Oh, look, another omniscient person protecting all the lesser human beings from the crime of wrongthink. So virtuous, moraly superior. What would we all do without them.
One can work or not on something for whatever reason they want. Just spare us the long description of how other people are lesser human beings that should have their rights restricted for their own good, and how it's better this way.
Now you want to limit their freedom of speech? Because you don't like what they say or how they say it? You're free to skip the parts you don't like and focus on the ones you find valuable.
(I was thinking whether to end this post with /s or not, and strangely, both ways provide valid context for this post; therefore, I'll end this with a Heisenberg /ß.)
> Just spare us the long description of how other people are lesser human beings that should have their rights restricted for their own good
That seems like a particularly uncharitable reading of the post. From the article:
> Many of you reading this will not agree with me, and that’s fine. I’m not going to try and change your beliefs with this blog post. Rather, I’m looking to explain why, while I respect that others might have differing opinions, I stopped doing anything that would actively advance a technology whose ethics I question. To put it in other terms: your freedom of speech isn’t my obligation to enable you and give you a platform.
The author isn't advocating making the distributed web illegal? I'm not sure what rights you think they're advocating restricting either? The article simple raises the question of if this technology would on-balance improve or harm society based on the experiences we've had with the web so far and the kind of content that can _already_ be found on IPFS.
The author says it doesn't stack up for them, and so they aren't working on it any longer. They call for others to put more thought into what they work on and how it may be used. Seems pretty reasonable.
By all means, disagree and explain why you think the scales are different than the author. But when you say something like:
> Just spare us the long description of how other people are lesser human beings
I don't know man, you clicked the link to read a personal blog. If simply reading someone's thought process as they come to a different conclusion than yours is such a sufferance for you maybe exercise some of that freedom and don't read it. As it is you're just coming across like a troll.
Hacker news discussion should be of higher quality than that.
Would your attitude be different if you were agreeing with what he says? I disagree with him but he's absolutely free and welcome to make such blog posts. If you don't like what you read, don't read more. Unfortunately you cannot ask for a refund of your time when reading blog posts.
There is a difference between a critique and censorship. The person is not advocating that the hosting company of this blog post remove it from the internet, he is saying the writing added no value, so should not have been written in the first place. I would assume your down-votes are for purposefully conflating these points.
> There is a difference between a critique and censorship.
I don't say otherwise, or even refer to "critique" or "censorship" in my post, so what are you talking about?
> The person is not advocating that the hosting company of this blog post remove it from the internet
I also didn't accuse them of advocating the hosting company of this blog remove it from the internet, or even remotely hint at such, so what are you talking about?
> should not have been written in the first place
He said the author of the blog should "just spare us" their opinion.
If you want to carry on pretending you don't understand what that means I can't stop you, but next time try addressing what was actually written, not stuff you've completely made up to argue about.
The downvotes are far more likely simply because some people who love hate speech but hate free speech have more than 500 karma.
Obviously (thought it seems not to you) free speech advocates like myself have no problems with different opinions being expressed. It doesn't mean other people have to agree with them. They can express they opposition and critique. And they don't even have to endure reading it.
In a way, I can't even understand how could you have confused the two (critique vs censorship).
I don't know who you were hoping to kid here, other than yourself, but grandly stating someone should "just spare us" their opinion you don't happen to agree with is obviously not even remotely a "critique" of anything, it's simply a call for someone to shut the fuck up, because what matters (to "us") is what you personally are willing to tolerate.
In a way, I can't even understand how you could actually need this spelled out to you, unless you simply have no grasp of what you're posting, which admittedly is what it looks like.
The OP is a long posts explaining how other people don't deserve their right to free speech and how that made them stop working on IPFS, and somehow you twist my frustration phrased as "just spare us" as saying I am trying to censor OP.
Not exactly, he just chooses not to participate, which is fine. Many - me included - still think freedom of speech is important, so these systems need to be built, and hopefully, they will. We can also choose to participate.