279 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13 Jan \ parent \ on: Can You Be A Libertarian Toxic Bitcoin Maximalist? bitcoin
I guess I see it this way. There are some topics that I personally don't have the patience to engage with. Usually it's because I've come to view people with opposing positions as possessing fundamental misunderstandings that I (personally) am not interested in correcting.
But just because I'm personally not interested in engaging doesn't mean I don't believe in the ideals of free speech, open debate, and limited government. I'm happy for others to engage and I don't believe the speech of my opponents should be shut down by forcible coercion.
Makes sense. A personal choice not to engage. Here's where I struggle:
Are you okay with shitcoin territories on Stacker News?
reply
I'd be okay with shitcoin territories on SN. In fact, I'd probably prefer that SN allow shitcoin territories than try to ban or censor them. I just rarely think shutting down speech is the right answer. If it's a problem for people I think the solution would be create more tools to let users filter only the content they want to see.
That being said, I wouldn't see SN banning something as the same degree of problem as the government, or YouTube banning something. Scale matters when talking about censorship, it's not just a private/public distinction.
reply
I'd put SN banning something in the same bucket as YouTube banning something. The difference is only quantitative, not qualitative. Normal business operation. Your house, your rules.
But the government banning something is a different bucket altogether.
reply
I agree with your logic, but I still would hate to see shitcoin territories. This is Stacker News, and was started as a bitcoin site. I guess at the point the nostr sub was formed the gates are open. That's probably for the best
reply