Now we have every branch of government deployed by right wing politicians targeting individuals speech.
We have them placed as employees in news organizations, required by the government, as "bias monitors". https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-fcc-cbs-ne...
We have the government forcing media companies to sell to their cronies ...
We have the FCC chairman making threats taking issue with speech they don't like.
Trump threatening reporters with investigation because they asked a question he didn't like.
I guess they're ok with that as long as it's their people.
Kimmel: In between the fingerpointing there was uh grieving on Friday. The White House flew the flags at half staff which got some criticism but on a human level you can see how hard the president is taking this.
Reporter: "My condolences on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk. May I ask sir personally, how are you holding up over the last day and a half, sir?"
POTUS47: "I think very good. And by the way, right there you see all the trucks. They've just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years, and it's going to be a beauty."
Kimmel: Yes. He's at the fourth stage of grief, construction.
seems quite similar to Brendan Carr having Kimmel removed for a lack of positive attitude towards Trump and MAGA.
ABC doesn’t give a shit about truth, fairness, journalism, or any such fuzzy concepts. They want short-term profits and long-term media monopolies, so cancelling one comedian or another makes no difference to them.
This is what fascism actually is — a blending of corporate and government power for the benefit of both, and against the interests of citizens.
The country may be collapsing but don't worry. Hackernews' anti controversy systems will ensure nothing gets to the front page to force you to confront anything uncomfortable
...do you have an example? I have no interest in following him.
Also, Gary Tan resembles Elon Musk perhaps only in their shared political ineptitude. (Unlike Musk, Tan seems to be aware of this limitation.)
Others: Trump designates anti-fascist Antifa movement as a terrorist organization https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-targets-antifa-moveme... UC Berkeley gives personal information for 150 students and staff to government https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/uc-berkeley-turns-over-...
Why is this being argued as a bad thing? If there is one constant in even mild socialism it's that government has access (and uses) everyone's data, exactly for the reason Trump is using it.
This happens, as a matter of course, where I'm from (Northwest Europe). Oh and sure, when I was studying it was mostly to find actual fascists (you know, actually openly pro-Hitler), but I've been told this has expanded. Schools are far from the only ones who do this, the government "youth houses" do the same (report the political ideas of everyone who comes by to the police commissioner. They have forms and everything. Extremists or thieves are to be reported immediately). Same with any kind of social support. Only the rich get to be fascist.
Nobody can vouch the post right now because it is not [dead]. At this point, if one wants the flag to be removed, the only way is to email hn@ycombinator.com for them to remove it manually at their discretion.
> Because this post doesn't have an insignificant upvote count and has actual conversation happening in the comments.
This isn't really relevant to the post being [flagged]. That happens when enough people click "flag" on the post. It will go to [flagged][dead] first, then people can vouch and it will drop them both, then, if more people flag it, it will become [flagged] again. It might be more complicated than that but I've seen that pattern a fair amount and I'm pretty sure the only way for a post to be [flagged] is for it to be, well, flagged.
The Hacker News stance of "users can flag posts, it's none of our doing" I bet is a complete fabrication, and it's conveniently used by the moderators to hide hot-button topics. Not saying that's necessarily bad, but I feel the moderation team could be a little more honest with their "censorship" process, instead of trying to convince us it's all an organic, user-driven process.
You can vouch these posts at your own risk; just make sure you toe the party line, or you'll have the privilege revoked.
Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference. Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve. Under the guise of combatting ‘‘misinformation,’’ ‘‘disinformation,’’ and ‘‘malinformation,’’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to:
(a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;
(b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;
(c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and
(d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.
Sec. 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech. (a) No Federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources in a manner contrary to section 2 of this order.
ARTICLE 13. Citizens of the D.P.R.K. have freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, mass meetings and demonstration. Citizens are guaranteed the right to organize and unite in democratic political parties, trade unions, cooperative organizations, sports, cultural, technical, scientific and other societies.
It is good to see there are principled organisations defending free speech.
Those who cry that these are "no concern" of tech and Hacker News won't be happy when their projects and companies are shut down in order to do eugenics "research" or to turn their work into ways of sequestering and managing inmates of what are already concentration camps[0]
Hacker News and the industry are reduced to rubber stamps and prison administrators when basic freedoms are lost.
What if that bit of libertarian anarchy played out?
ABC ignores the backlash and threats, and keeps Kimmel on the air, maybe even encouraging speech against those bullies and hatred. Then FCC pulls their license, but ABC keeps broadcasting. Their pirate broadcasts would escalate both sides even further: stoking a great groundswell of support for the freedom of speech from liberals/the left, a storm of legal battles representing We The People v. the Government would form, and a massive (possibly violent) outcry from far-right conservatives and nationalists. What happens then would redefine our nation. Would corporations back ABC and capitalism retake the reins, and grassroots efforts steer the misguided Right back to normalcy? Or would an explosive sabotage and a bloody battle over the fate of our nation take place before any progress, or regression, would happen?
As much of a work of fiction as that sounds, it's almost more believable given the timeline we're already on.
Synaesthesia•4mo ago
saubeidl•4mo ago
gjsman-1000•4mo ago
In the meantime, the CEOs of Discord, Reddit, Twitch, and Steam have been casually "invited" to Congress to have a little chat this October. Personally, I'm expecting Discord's CEO (considering his background at McKinsey, need for blame shifting, spotting the most vulnerable person in the room) to make Huffman look like an idiot and start acting like a Redditor. There's no way Huffman manages to overcome his lack of interview experience, 20 years of Reddit brain, and decade of being the CEO responsible for everything, when needled.
red-iron-pine•4mo ago
these are the next steps in locking down the online discussion realm.
they will eventually go after places like tumblr and roblox next.
suzdude•4mo ago
JumpCrisscross•4mo ago
throw310822•4mo ago
JumpCrisscross•4mo ago
The Twitter files were ambiguous. The FCC chair publicly threatening to pull a network’s licenses over their content is not.
Anyone who voiced up about the Twitter files who hasn’t about Carr is a partisan hack.
throw310822•4mo ago
Ancapistani•4mo ago
From what I’m seeing in right-wing spaces, this is much more than hypocrisy. Much of the right has made the explicit decision to abandon their principles because they believe that the left will ultimately attempt to destroy them when they regain the White House.
Whether that belief is accurate or not, they seem to be willing to give Trump significantly more latitude to suppress the left as a result of it.
saubeidl•4mo ago
I believe Biden should've aggressively suppressed the right to avoid the exact scenario we now find ourselves in.
Imo they are proving that belief right.
Ancapistani•4mo ago
The right has a very similar corresponding argument; their predictions have also been coming true.
I wonder if that’s a side effect of the current political discourse or the intention of whatever or whomever is driving it.
karakot•4mo ago