Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Is the present alternative, where sites aren't allowed to keep existing (or, assuming they find a new host, "have to switch hosts a few times") after encouraging three ethnic massacres, really worse? Is that specific line really going too far?



Do you really want to give Trump the power to choose what is allowed to be said and what isn't?


He already has that power, and used it in signing FOSTA/SESTA. No use making slippery slope arguments when you're not at the top.


I'm talking about this specific line.

It's not like this is the first line to be painted about what's allowed on the internet. There are already lines drawn prohibiting hosting child porn and selling illegal drugs online. Neither of those lines caused us to slip down a slope to an overly-censored internet.


Medicinal CBD can get you arrested in places. While long ago, alcohol was also prohibited. Also, forbidding drugs was used to oppress African-Americans. None of these things seem to me good.

And we are already coming to a more censored internet. Sex work was forbidden with FOSTA. Many mainstream conservative opinions are censored. Opinions which Obama had when president are now considered hate speech and censored. There is more and more censorship.


This seems equivalent to an argument against the concept of laws in general: "Some good things were outlawed before, so we shouldn't have any laws at all". I don't think that's a good argument for complete lawlessness, and I don't think yours is a good argument for lawlessness on the internet.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

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

Search: