> I just think censorship and cancellation is wrong and immoral, even if it is legally allowed. I think it is immoral for some business executive to make sweeping decisions about what the commoners are / aren't allowed to see
I don't think anyone is accusing HN of censorship or making oppressive decisions about what the commoners can / can't see. It's accepted that some level of curation and guidelines are needed to foster a healthy environment.
DDG (and HN) are not a public square, they're private companies conducting business according to their individual desires and motivations.
It would be equally folly to force HN to host political content as it would to tell DDG how they can and can't alter their proprietary ranking algorithms.
Censorship is really a problem when the government (or a monopoly) starts censoring content, with the ability to enforce that censorship nearly or practically universally. Until then, the free market will do it's work.
Hacker News is a site with a specific niche audience. If this is your only source of news I'm afraid you're getting a very one-side picture on many topics.
A search engine on the other hand is supposed to present the information you seek from various sources, so you can read different opinions.
Maybe that’s your definition of a search engine. Mine is that it returns high quality results that achieve my goals.
If I’m asking a question, I want the answer to the question. If I’m researching a topic, I want a mix of simple and robust reliable information.
I use HN as a search engine for things tech/startup related. It’s curated and that works well.
I have no problem using a search engine that down-votes unreliable sources, yet still provides access to them if I search directly. That more correlates with helping me solve my problems than making me filter out spam, scams and propaganda.
HN mods actively hide and remove content, including political content from sites like RT & Sputnik: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't think anyone is accusing HN of censorship or making oppressive decisions about what the commoners can / can't see. It's accepted that some level of curation and guidelines are needed to foster a healthy environment.
DDG (and HN) are not a public square, they're private companies conducting business according to their individual desires and motivations.
It would be equally folly to force HN to host political content as it would to tell DDG how they can and can't alter their proprietary ranking algorithms.
Censorship is really a problem when the government (or a monopoly) starts censoring content, with the ability to enforce that censorship nearly or practically universally. Until then, the free market will do it's work.