Would you please stop feeding egregious comments by replying, a.k.a. feeding the trolls? The site guidelines explicitly ask you not to do this, but to flag the comments instead: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I've banned that account but the damage is caused just as much by the users who perpetuate the flamewar.
Comments like this one are...tricky. While I can see why this one should be flagged (and I'm glad that it was), there's similar enough things that aren't flag-worthy posted all the time.
Arguments about speech and censorship are really common on HN, and I doubt you're saying they're all off limits, for example I don't think the subthread with
TearsInTheRain was bad. I certainly think that user is wrong, but I don't see why their comment was flagged (unless the answer is "the whole subthread is flag-y).
Twitter isn't the government. Nor are QAnon-conspiracy-theorists comparable to <an ethnic or religious minority group>. So no. You could, however compare Hitler banning the Jews from civil service to Trump creating new guidelines that ban trans-women from shelters.
That is a government action to marginalize a class of people those in positions of power find undesirable.
Twitter might not be the government but it surely is an institution that has a significant amount of power and influence on society. So much so that I think the public should pressure them to adhere to liberal values like free speech and rightly get upset if they dont.
And regarding the fact that conspiracy theorists arent an ethnic group, sure thats right they are not. They are still an ideological group. Are we committed to making a society that works for a diverse range of ideological groups or do we have to fit inside the box of what Jack Dorsey thinks is normal to participate in society? I think the american value of right to pursue happens means powerful institutions should be extremely careful before judging some group as not being normal or fit for society. Or I guess we can give up these values because now we dont like the results.
Twitter isn't going to shoot you. Twitter isn't going to imprison you. Twitter isn't going to unperson you.
If you think Twitter is influential enough that it is quasi-governmental in authority, you should pursue anti-trust regulation.
But otherwise, no Twitter is nothing like a government, and getting kicked off a platform isn't suppression of speech anymore than a me choosing not to publish your book us suppression of speech.
I highly value the right of any entity to express their speech the way that see fit. That includes Twitter's right to kick people off their platform. I don't agree with the weaponization of "free speech" and liberal values that is common among certain groups, as it is used to quell criticism. When you start weaponizing your "free speech" as a way to constrain others, you are no longer reflecting liberal values.
To further add to this, for fuck sake without twitter you'd be de-platformed from the get go, because there's nothing else like it. It literally democratized the ability to be heard on a national stage - so even peons/non-celebrities have at least a marginal voice.
It's not a human right, a societal right, or any other kind of right. It's a privilege, act like a douche, lose the privilege like every forum before it on the internet. Even this one (Hackernews).
Here's a good solution: Don't post hate speech or mis-leading fake news about a pandemic that could cost people their lives, then keep your platform and your voice.
I mean, you can go pretty far left or right on Twitter before you get banned, already.
It's actually asinine that you are defending censorship. Take a moment to think about that. I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them. Perhaps scientific journals should feel free to suppress research that doesnt toe their political line and lets have journalists... well that ones already a joke.
Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending. Its unreal that this has to be said.
I absolutely support certain kinds of censorship, yes. You do too (for example, I expect you support Youtube's right to keep pornogrophy off it's platform).
That you draw the line on how private entities choose to interact in a different place than I do doesn't make you more righteous.
> I assume you think it would be a no big deal if Harvard started banning certain ideas and expelling people that talked about them.
I certainly hope there are certain ideas that Harvard bans. They certainly ban specific forms of research. That's why we have IRBs, because people, when free to research any topic without any oversight, did awful things to other people.
> Even if protecting free speech in non governmental institutions shouldnt be written into law it a is an ideal that every person should be defending
No. I have no responsibility to assist you in publishing drivel, and the idea that I or anyone else has a moral responsibility to help you publish drivel is nonsense. Much as I have a right to tell you that you are wrong, I also have a right to not help you spread your message. To deny that is a perversion of the right of free expression.
I can't tell if you're being needlessly pedantic, but to clarify: no there are no similarities between the holocaust and getting banned from twitter. The two situations aren't similar, and comparing them is disgusting and shows a lack of empathy for people who have faced actual persecution.
Sure, you can write the words that compare them. No, you should not.
