[ecf]

What do government contracts have to do with wanting to try to tackle a problem where millions of people of this country can’t be trusted to personally vet what they read/watch online?

Don’t get me wrong it’s not about taking the right action because what’s right is subjective.

I’m simply saying it’s not surprising that they seem to be wanting to at least TRY something to help the problem.

[todd8]

Perhaps, but I would say what people believe is right is subjective. So should we burn books that we disagreed with? The book burners are TRYING to do something to help in their view.

[core-questions]

> millions of people of this country can’t be trusted to personally vet what they read/watch online?

How dare you. This is the epitome of an elitist attitude, isn't it? Reeks of privilege, honestly, and that's not a term I use lightly, considering how abused it is today. You must be so much smarter than all these people, because you agree with the mainstream take on everything. How high status of you! Why, if we had a class system, I'd have to assume that you view yourself as a Brahmin, and these millions as Untouchables who are not fit to make their own decisions about what information they consume.

This is a morally reprehensible attitude. You would turn over people's freedom to corporate gatekeepers and pretend that it's "for their own good". Do you understand what it means to be an apparatchik? By saying things like this, you make it clear that this is the role you're hoping to take on for yourself under the coming totalitarian liberalist system. Do you also inform on your neighbours?

> what’s right is subjective

What an easy way to weasel out of moral accountability. OK, if that's true, then for me and for millions of other people, "what's right" is absolute freedom of speech, extending to online, even when it makes people mad or uncomfortable to have to confront ideas they disagree with.

[dang]

Please don't cross into personal attack and flamewar, as you did here and upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690071). We ban accounts that do that.

You have a fair point about elitism here, one that will work much better if you express it thoughtfully and substantively anyhow.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ksk]

>wanting to try to tackle a problem where millions of people of this country can’t be trusted to personally vet what they read/watch online?

Yeah, I don't trust them to do anything remotely competent here. They've happily accepted ad spend from Trump, as-if the past four years were any different. Google is the problem, not the solution. They're an advertising and surveillance company - the last company to be trusted on "vetting" anything. They're entire business model is to get people to click on ads and open their wallet based on "marketing" - which itself is a form of manipulation. For me, Google is at a negative trust level.