Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

[flagged]


There is a difference between allowing free speech and allowing hate speech.

Free speech: I don't think America should engage in an open immigration policy for reasons X, Y, Z that disadvantage us in A, B, C ways.

Hate speech: BUILD THE WALL TO KEEP OUT THE RAPISTS.

If you can't see the difference then that is why will get banned from platforms that allow free speech but ban hate speech.


I don't consider your example of hate speech to be anything close to actual hate speech. I consider your example to be an example of an ignorant and un-intelligent statement.

This is a perfect example of two major issues going on:

1) America is catering to the lowest common denominator of who is offended and therefore creating a race to the bottom for societal norms (i.e. you considering your example to be hate speech, but I don't...but society currently feels the need to make sure you feel comfortable in your safe place)

2) 95% of the platform discussion may be in the form of your "Free speech" example, but if there's any occurrence of your "Hate speech" example, the entire platform is labeled a "Hate speech" platform....and this feeds back into issue #1


I don't know how implying an entire country of people are rapists isn't hate speech but ok. At the very least it's racist and intolerant which has no place in public discourse.

I do agree with 1. America goes too far to cater for people having "safe spaces". This cuts both ways though though and I would say the American right go much further to create and enforce safe spaces where their views won't be challenged. (r/conservative and TD before that).

2. I don't think this is true at all. Reddit definitely has its share of hate speech and nonsense but it's not considered a hate speech platform. It's only when the overwhelming majority of content is hateful garbage that you get to that point. Gab/Parlor being the 2 main current examples.

To me your argument is like many others, trying to find a way to excuse hateful, racist, homophobic nonsense as "free speech" as if in some way this speech should be protected because it provides some value to society (it doesn't).

Many also argue it's a bias against conservatism but that isn't true either. Conservatism isn't meant to be any of those things and if they could drop all of that they might find people much more receptive to their ideas.

There are constructive ways to push conservative views, I myself would measure myself as a centrist. I see both sides of many arguments but I am definitely tired of the right wing rhetoric. Just because I think fiscal conservatism is a good idea and small-ish government can be a good thing in certain areas doesn't mean I should need to read/tolerate all the crap currently being pedled.


Absolute rubbish. American tech company execs are nowhere near leftists. They tend to go out of their way to suck up to the right wing.


> Since free speech platforms don't censor any content, leftists naturally hate them...and they'll do anything in their power to slow them down. Rather than acknowledge this, they make themselves feel better by claiming any non-censoring platform is "hosting far right terrorists".

Parler and Gab certainly aren't free speech platforms, so curious what you're referring to here.

Usenet is a free speech platform to some extent, and nobody gives a shit. Parler and Gab censor lots (and lots and lots) of content, far more than legally required, they just leave racism, homophobia, transphobia and incitements to violence up specifically.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: