4 ms·

You, and opinions stated as facts by ignorant people are exactly what is wrong with the internet. I used to think everyone having a voice was a wonderful, liber

You, and opinions stated as facts by ignorant people are exactly what is wrong with the internet. I used to think everyone having a voice was a wonderful, liberating new freedom for the whole world. The last few years have really changed my mind.

scohesc 7y ago
That's really depressing that you think that way. That way of thinking is pretty dangerous. I know it's a "slippery slope", but thinking that certain people shouldn't express their opinions on things in a public place goes against everything the internet gave us so many years ago.
- mwfunk 7y ago
  Everyone has a right to their own opinion, no one has a right to their own facts though. I get what you're saying but there are consequences to certain types of misinformation (ex.: anti-vaxxers). It's a complicated issue.
  - LeifCarrotson 7y ago
    I think we're in a state of transition that will take a few decades to resolve itself. In the past, it was difficult to get an idea published. Money and power are definitely not sufficient to show that someone's ideas should be listened to (in some cases, the converse is true), but they're at least weakly correlated to competence. Also, when the barrier to entry was higher, less was produced, so there was a lot more opportunity for coversight. This lead to printed words and popular speech having an air of authority and truthfulness. I expect that this will be swiftly eroded, and replaced with more caution, as society adjusts.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - scohesc 7y ago
    If you take away the right for anti-vaxxers (or climate change deniers in the OP's case) to talk about things on a public platform where they're actively ridiculed, they're going to go underground and create their own communities under the radar. Say someone goes to that community to try and convince them otherwise and says "hang on, vaccines don't cause autism, here's some research articles", they'll get banned and their post removed, and everyone in the separate community is none the wiser and nobody who uses that community will ever have the chance to be convinced otherwise. So if you really wanted to stamp out the anti-vaxxers, I guess you'd have to have some kind of monitoring to make sure they don't post anything anywhere about anti-vaxx views. That would need to be done by someone or something powerful, say... Facebook or the government? I don't trust Facebook as their ulterior motive is selling your data for sweet sweet ad money, and I don't trust the government as many governments have shown in the past many times they can't be trusted to regulate speech of citizens (not that I would EVER want to regular speech) So - why not just let them speak on large public platforms and have them get laughed at?
    - seandougall 7y ago
      > they're going to go underground and create their own communities under the radar I dunno, they're already doing that anyway. And OP clearly has no interest in actually sticking around and debating this point, just in trolling us, so it's not like flagging their post shuts down conversation in any meaningful way.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Great, let them go to their own communities. Time was fringe beliefs stayed mainly in the shadows. If you wanted to believe in a flat earth, or deny climate change there was probably some guy running an amateur newsletter you could subscribe to, maybe small scale meetings to attend. Those subscribing to a more mainstream view need never know or care. Why should every reasonable conversation about climate, vaccination, and others give space to allow constant sealioning? It spoils every discussion and ruins it for those trying to discuss and learn in good faith - whilst entertainment for the troll lobbing the one sentence hand grenades. > "If you take away the right for anti-vaxxers to talk about things on a public platform" vs "someone goes to that community ... they'll get banned and their post removed" So you're actually advocating for the paradox of tolerance? They can moderate the discussion in their under the radar community to stay on topic, but the world in general should not and should just take the consequences and pollution?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  cakeface claimed to be stating fact, not opinion. cakeface supplied no evidence, and instead attempted to reverse the burden of proof. And the claimed fact is rather farcical on its face; it certainly needs some evidence in order to be believed. No, I don't think much would be lost from the discussion if that comment were removed. We'd lose some noise, but very little signal. I agree that there is a slippery slope. I don't know where to draw the line. But HN gives us a way to downvote and flag comments like this one for a reason - they add negative value, and the discussion is better off without them.
MeltySmelty 7y ago
libturd spotted

scohesc 7y ago

That's really depressing that you think that way. That way of thinking is pretty dangerous. I know it's a "slippery slope", but thinking that certain people shouldn't express their opinions on things in a public place goes against everything the internet gave us so many years ago.

mwfunk 7y ago
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, no one has a right to their own facts though. I get what you're saying but there are consequences to certain types of misinformation (ex.: anti-vaxxers). It's a complicated issue.
- LeifCarrotson 7y ago
  I think we're in a state of transition that will take a few decades to resolve itself. In the past, it was difficult to get an idea published. Money and power are definitely not sufficient to show that someone's ideas should be listened to (in some cases, the converse is true), but they're at least weakly correlated to competence. Also, when the barrier to entry was higher, less was produced, so there was a lot more opportunity for coversight. This lead to printed words and popular speech having an air of authority and truthfulness. I expect that this will be swiftly eroded, and replaced with more caution, as society adjusts.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- scohesc 7y ago
  If you take away the right for anti-vaxxers (or climate change deniers in the OP's case) to talk about things on a public platform where they're actively ridiculed, they're going to go underground and create their own communities under the radar. Say someone goes to that community to try and convince them otherwise and says "hang on, vaccines don't cause autism, here's some research articles", they'll get banned and their post removed, and everyone in the separate community is none the wiser and nobody who uses that community will ever have the chance to be convinced otherwise. So if you really wanted to stamp out the anti-vaxxers, I guess you'd have to have some kind of monitoring to make sure they don't post anything anywhere about anti-vaxx views. That would need to be done by someone or something powerful, say... Facebook or the government? I don't trust Facebook as their ulterior motive is selling your data for sweet sweet ad money, and I don't trust the government as many governments have shown in the past many times they can't be trusted to regulate speech of citizens (not that I would EVER want to regular speech) So - why not just let them speak on large public platforms and have them get laughed at?
  - seandougall 7y ago
    > they're going to go underground and create their own communities under the radar I dunno, they're already doing that anyway. And OP clearly has no interest in actually sticking around and debating this point, just in trolling us, so it's not like flagging their post shuts down conversation in any meaningful way.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Great, let them go to their own communities. Time was fringe beliefs stayed mainly in the shadows. If you wanted to believe in a flat earth, or deny climate change there was probably some guy running an amateur newsletter you could subscribe to, maybe small scale meetings to attend. Those subscribing to a more mainstream view need never know or care. Why should every reasonable conversation about climate, vaccination, and others give space to allow constant sealioning? It spoils every discussion and ruins it for those trying to discuss and learn in good faith - whilst entertainment for the troll lobbing the one sentence hand grenades. > "If you take away the right for anti-vaxxers to talk about things on a public platform" vs "someone goes to that community ... they'll get banned and their post removed" So you're actually advocating for the paradox of tolerance? They can moderate the discussion in their under the radar community to stay on topic, but the world in general should not and should just take the consequences and pollution?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
cakeface claimed to be stating fact, not opinion. cakeface supplied no evidence, and instead attempted to reverse the burden of proof. And the claimed fact is rather farcical on its face; it certainly needs some evidence in order to be believed. No, I don't think much would be lost from the discussion if that comment were removed. We'd lose some noise, but very little signal. I agree that there is a slippery slope. I don't know where to draw the line. But HN gives us a way to downvote and flag comments like this one for a reason - they add negative value, and the discussion is better off without them.

MeltySmelty 7y ago

libturd spotted