The site's guidelines are pretty clear, that it's generally regarded as off-topic.

How is AI policy regarded off-topic? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43793875

My uninformed opinion is that this post is not interesting (AI is boring but that's another subject), it's a politics article, and Hacker News has the word hacker in its title which is why I expect some technical stuff.

And yes, it applies to every other post, I believe HN has way too much politics and societal content.

> international tensions based on tech policy are an interesting phenomenon

We had that forever, for example in the 90s with cryptography. It was way more scary at the time, but still not on topic for such a forum.

>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon

It's politics and boring.

Nowhere in the guidelines does it say anything about a technical perspective. It calls for things that hackers might find interesting - which I would argue the future of AI globally clearly qualifies as.

I would say that it's strongly implied, by phrases like "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" and "some interesting new phenomenon".

Wouldn't you say international tensions based on tech policy are an interesting phenomenon and of interest to people working in tech? I'd say it squarely fits that descriptor.

Nope, I definitely wouldn't.

Then we disagree and I'd challenge you on lacking the intellectual curiosity called for in the guidelines. But that's okay - as long as you don't see a need to censor on that basis.

> I'd challenge you on lacking the intellectual curiosity called for in the guidelines.

This is unnecessarily hostile.

I'd say claiming that tech policy relating to AI and it's global implications are not interesting to people working in tech and AI is a bad faith argument - calling it lacking intellectual curiosity is once again an attempt at a good-faith reading of what is an absurd point to make.

free or not free is only an illusion. its a personal thing in the end which no one can give or take. hence, you will find disagreement on what behavior fits what banner of freedom or nonfreedom etc.

people will try to silence voices that disagree with them. cant they? no. will they try? yes.

dont worry about it and simply say what u have to say, trusting the universe it will arrive where it needs to, when it needs to.

Musk bought twitter so that he can suppress left leaning voices and promote far right voices. And delivered. It had nothing to do with free speech and I doubt anyone is making that claim in good faith.

That is the impression I have, as well - same with the flagging-based ideological censorship I'm seeing here.

That being said, I'm trying to assume good faith - as the guidelines here call for as well.

Assuming good faith should not escalate into, basically, knowingly pretending lies are the truth.

I think that one of big reasons for why bad actors are successful is that well meaning people do the work for them and pretend that up is down and repeat all the lies as if they were the truth.

It's really simple in my opinion.

Many people (not just Americans) regard the term "freedom of speech" to mean the following:

1. I am free to say what I want, when I want to, to whomever I want to say it. My speech deserve to be amplified.

2. Others are free to do the same, as long as what they say align with my political/religious/whatever belief system. Their speech deserve to be amplified as well.

3. I am also free to block or limit the speech of those that say things that do not align with my political/religious/whatever belief system.

4. Those that apply #3 to me are infringing on my rights to freedom of speech.

Note the contradiction! Many people are perfectly happy living with this contradiction, because it's an "us vs. them" situation, and "they" are obviously wrong and "we" are obviously right. See social theories about tribalism, social circles, religions etc.

IMO, the only thing that "freedom of speech" grants is the right to criticise your government without fear of prosecution. You are very much not free to say whatever you want, as this can cause harm to others (see: hate speech).

Lastly, if there is a downvote/flag/report/whatever button on any piece of speech on the internet, people are going to press it. No matter what. Even "real" freedom of speech absolutists. Not just Americans, EVERYONE will press it that disagrees. This is a very very very basic human reaction, and you have to really work hard to not fall in this trap.

As a general point I'm not American and am interested in tech and startups and science and the like. Any forum if you don't moderate it tends to turn from that to US politics - Trump this - dems that and I think people try to keep that off HN. You can always discuss that stuff at a load of other places, probably 90% of the web these days.

Your links feature Trump, Trump, Trump and "Democrats are basically controlled opposition..."

HN isn't the place really.

> think of Musk buying Twitter and calling himself a "free speech absolutist"

... I mean, that was just a lie. You should be very cautious of taking anything he says at face value.

> However, the move was widely taken at face value and lauded around here.

That is because this website contains a lot of credulous idiots. It was by no means _universally_ lauded here, though.