Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by smcl 1620 days ago
Because it's basically never been a thing there. Facebook, Twitter, Google - all of these platforms can and do remove things from their platforms for whatever reason they feel like. There's nothing we can do about it, there is no free speech there and acting indignant like they're eroding some right that you previously had is just pointless.

It'd be like complaining that you can't get sushi at McDonalds anymore. You couldn't ever do that, McDonalds haven't indicated that they would offer this and we all know it's not going to happen.
2 comments
wintermutestwin 1620 days ago
Maybe their network effect monopoly means that they are essentially a public service and maybe our basic concepts of free speech should apply to all public services.

I am obviously not talking about our current legal framework, but proposing the idea that the concepts and reason for free speech are meaningful enough to transcend that framework.

link
foxfluff 1620 days ago
There's no "anymore" in these complaints though. There's just the complaint.

It's not "my parents started beating me while they in the past didn't", it's just "parents are beating me." Or "google is suppressing my speech."

Past actions of the involved entities do not invalidate the complaint. Likewise, "the grocery store next door doesn't sell sushi" is a legit complaint for the afflicted regardless of whether sushi was sold in the past or not. (Coincidentally, my go-to store just stopped selling sushi a week or two ago)

link
smcl 1620 days ago
> But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS.

See italicised section, it suggests there's a promise of free speech on Google that are somehow reneging on. I am just saying that this is a mistake, and now loads of people seem to be mad at the idea that I'm attacking "free speech". One of the reasons I thought it shouldn't be here is that it's fairly complex topic that IMO is orthogonal to the case in question because it raises all sorts of thorny side-issues that distract from the main thing: someone got booted from Google quite unfairly.

link