Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by azangru 2430 days ago
> You know what works? De-platforming them. Not giving them a voice in the public discourse

Many people (me included) find this approach very unpalatable because of how inherently authoritarian it is. (Ironically, this suggestion often comes from the same people who are concerned by how underrepresented some groups are in the public discourse and how the voices of those groups are not heard, and want to artificially amplify those voices). If you have studied history of any repressive regime where dissenters were deprived of any conventional platform and were reduced to circulating their ideas in the underground, you might empathise.

It's absolutely fine not to take certain groups seriously. But it feels (to me) deeply unfair to undermine their very ability to speak.
1 comments
dariosalvi78 2430 days ago
Wait, de platforming is very different than censorship.

Examples: Should climate change deniers be given the same space as actual science?

Should communists (to not only focus on far right) be invited to every serious talk about economy?

link
azangru 2430 days ago
> Should ... be given the same space

> Should ... be invited to every serious talk

Of course not; but "inviting to every X", or "giving the same space" is very different from disallowing X to share the same space (especially if said client change deniers or communists are prepared to have a conversation using roughly the same epistemological tools as actual scientists). There is no onus on platform providers to ensure that every opinion gets the same attention as others; my argument is that they merely let others be.

link