YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#41

Post by xf1cf » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

luckydata wrote: post #22

brenden2 wrote: post #11

IMO censorship is wrong. To quote someone smarter than me: > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

that person didn't realize the damage propaganda could do with modern tools. Unfortunate reality is our cognitive biases can be exploited, and complete freedom of speech is not in the best interest of the majority of humanity. This is a "loophole" that is exploited over and over again by climate change denialists, cigarette companies, nazis...

I don't think anyone is arguing about the damage of propaganda here. The discussion here is more-or-less Youtube choosing which propaganda it wishes people to see.

To use your idea here - the cognitive biases being exploited are being exploited by youtube itself. In this example, Icke is a relatively divisive character even on the right wing. So it becomes important to ask - of the controversial figures that remain (on both sides) what cognitive biases is Google/Youtube aiming to exploit by allowing them to continue?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#42

Post by bobthepanda » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

brenden2 wrote: post #11

IMO censorship is wrong. To quote someone smarter than me: > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

Freedom of speech is quite different from freedom of the press.

You can say what you want, but I don't have to print what you say if I own a newspaper.

That being said, if Youtube and such are now going to start curating content (by pushing "recommended" content and by removing content), we may need to revisit those particular platforms' classification under Section 230 of the DCMA.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#43

Post by luckydata » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #33

luckydata wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that person didn't realize the damage propaganda could do with modern tools. Unfortunate reality is our cognitive biases can be exploited, and complete freedom of speech is not in the best interest of the majority of humanity. This is a "loophole" that is exploited over and over again by climate change denialists, cigarette companies, nazis...

> complete freedom of speech is not in the best interest of the majority of humanity isn't this one if the founding principles of chinas brutal totalitarian dictatorship

no.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#44

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

dvt wrote: post #36

stolen_biscuit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. If the cockroaches want to crawl under the fridge there's not much you can do to stop them but you can stop them from breeding on the table.

> Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. Actually, no it hasn't. And for anyone that holds such a viewpoint, I'd strongly suggest reading J. S. Mill's classic, On Liberty [1] -- a foundational document of Western political thought. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#45

Post by chii » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

imode wrote: post #30

I see a lot of people not wanting to offer alternative solutions to the treatment of this particular individual's content: if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is. I'm sure you'd complain about any measure other than leaving this individual alone. If so, you deserve to be angry, because you're part of the overall problem. Edit: To remind all of you, downvotes should…

> if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is.

have youtube put on a warning saying that this content is misinformation/wrong. But not censored because censoring "wrong" content just gives those who blindly believe it to feel that they're being targeted - it doesn't change their mind.

Censoring it is just promoting it to other underground channels that are more difficult to censor.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#46

Post by ryankemper » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), but that's different from saying that we as a society should want our private platforms to engage in such censorship and suppression.

Booting people off of platforms merely reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, and further radicalizes them.

COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content".

Many may disagree, but I think we need to throw out this concept of "disinformation" entirely. I don't believe in fighting "bad ideas" by suppressing them, I believe in shining a light on them. Let the truth fight for itself. (And of course now comes the classic counter-argument: that the evils of disinformation possess a virality that makes them spread far more easily than the truth, being that truth is nuanced and difficult to acquire whereas bad information is seductively simple. I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#47

Post by all2 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

herdodoodo wrote: post #3

[flagged]

> right wing conspiracy theorist nutjobs

This kind of language is not acceptable in this platform.

> have no place at the table for rational discussion

David Icke is a citizen of the United States. His speech, rational or not, is free. YouTube is a company founded and operated within the United States. I argue that his rights to speak however he damn well pleases should not be infringed on a "platform". If YouTube wishes to be considered something other than a platform (a publisher!), then they can promote/limit whatever they please. As of now, they continue to insist they are a "platform" and are therefore not responsible for what is posted (unless it displeases the advertisers).

Discussion of irrational speech is how Marxism and other broken ideologies are seen for what they are.

Rather than tell the man to disappear, why not address what he says using the "rational discussion" you mentioned? That's exactly why we have rational discussion.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#48

Post by throwaway2048 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

dvt wrote: post #36

stolen_biscuit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. If the cockroaches want to crawl under the fridge there's not much you can do to stop them but you can stop them from breeding on the table.

> Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. Actually, no it hasn't. And for anyone that holds such a viewpoint, I'd strongly suggest reading J. S. Mill's classic, On Liberty [1] -- a foundational document of Western political thought. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.…

Or we can look at modern evidence, not centuries old political philosophy.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#49

Post by karatestomp » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

imode wrote: post #30

I see a lot of people not wanting to offer alternative solutions to the treatment of this particular individual's content: if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is. I'm sure you'd complain about any measure other than leaving this individual alone. If so, you deserve to be angry, because you're part of the overall problem. Edit: To remind all of you, downvotes should…

We could not tie hosting and media discovery and ad sales all together. No “social” crap or “you might also like” bubble-prompting algos on the site hosting the video and also selling the ads. That’d be a good start.

Same as “it sure sucks that Facebook has to abuse low-paid workers with gore porn but what else can we do?” I mean. We could not? Allow sites that require doing that to exist? Just a thought.

[edit] my point is that we look at these problems through a very narrow lens that excludes solutions that serious harm the profits of Internet giants. I think that’s silly. If their business model causes awful things maybe it shouldn’t be possible to have that business model.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#50

Post by twomoretime » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

stolen_biscuit wrote: post #27

Zenst wrote: post #18

Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. This will just shift this extremist content to other unregulated and unmonitored platforms that will not engage in debate, but blindly accept such things. After all, if people believe this kinda stuff, cutting of the head won't stop them believing, just shifts the problem out of the public glare, at least on the surface.

Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. If the cockroaches want to crawl under the fridge there's not much you can do to stop them but you can stop them from breeding on the table.

You make the mistake of presuming that these human beings are all cockroaches. That's pure arrogance. It's not all 5G Holocaust deniers you're turning away.

You think this is better or worse for a country that is sharply and almost exactly evenly polarized across party lines?