[novalis78]

The mental acrobatics on HN in favor for censorship are quite something to behold.

[bm3719]

For those in favor of censoring the internet, here's a notion that helped me:

Probably all of us would be against censoring the verbal communications between individuals in our society. Such communication is full of untruths and agenda-driven lies. Right now parents and teachers the world over are propagating untruths to children. Workplace discussions are happening around watercoolers where unscientific nonsense is spreading. We just accept that this space of human interaction is the noise floor of our civilization, and maybe even appreciate the agency that this gives us.

With the spread of the internet, that same communication is happening online. It being online is literally the only difference. Let the noise flow, I say, and from it can both objective and social truths arise. To do anything else doesn't give us truth anymore than did restricting interpersonal speech in certain unpleasant regimes throughout history.

[thsksbd]

Censorship and more broad support for surveillance are the only two aspects of HN that i feel has changed since 2011 when I first discovered it.

[Ajay-p]

I think some people truly believe they are 100% correct and anyone who disagrees should be silenced. It is narcissistic thinking that defeats honest debate, or honest communication.

[karmakurtisaani]

This may be true, but it's the wrong straw man to attack in this debate. The real argument for censorship is to eliminate flooding the media with deliberate misinformation in favor of some actor who is doing it on purpose to influence the real world.

I believe if we had had a system in place to censor unscientific information regarding climate change, we would not be in as deep shit as we are now. It's a very strong argument for moderating what can and cannot be said publicly, as the negative consequences will be felt dearly by many.

Obviously there are problems with censorship, but I just want to point out that nothing about this is as clear cut as you would like to believe.

[walls]

A site that is heavily censored having people who see the benefits of moderation shouldn’t be very surprising.

[bavell]

> A site that is moderated having people...

FTFY

[karmakurtisaani]

I assume you enjoy browsing unmoderated message boards then? Do I need to create 100 bot accounts to parrot this point of view for you to believe some amount of censorship is not only beneficial, but actually mandatory.

[em-bee]

these problems can be solved with downvoting. HN is doing that, and the curious/critical readers here can see the dead comments and judge for themselves. no actual removal of comments needed.

[thewanderer1983]

You shouldn't get that annoyed. If you look at the other two links I provided. The elites at the time were calling on censorship for the same reasons as on hackernews and in academia & Government. Same narratives around censoring the printing press as for social media today. I'm not suprised by Government or those (elites) who gain from this. What's a shame to me, is our academics are making the same terrible arguments as those from the 1400's.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

It's very difficult to be a proponent of no censorship/moderation on a site that is known to have [flagged] and [dead] accounts/comments.

[em-bee]

you can still read the flagged and dead comments. they are NOT censored. they are hidden to get out of the way, but they are not removed. if you want to know what is being flagged or dead, you can go and check. i do. that's exactly the point.

[bavell]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread calling for 0 moderation on HN, that feels like a straw man