undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbriandear4y ago0 comments

HN doesn’t promote comments based on a secret, politically motivated algorithm. Users also don’t get banned if they express a contrarian opinion. If I post something skeptical on Covid origins or the vaccines, I won’t get banned from HN. People can downvote, reply, or ignore as they choose. Even comments that are “dead” can still be read if one chooses. There is some common sense moderation, for example calling someone a nazi or some kind of slur can get you in trouble, but ideas themselves aren’t censored. HN doesn’t “fact check.” Ideas on HN compete on their merits generally. When Twitter and friends use “fact checks” as a weapon to suppress other viewpoints, that’s the problem.

The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story right before an election is a shining example of the problem with Twitter. All sorts of “fact checkers” claimed it was a false story. Some even claimed it was a Russian plot (none of those who claimed such things had their Twitter accounts suspended by the way.) Two years later WaPo and The NY Times verified what the NY Post said all along.

Hillary Clinton maintains the 2016 election was stolen. Yet she’s still on all of the socials. There are still Democrats that claim 2004 was stolen and videos of their theories are still on YouTube.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=77i_pC3lp04

The problem isn’t one of moderation. It’s a problem of so-called fact checking. Twitter, by “fact checking” has become a publisher. Moderation isn’t the same thing as fact checking. HN users do the fact checking (as opposed to HN itself,) but it’s left to the reader to decide for themselves.

Secret algorithms promoting content and opaque fact checking is the real problem with Twitter.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

themitigating4y ago

First - You make this claim "HN doesn’t promote comments based on a secret, politically motivated algorithm. " what evidence do you have for this secret politically motivation algorithm?

Censorship and Fact Checking: You are claiming that ideas are being censored via fact checking. However you state multiple examples hence you are aware of them and the ideas aren't being censored. The reason for this is that multiple services exist and therefore what is the damage of Twitter moderating with fact checks?

The Election:

Hillary Clinton conceded Nov 9th 2016 "“Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country,” Clinton said." [1] To be fair she rolled this back [4] but has she made it her entire platform or have the Democrats used it to whip up anger?

As to "Democrats" who make claims of election fraud or videos; are they elected officials, if so how many? I can become a member of a party by filling out a form or just state that I'm a "Republican" and say anything as well. Would it be fair to then say "Republicans are saying X"? That sounds like an easy way to damage the reputation of a group that basically has open membership.

The difference between previous elections and now is the number of election lawsuits, the amount of actual Republican politicians making the claim, the amount of time and number of news outlets discussing it, the January 6th attack, the number of protests that are still happening, states planning to send alternative electors, and the former president still claiming wide spread fraud.

In fact Trump has claimed 2016, the election he won, was fraudulent as well [2] and just last month filed a lawsuit about it [3] This isn't an argument about censorship only against comparing then and now.

[1] "https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/ge..."

[2]https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797

[3]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/24/trump-hillar...

[4]https://www.yahoo.com/video/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-e...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse