This question seems disingenuous. Your comment equates the U.S. Government attempting to suppress speech critical of their own decisions with dang moderating an internet forum. These are not the same.
The first amendment protects speech in the United States for good reason. There are bad people in the world. Those bad people can end up in government. The government wields incredible power. The three branches are meant to keep each other in check - but so are the citizens. The ability to vote in/out candidates is a balancing force. The humans in power being able to distort speech in the country to favor keeping them in power breaks that balancing force.
This article is asking "did the government attempt to suppress speech." That has nothing to do with moderation on HN.
dang is not a representative of a government. It's entirely reasonable (IMO) for the mods here to suppress speech critical of decisions a government is making - it's their site. It is entirely unreasonable for a government to suppress speech critical of decisions the government is making. Blurring that line is how you do a fascism.
There's a lot there, but you know, I'm just tired of seeing people die from what are almost certainly (vaccine) preventable illnesses. I've stood in enough funeral processions. I wonder if there is any way for the government to try and prevent that? It seems like they attempted to work with private companies (and passed no laws to coerce them into it). And what about the companies? Perhaps they agreed with those in government they were in contact with and worked to police their platforms. Would that look much different from coercion?
“Terrorists” and child pornographers are bad. A three letter agency without the 4th amendment is worse.
Racists on Twitter telling you vaccines cause autism and that you can fix your phone’s water damage by microwaving it are bad. A U.S. President without the 1st amendment is worse.
We intentionally limit what government is able to do with broad strokes - it has a high risk for abuse.
Anything you yield today is going to live through multiple regime changes. You aren’t just trusting the current government with this power - you’re trusting everyone that will inherit it. The seeds of fascism are sowed through good intentions.
Was there a violation of the 1st or 4th amendments here? It would seem that the charitable interpretation of the big tech companies' actions is that they are willingly working with the government to provide the best information to their citizens in order to promote the general welfare.
This may be one of the most asinine things I have read on this website. Child pornography is worse than a corrupt government. I would rather have my rights stripped from me and be sent to a concentration camp than for someone to force a child to have sex.
I post here now because the locally-enforced Overton window is much larger than alternative platforms, which makes conversations much more interesting, challenging, and productive.
If people could say whatever they wanted here, I’d expect to see a lot more comments I wouldn’t bother engaging with at all, but that’s okay.
I’m not a horse — I don’t need blinders to prevent me from getting spooked.
