[undoware]

It's wild that HN, forum that seems disproportionately in favor of unregulated speech should feel uncomfortable when a newspaper chooses a critical editorial stance.

You agree that, by your own lights, editorial stances of newspapers are none of your business, yes? Free speech, yes?

Everyone says 'both sides' but that's not actually the case, is it? Shoe, meet other foot.

[EDIT]: typos removed

[mitthrowaway2]

I don't think anyone here is calling for the government to restrict the NYT's editorial tone. They're saying that this behaviour is unbecoming of a newspaper of the NYT's reputation, and that their trust in this institution has been damaged as a result.

[undoware]

No one needs to -- the Free Speech Debate is not really about the government, is it? Elon didn't buy Twitter to protect it from the fed. He bought it to protect it from what he calls a "woke mind-virus" -- aka, progressive politics.

This article is trending because -- and I'm generalizing here -- HN skews center-right (what I like to call 'business-right'.) As a result, it has fallen prey to the false narrative of corrupt left-wing mainstream media unfairly maligning good honest billionaires.

[mitthrowaway2]

Without being inconsistent, I can simultaneously hold these views:

1: "Free speech is important; the NYT should be allowed to say whatever they want, maybe even including shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, whether using their own platform or Twitter's, and neither the government nor private companies should restrict them";

== A pro-free-speech stance

and

2: "the NYT embarrassed themselves by shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, caused public harm, and damaged the trust and reputation that they held with their audience, and I don't think it was wise of them to do so. I'm disappointed, I hope they fix this and do better next time."

== A the-NYT's-editorial-tone-is-within-my-rights-to-criticize stance

(Note: I'm not meaning to imply that a policy of deliberate non-objectivity-skewed-negative in reporting on tech is equivalent to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Just taking the example to the extreme limit, for clarity.)

[amadeuspagel]

No one is calling for twitter to censor the New York Times either.

[undoware]

...I can't tell if this is willful misinterpretation or not, but I certainly did not mean to imply anything at all about twitter censorship.

confused sounds

EDIT: above, read 'FOR EXAMPLE, ....' when I begin to talk about Twitter. HTH

[int_19h]

If the NYT editorial board forces its journalists not to say certain things, that's their right, but I would expect that to be disclosed upfront in the stories on that subject.