This website has long ago lost whatever “techno libretarianism” it ever had. It’s so full of bootlickers. I have no idea why HNs userbase is mostly excited about this.
I think it grew up and had kids. The angsty-teen “I won’t do what you tell me” mentality starts to seem pretty counterproductive after a certain level of maturity is reached.
I picked street fighter because you don't interact with your opponent other than fight him (I haven't played the last game though, maybe that's changed).
Compared to Google, X years ago, for example. Unless I'm mixing threads up, that's what we're talking about anyway: the degradation of Google's search results.
I can't; I got permabanned from the site for hate speech.
What did I say? That it's unfair for men to compete in women's sports and that TRAs use bad faith tactics like deplatforming as a means to silence their critics and avoid debate.
The weaponisation of censorship is predominantly a far left tactic.
> The weaponisation of censorship is predominantly a far left tactic.
Incorrect. It's an authoritarian tactic, which can either be left or right.
On the right today is Idaho with their new book banning law prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not).
On the left, you have Tipper Gore which was famous for advocating for the sticker placed on CD's to alert people of potentially terrible lyrics.
> On the right today is Idaho with their new book banning law prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not).
This is misleading. It's against anything pornographic being made accessible in schools / to people under 18 years old, LGBT or otherwise. "Homosexuality" is mentioned only once:
> 3. "Sexual conduct" means any act of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, the breast.
In a section that's 11 points long. Besides which, this whole section already existed, it was just amended recently and this part I quoted wasn't changed.
There is nothing that in the law that allows the libraries to defend whether a book is harmful to minors once the challenge is made. So any challenged books have to go into the adults-only section.
26% of books challenged in 2023 had no sexual content. Since the library has their hands tied, those books must go into the adults only section. Including the books on Rosa Parks.
I see you are not even trying to defend your previous assertion that Idaho is "prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not)". Instead you have sent a couple of new soldiers into the fight.
I'm sorry, do you really need to be so damned pedantic?
Today - in the present, given the relative levels of influence of the different authoritarian groups, it is predominantly the far left that is engaged in the weaponisation of censorship.
I can't take the children's library arguments seriously any more.
Right now there are books in school libraries that are too obscene to be read from in council meetings.
Name a few.