I agree when this is about suppressing opinions, but things are trickier when this is about suppressing disinformation. Pervasive propaganda that appears to be factual can easily manipulate the conclusions of rational adults. Of course, laws that attempt to suppress disinformation are probably ineffective and incredibly liable to abuse outside of restricted domains.

> I agree when this is about suppressing opinions, but things are trickier when this is about suppressing disinformation.

Somebody has to decide what is classified as disinformation. If you have the government do it then whoever the people elect as a censor may make bad decisions. (This is historically what has happened.) If instead you have independent media outlets do it then you have the same problem. Citizens may choose the outlet that publishes disinformation.

The difference is that in the absence of censorship the choice is made by the individual. If 51% of people watch Fox News and Fox News reports disinformation, 51% of people are affected by the disinformation. If 51% of people elect a censor who prohibits everything but what is reported on Fox News then 100% of people are affected, which may lead to a feedback loop in subsequent elections.

It's not that you don't have anyone whose job it is to prevent disinformation from being reported. It's that the person whose job that legitimately belongs to is called a journalist, and you get to choose the ones you like.

I think you'd be surprised. I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks.

And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful. In my opinion, things like being against gay marriage, or being racist are objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate.

I'd rather hear you engage in the debate (I'd definitely be on your side in opposing racism) than simply to ban some topics from being discussed at all. The topics will still be discussed, but only in underground cells of fanatics who will not then hear opposing points of view.

I happen to strenuously disagree with communism (perhaps because I have been studying Chinese since the Cultural Revolution, and Russian even earlier, so I have read a lot of communist literature over the decades) but I would try to be respectful and hear you out if you desired to convince me that my point of view is wrong and yours is correct. Hacker News isn't exactly the place for a debate about the rights and wrongs of communism, but I think the key principle is that everything has to open for discussion in a public place where adults can join in to debate differing points of view.

> "I have family in Paris who have steadily become more and more reactionary as the FN (the French far-right) have been given more exposure, even before these attacks."

What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things? Or for that matter, if we assume for the moment that one did cause the other, how can you be sure which caused which? Perhaps the FN has become more and more mainstream as a result of more and more French citizens drifting towards the right.

> "And it's not an "opposing viewpoint" to me, it's just completely harmful."

I don't really understand why being an opposing viewpoint and being harmful are mutually exclusive to you. You do oppose their viewpoint (very strongly it seems), so it surely is an opposing viewpoint.

>What makes you think there must be a causational relationship between these two things?

It's probably more that the growth of the FN is a result of people becoming "more and more reactionary".

Communism is "objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate."

Not to mention "completely harmful".

Everyone has their own different opinion on which policies and ideas are "objectively wrong and not things that are up for debate". Further, how can you even define terms like racism in ways that are not too broad or too narrow. The meaning of these things can change over time and context. For example debates about immigration, affirmative action etc.

Usually things that are vaguely stated aren't great for delineating as "objectively wrong" or not, since the definition can stretch in all kinds of ways.

Come up with something you want to maximize, that most people will agree with, like human health, and find ways to quantify it. Then you can at least start to see which policies lead to which results.