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

Being “intimately involved with suppression of speech at the behest of the government and political interests” exactly describes the job of removing child sexual assault content.


Are you familiar with logical fallacy?

Yes, bad things are on the internet.

That is in no way the content or information I'm describing, nor does it fall into the category of legal free speech.

Bringing up illegal things to argument the suppression of legal speech is, I don't know, moronic.

You are perpetuating a tired trope and I haven't the energy to persist with this discussion


https://twitter.com/elizableu/status/1599484564832854017?cxt...

This is where you get bent.

Your logical fallacy is detailed here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

I hope that, despite what you are implying, this success by Musk is not upsetting to you.


A better word is partisan or authoritarian interests.


Hey, it begs the question, how many authoritarian and partisan tactics can one utilize before being considered an partisan authoritarian?




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

Search: