Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Orthogonal to this, but I find it terribly ironic that many of the "freedom of speech"'ers are probably the least likely to actually be able to argue their corner in a rational, sensible and polite way.

Consider for example a left wing person trying to have a conversation with a pro Trump group on Parler. They'd get shouted out. That's not promotion of "free speech", it's promotion of "echo chamber of the same opinions as mine".

Same goes on the left - imagine suggesting that maybe immigration should be thought about or you have an angle on the trans community that didn't quite sit well with the wokies...

The point is that life is subtle and nuanced. Free speech in my humble opinion needs to be earned - which means open dialogue where ultimately you might be prepared to admit you're wrong.




[flagged]


Looks like your opinion is not extreme enough /s On a serious note, as found in the second paragraph about Freedom of Speech on Wikipedia

> The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"

Which I'd argue is fairly relevant when considering the Trump scenario.

Seeing how "some instances still moderate their content", I think Freedom of Speech is a weak argument since the solution to moderation is moving to a different instance which is enabled by decentralization.

Edit: Interesting how a (imo reasonable) comment about Freedom of Speech got censored.




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

Search: