yqtjnvou

If you know something that another does not, you should teach him. Otherwise, he will never learn any better. And if he doesn't learn any better, he will continue to spread its misinformation everywhere he goes. Ignoring him will not stop the spread of stupidness. That's why it is a duty.

The world is screwed up because everyone looks only to their bellies and their genitals - that's all. The foundation of consumption is based on this and everything evil is as well. I would like for people to think before they act; if they did so, bellies and genitals would no longer represent a factor.

I focus on real problems and not the ones that bring the most income - the latter is politics, which is why I don't dabble in it. Politics was created as a distraction for the population, the idea that someone listens to them, and fights. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's plain stupid.

Freedom of speech is when you see a problem and describe it exactly as what it is; no exceptions. Translate this into your long-post and come up with a single sentence to address it.

It's much better to post imbecilities than to be moderated. Moderation is biased, unmoderated is not. You need to pick your poison.

I like everything pure. Stupidity is part of life; if the people are stupid, then we have a duty to teach them not to be so, instead of silencing them; wouldn't you agree?

My definition is the ability to show a situation for what it is. Now tell me, is this correct, according to its definition?

To describe a situation as-is. Not taking sides.

Because the population is getting stupider by the day (their doing) and it's being programmed. I don't like a re-programmed populations.

All of them. This is the purpose of this thread.

I use their moderators to see exactly what their rules are. Long-posts, depicting the situation as-is, no derogatory terms, and all get removed within 1h after posting.

I wish you good luck in your endeavor. You shouldn't give any details because they are all watching (and waiting). And be careful of your friends (and not enemies).

I am concerned about another problem: To justify their existence, search engines cannot simply ignore certain websites, but what they do is to make them harder to find. There many techniques for this. The average person is not aware of this. I am afraid that current and next generations will simply search for information, and will be fed erroneous ones, instead of the correct ones. This is programming at a global level; the internet as a medium has no borders, has no limits, and not all people are versed in computer science.

I know. That's the point of my question: what is a place completely unmoderated?

Everywhere that allows free speech now has an angle. Some hide it better than others, and people can't see it.

> So I'm not sure if they're saying that isn't what X is doing, or that they're criticising X for not going beyond the law (illegally), or that perhaps they feel that some legal speech is not treated equally?

I'm saying that posts get removed if they contain certain subjects. Nothing offensive is in them but only facts.

> HN is friendly to freedom of speech because the site probably doesn't attract people that are easy to act out when offended or those that like to report people whose content they do not like. Or because of the occasional comment that refocuses a discussion again.

In other words, we're dealing with over-sensitive people on the internet? Children, because those are the only ones that cannot accept the truth. And, since everyone is so easily offended, they have to be protected by content editing?

No one in their right minds would spend a dime for an easily offended person. If this done, there are things at play here.

> Also the amount of taboos seem to correlate with hostility for some reason.

I noticed that too.