rampant use of deplatforming to silence opposing views. Increasingly, I also see it in universities (see this incident at the University of Washington today https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-university-of-was...).

Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 7 years ago
China is particularly problematic because they are huge and powerful. I agree it would be better to use democratic countries instead, but since that's not gonna happen, I'm glad companies are at least moving to smaller countries.
Comment · 7 years ago
I think getting caught up in the "but does it fit the definition of deplatforming?" is a pretty obvious distraction from the issue.
Comment · 7 years ago
>they were buried under poorly understood and debunked science and statements that were easily misunderstood.

I didn't read his essay or follow this case at all, but from Wikipedia it seems he was arguing that biological differences between the sexes are a driving factor for the lack of women programmers at Google. That's a position that's solidly backed by the science.

Comment · 7 years ago
Not just the US. I think this is being driven by the social dynamics of the Internet. Things like filter bubbles and click-driven journalism. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter shape discussions in particular ways that are very different than offline.
Comment · 7 years ago
I somehow missed that. His proposal sounds much more narrow however, targeting only companies that have become a "sole provider of some functions". I do think breaking up the monopoly is a no-brainer in this scenario.
Comment · 7 years ago
>The government forcing private entities to disseminate speech they don't want to — that's where this leads, right?

I don't think so. Is anyone proposing this as a solution? The parent certainly doesn't seem to be.

Comment · 7 years ago
Political groups forcibly silencing opposing views is.
Comment · 7 years ago
Maybe not technically, but that's irrelevant. It's part of the phenomenon being discussed.
Comment · 7 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton