Really? An "'I hate white people' t-shirt" parallel?
Don't even get me started on that atrocious "we don't need to see this" line of argumentation. If the Google+ is going to censor (let's call things by their proper names) pictures that "people don't need to see", where's the goddamned line?
Imbecile.
That such a poorly constructed argument makes its way to the Hacker News homepage is worrisome. I had the hope that people who use logic for a living would have higher standards.
Suppressing racist speech is also censorship, so it seems like you're actually affirming the parallel. Since you seem to think it's self-evident that racist content should be banned and equally self-evident that this content should not be, why don't you tell us where the line is? This is very fine line to walk — you will anger somebody no matter what you do — so if you have any insights, I'm sure the people faced with the decision will appreciate them.
The line is where they, as a company, decide to put it. I would not go to a social networking site that had gore or porn polluting my feeds. Similarly, you might not go to a website that disallows any content. That's our prerogative. It's facile to paint it as a free speech argument.
Why would you subscribe to users that post gore or porn to your feeds?
Tumblr has plenty of porn, but you can certainly use it without ever getting it on your dashboard. It's just a matter of, you know, not following the people who post it.
Don't even get me started on that atrocious "we don't need to see this" line of argumentation. If the Google+ is going to censor (let's call things by their proper names) pictures that "people don't need to see", where's the goddamned line?
Imbecile.
That such a poorly constructed argument makes its way to the Hacker News homepage is worrisome. I had the hope that people who use logic for a living would have higher standards.