"oh but if you allow a platform to suppress stupid shit then how do you know that they won't suppress other blah blah blah" judgment my bro, it is ok if things are subjective
for the same reason we don't allow governments to enact laws or provide any kind of justice system, because there is no way to guarantee they will be always perfectly correct
yes sir
We've had to ask you this before.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against. We ban accounts that cross this line (for more explanation see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), so please stop doing this.
I'm not criticizing them for suppressing conspiracy theories, or even idiocy, I'm criticizing them for getting it wrong. Sure, it's fine if things are subjective, but it's also fine when hell rains down on you for being so seriously wrong.
be better
Be better.
We've had to ask you this before.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Edit: I took a look at your recent account history and saw two relevant things: (1) a lot of good comments, and (2) no other cases of flamewar. Thank you! That's great, and should make the current issue easy to avoid in the future.
I've been personally blocked on multiple forums for saying that we don't have enough information to say that there wasn't a lab leak.
I'm not making a leak claim, but stating as an expert that it's malpractice to characterize your assumptions as facts and without a long and detailed audit we could not know what we'd need to know to make a factual statement. No audit of the Wuhan lab had been done so we could not know what happened.
The government pressured old-Twitter to ban people who pointed out this fact.
> suppressing idiocy is virtuous
Are you applying to have your account blocked then? Because what I'm saying is tautological.
> judgment my bro, it is ok if things are subjective
For your opinion, sure. For policy, no. If we can't attempt to objectively show that something is wrong we can't claim to be censoring misinformation.
But it turns out that the difference in bias of RFE and any number of out-and-out propaganda mills is that if a story is inconvenient to RFE's agenda, they'll de-emphasize it. On the other hand, an out-and-out propaganda mill will just make shit up to fit their narrative.
So where I landed was that RFE was ultimately reliable, but subject to the same little human biases as NPR or AP News or the Financial Times, or any number of other sources that I do trust. Their main source of bias is a bit more of an elephant in the room, but if anything, it makes them a bit harder on their masters.
The irony I see here is that Twitter is on record as to being involved in suppression exercises around COVID, where they basically acted as the governments hands to suppress legitimate voices. Given that, Twitter needs to wear its own State Affiliated Media badge. Hell, what do you even call an entity that willfully suppresses valid and good information that is not favorable to the government? A state apologist?