Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

91–100 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad. Stipulating that you're correct in your assessment: * the opportunity to drive trucks through and over the holes in the reasoning and teach people something through a "Stuff David Icke Says" parody channel is snuffed. * Icke gets to assume a martyr pose. * YouTube looks a trifle authoritarian. The truth doesn't have to resort to heavy-handedness to prevail. Newton's Third Law applies (in a social way) in these f…

Deplatforming works, that's proven. The truth is more fragile than you think.

If it's so fragile, perhaps it's worth examining whether it's really truth.

In my experience, truth is strong, and those who want to restrict speech probably aren't arguing for truth, but for their version of some ideology.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#92
post #51

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.

As everyone knows, nobody propagated strange conspiracy theories before the invention of YouTube and Twitter.

Perhaps you are genuinely not old enough to remember a time before YouTube and Twitter, but there were way fewer conspiracy theories floating around, and they didn't have nearly the social impact that they do today. A coordinated misinformation campaign could never have swayed elections in the US and UK before social media. Why? Because there were institutions in place that acted as a filter. Say what you will about that arrangement, it was more effective and suppressing Crazy than whatever it is we've got now.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#93

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/

Good thing this isn’t censorship. It’s a non-governmental media company curating and policing the content it chooses to host and promote.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#94

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/

And to add another, “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

I don't know who David Icke was or what he was saying (according to comments here he's a 5G conspiracy theorist), but deplatforming him won't have the intended effect.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#95
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not censorship by any means; YouTube isn't the government. David Icke and his ilk should feel free to take their lunatic fringe theories to the lunatic fringe corners of the Internet like Breitbart etc. They won't be "censored" there.

YouTube is a de facto public utility at this point. IMO if they want it to be a closed ecosystem, they should not allow public access the way they currently do. There's no good alternative to YouTube (yet) but I hope there is some day. Pushing people to the fringes just breeds more hatred, outrage, misinformation, and extremists. Imagine if there was just one phone company and they only let people who they agree with…

Nope, it's not.

The whole rest of the Internet is flush with video content -- it's no monopoly like the phone company used to be.

YouTube is an offshoot of an ad company. A private, for-profit enterprise that uses video content from its users to sell adverts.

Now, if you want to say the Internet is a public utility -- that's getting closer. And if the Internet writ large somehow managed to block certain content, that would be of great concern. That would require government intervention, like you see in China and some other places.

But that is not what it's happening here.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#96
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.

Problem solved! Yay another person that thinks if something doesn't fix the issue 100% then it can't be considered. This is taking away their access to a platform that has global reach. They already had platforms where they didn't engage in debate, btw; they're called youtube channels with heavily-moderated chat sections. Except there they can reach millions of people.

It would of been better to leave it there, but had a disclaimer warning that couldn't be skipped akin to the old piracy warnings on purchased movie DVD's.

You also won't stop such types of content from appearing on said platforms, less popular but still they will appear, get popular and get closed down. But that's an issue with some types of content that all social media platforms have.

No solution will be 100%, let's not presume that there will ever be 100% solution. Though is this the best approach. Exposing and debating head on would be the better solution and this eliminates that.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#97

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), b…

Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. The reason I say this is that, if a small number of entities control the flow of information, and they get away with picking and choosing who has the opportunity to be heard, then the first amendment is effectively made meaningless. I want to be able to choose what comments to allow on my block and, at the same time, I want to be able to express myself on a prominent platform in a way that may or may not offend the powers that be.

Big friendly looking corporations like Google shouldn't be used as proxies for the government to bypass the rights of Americans(or anyone for that matter). For whatever reason, people see corporations as being different from governments. What is a government but a corporation that owns land? What is a corporation but a form of government? They're quick to should about the importance of dissent, telling the government what it cannot do to our rights, yet corporations get a free pass when they are on the right side and hand out free goodies.

Beyond the likeness of corporations to governments, big corporate censorship should be opposed on the grounds of principle. America and other countries are founded on the principle of freedom of speech, among other things such as the concept that all "men" are created equal. We don't allow businesses to discriminate people by their race, color, sex, or religion because of that principle. Why then can we not apply the principle of freedom of speech to Silicon Valley and Big Media?

It's pretty frightening that the same people who told me how brilliant Nineteen Eighty-Four is(I found it the least convincing of dystopian warnings I've read), easily fall into the trap of believing that we desperately need a centralized Ministry of Truth. In the last year I've been realizing that Nineteen Eighty-Four is more realistic than I had believed.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#98
post #8

I despise David Icke but I think platforms like YouTube or Facebook should remain neutral. It's not their job to tell us what people should be looking at or not. Then what? We end up like China where we can only browse government propaganda?

>It's not their job to tell us what people should be looking at or not.

That is their job. That is literally their job and business model. They have never been neutral, they have always used moderation, demonetization and algorithmic sorting to tell you what you should be looking at. And they've always banned accounts at their discretion, often opaquely and without apparent rationale. It's always been their platform and their rules.

>Then what? We end up like China where we can only browse government propaganda?

No, because, despite the popular FUD narrative that HN spins in every single one of these threads, Youtube isn't a government. It doesn't have the power of a government, nor is it more powerful than a government. It doesn't have monopoly control over the internet, over video, over social media, or over the dissemination of information.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#99
I don’t understand the free speech arguments here. Youtube is an advertising platform. They can do what they want with their platform. If I own a billboard, and someone wants to advertise their bags for dead kittens, I can say no.

There needs to be some sense of proportionality. If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech. But getting banned from Youtube?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#100
post #82

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), b…

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". Some people, after being exposed to misi…

"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?"

We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well.

Post reply on HN