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

Don't forget that in this case 2 million people signed a petition saying what's happening on the platform is non consensual, AND they got taken to court and lost.

That is the legal system working. Taking payments away for someone who has lost in the legal system, on the censorship scale is probably more acceptable even to someone who's very pro free speech.

It's another thing when visa and mastercard ban forums or subscriptions for people who are voicing their personal political opinions. That becomes a slippery slope very quickly. What court or jurisdiction or due process to visa and mastercard have to decide what is acceptable or not? Is being anti immigration acceptable, or is that racist? What about anti illegal immigration? What about feminists worried about trans rights? What about covid vaccinations? Youtube has blanket banned pro and anti vaccination content. Should mastercard follow? What about anti climate change discussion? What about anti green tax discussion, does that count as anti climate change?

We are on this slippery slope already IMO. And it's not looking very good good for free speech.



Or for something actually happening, how about people accused of "critical race theory" or endorsing BDS? These are prohibitions that are entering state law - so are these more acceptable for people who are "very pro free speech?"

Right-wing talk about free speech usually just sounds like people want to make being a right-wing bigot a protected class. I've heard a reasonable argument that it's really just a largely unrecognized ethnic group of Scots-Irish evangelicals. From that point of view, it makes a little sense.




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

Search: