Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

“The people I disagree with politically can have free speech in the mediums that have the least reach while my political tribe will freely exercise our speech on the mediums with the most reach” is a bad faith argument I keep hearing from fake leftists who are really hardline authoritarians.


The mediums which have the most reach have the most reach explicitly because they have less spam porn hate and crazy. If twitter gets more "democratic" more crazy, more hateful, less desirable and less popular shall we suggest the next big platform welcome an equal number of undesirables?


The problem is that for a lot of people “hate and crazy” is a euphemism for “political ideas I disagree with”.

This isn’t new or original. Anyone can classify their political opponents as crazy, dumb, misguided, “hateful” is the new one, ignorant, *ist.

I think a healthier framing is, people who disagree with me politically have their reasons for doing so and the best for everyone is if we have a dialog.


I think the problem is that you can't accept that twitter users don't want to engage with your bs, and that lead to twitter shadow banning it.


They banned political speech they disagreed with, and it sounds like you're happy they did.

> your bs

I have no dog in the fight.

> twitter users don't want to engage with

The country, however, is pretty evenly divided along ideological lines so there is no homogeneous "twitter users" group.


You are free to run your own website if you don't like your placement in trending topics or users feeds kind of like you can share your videos on your blog if ABC wont carry it.


> You are free to run your own website

I am, but that doesn’t solve the problem with Twitter manipulating our elections, does it?


There's a point where this "all opinions have merit" argument is just nihilism and lazy thinking.




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

Search: