Stop looking at right now, today, this week. Look forward. Look forward to when you are old; look forward beyond your lifetime; look forward to when this time in history has been forgotten by the cultural memory, to when the transitory arguments of today, this afternoon, or this year, have been forgotten; and ask yourself what kind of world you don't want to see, even if it means you ruefully admit it makes things harder now.
That introspection has been lost and probably, the human race won't survive this period if we don't figure it out.
That is not what the Supreme Court decided. The only decision they made was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn't apply religious neutrality to the case, and reversed the Commission's decision[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
The Wayback Machie is the latest 1984 example: https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/information-war-interne...
(note yc already shadow bands 0h links by not allowing comments on submissions, this (yc) is an awesome place, it's sad really)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24406518
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23495333
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23486135
I don't understand this. Donald Trump can say whatever he wants. Alex Jones can say whatever he wants. Why are you saying that their rights are being trampled? Why paint them as victims? As it happen, the right to speak is not a right to be heard and Trump's supporters can hear him as much as they want. Twitter decided that it would not be through their product.
If I invite a bunch of friends at my place and one of them start spewing hatred and lies, I'll kick him out. He can continue in the street as far as I am concerned. Just not in my house... What right were denied here?
I never heard those arguments a few years back when Fox news used to invite liberals on their show just to cut them in the middle of a sentence because they didn't like what they were saying. It infuriated me alright. But I never went as far as to think it was illegal.
Do you propose that Twitter should be forced by the government not to give context to tweets? It seems that the supreme court disagreed with that idea when they decided that a company cannot be forced to sell a cake to a gay couple.
> What one CAN do and what one SHOULD do are very different things and I think people's pragmatism is blinding them to how this will work out for people 100 years from now.
I completely agree with you. The President of the United States CAN instill doubt into the very heart of democracy using all the cynicism and lies he can muster. But SHOULD he do it? What I am saying is that between the theoretical threats of having a private company exercising its right to manage its products in its own way and the president of a country going for a power grab, the urgency, to me, seems pretty clear.
Let's agree to disagree.