YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#111

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:25 PM UTC

slededit wrote: post #107

gamblor956 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First Amendment is about government action, not self-motivated private/corporation action. Facebook, Spotify, and Apple realized that continuing to allow Alex Jones to remain on their platforms would result in substantial harm to the commercial viability of their platforms, as a result of boycotts, lawsuits, etc. by the 99% of people that Alex Jones spends his life spewing lies about. It was an easy financial decisio…

The only rational solution is to make political affiliation a protected class. It is the only way to ensure democracy in this age of corporations which exert national control over what we see and hear. Radio waves had FCC protection, no such system exists for the internet which is rapidly replacing these systems. If in the days of the first amendment paper producers conspired en mass to censor we would have seen it d…

In the days of the First Amendment...newspapers did actively censor their opposition. Hell, the First Congress, most of whom participated in the drafting of the Bill of Rights and its ratification by the States, passed the Sedition Act, clamping down on free speech in a way not seen since outside of WWII.

As for making political affiliation a protected class...that wouldn't shield Jones. He's being kicked off for slander, lies, and acts of incitement, not his claim to be a conservative.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#112

Post by slededit » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:29 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #111

slededit wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only rational solution is to make political affiliation a protected class. It is the only way to ensure democracy in this age of corporations which exert national control over what we see and hear. Radio waves had FCC protection, no such system exists for the internet which is rapidly replacing these systems. If in the days of the first amendment paper producers conspired en mass to censor we would have seen it d…

In the days of the First Amendment...newspapers did actively censor their opposition. Hell, the First Congress, most of whom participated in the drafting of the Bill of Rights and its ratification by the States, passed the Sedition Act, clamping down on free speech in a way not seen since outside of WWII. As for making political affiliation a protected class...that wouldn't shield Jones. He's being kicked off for sla…

I speak of paper mills not newspapers. This is analogue to DNS providers and other internet infrastructure providers participating in censorship. It would be a clear breach of first amendment rights to force someone with editorial control to print something.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#113

Post by nkassis » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:33 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #102

internet_user wrote: post #51

First, they came for Alex Jones.

No, first Alex Jones demanded the assassination of our sitting president. Then he demanded that someone kill the woman running to replace the president. Then he accused a pizza shop of running a pedophilia ring, almost resulting in the deaths of multiple employees and customers when someone took him up on the offer. Then he accused parents of murdered children of staging a false flag event for money. Then, despite al…

I think this key here. Jones was free to make up crazy stuff if he wanted but inciting violence or continuing to make up libel against individuals leading to people being harrassed or endagered crosses a line that goes beyond simple free speech. Free speech doesn't allow you to endanger others.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#114

Post by pashamur » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #67

deusofnull wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nigh impossible to rationally argue an opponent acting in bad faith out of their deeply held conspiratorial thinking.

Especially if they're just in it for the lulz.

Not just lulz, he actually makes a sizable chunk of money from the things he promotes on the show.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#115

Post by pvg » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

myf01d wrote: post #109

dang wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you continue to violate the site guidelines we are going to ban your account. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended.

I don't see where I violated your guidelines, maybe I am not liberal enough? why am I always downvoted massively whenever I post a non-ultra-liberal comment? why? what if I posted a comment ridiculing the current POTUS and praising the former POTUS? will I get upvoted or downvoted do you think? I think you know the answer

They're right in the thingie you were asked to please read.

"Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle."

and

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments."

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#116

Post by acct1771 » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:49 PM UTC

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #46

Tomminn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't persuade his base, then I guess you're not the person whose job it is to persuade his base. Be patient. One will come.

Wait patiently for the "chosen one" to come, while he continues to grow his fanbase, spread misinformation, participates in fear mongering, and is praised by the president of the United States? Yes, sure, great plan. We can also have a grand old time debunking each and every single one of the crackpot theories that come out of the show, which surprisingly nobody has ever tried before!

No, you're right, inhibit freedom of expression.

There's no way that can go wrong after a while.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#117

Post by pashamur » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:55 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #100

dunpeal wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article explicitly says he's banned because of TOS violations. The article is not clear about what those are, but I assume they fall under hate speech and harassment. Not at all a fan of Mr Jones (the little I've seen makes him seem like a garden variety nutcase peddling inane conspiracy theories), but aren't we just a little bit concerned when someone is banned on the same day by all the major internet content…

I play a mental version of what you list every time someone raises the "we should ban/disallow/make illegal..." concept. Generally, I'm hearing this about topics where I'm in strong agreement. Yes, we SHOULD take action against these attempts to exploit our inherent logical weaknesses for the promotion of values we disapprove of (sexism, racism, hatred, violence, etc). BUT...before I agree, I like to say "How is this…

As someone mentioned below, look into the Paradox of Tolerance (and as practical example, although a bit overboard, the De-nazification of Germany post World War II, where all Nazi media/propaganda was forcibly suppressed and anyone associated with the Nazi regime removed from power by force)

The paradox of tolerance: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

- Karl Popper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#118

Post by myf01d » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 11:56 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #115

myf01d wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where I violated your guidelines, maybe I am not liberal enough? why am I always downvoted massively whenever I post a non-ultra-liberal comment? why? what if I posted a comment ridiculing the current POTUS and praising the former POTUS? will I get upvoted or downvoted do you think? I think you know the answer

They're right in the thingie you were asked to please read. "Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle." and "Please don't comment about the voting on comments."

>Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle

I don't use it as such, but the post itself was political and if you don't like politics in HN, you should have removed the post itself in the first place

>Please don't comment about the voting on comments

You are right in this one and I apologize, but it wasn't the first time to get massively downvoted just because I expressed a non ultra liberal opinion, this downvoting abuse is kinda dictatorship here.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#119

Post by sergiotapia » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 12:05 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #108

sergiotapia wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How indeed? Best not talk about it here on hackernews though, it's wrongthink and will get you banned. Remember there's no conspiracy to control the narrative. It's totally a coincidence that Alex Jones got banned from Youtube, itunes, and Facebook simultaneously.

I'm surprised that such an established HN user as you would say something that absurd about HN moderation.

I've been here long enough right? I've seen it happen, my share of [dead] comments.

Re: YouTube Bans Alex Jones, Following Facebook's and Apple's Lead

#120

Post by javagram » Tue, Aug 07, 2018, 12:05 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #97

javagram wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I linked to an article by a law professor explaining the issues. Courts cannot always address such issues anyway due to the doctrine of “standing”. For instance, government in the 90s pressured the video game industry to self regulate by establishing a rating system and prohibiting the sale of M rated games to minors in various chain stores. If the government themselves had passed such a law it would have been subjec…

However it can outlaw a company allowing an employee to use a racial slur in the workplace. Nope, you're still not understanding. The government can't do that either, because that law would target the content of a communication. However, the law can prohibit companies from allowing employees to create hostile environments, however such environments arise, such as by making racial slurs or by trying to lynch their cow…

“Nope, you're still not understanding. The government can't do that either, because that law would target the content of a communication”

It can, because that communication would be considered to create a hostile work environment. The most recent nominee to the SCOTUS has noted he’d consider a single use of a particularly evil racial slur to qualify for the creation of said hostile environment. (“a single verbal (or visual) incident can likewise be sufficiently severe to justify a finding of a hostile work environment”)

Your response equates slurs (words) with lynching (an incredibly violent crime). Lynching is something the government can and does prohibit with laws directly, because it’s a violent action not covered by any interpretation of the 1A. Your example of “fire in a crowded theater” is another - a word directly designed to create violence and immediate physical damage to other people. Slurs, on the other hand, the government does not prohibit directly: judges would block jail or fines for speaking such as 1A violations. Instead, they order your company to take care of it by firing you under hostile environment laws.

If your argument equating hostile environments with behavior/action, not speech, were legally correct, then the government would be permitted by judges to regulate hostile environments directly by jailing citizens who create them by doing things like e.g. watching porn, speaking a racial slur, or discussing their sex lives. I doubt that a law doing such would pass constitutional muster in today’s courts (rightly or wrongly). Nevertheless the government has had success stamping out those behaviors by having the employer do it for them.

In general I’m wondering if we are simply speaking past each other. I thought I clearly recognized that hostile environment laws are considered OK by judges despite the 1A. My main point was to show that the government, when it can find such a legal justification, can generally exert more power than a naive understanding of the 1A might suggest.