Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#141

Post by dzhiurgis »

kiba wrote: post #109
ravenstine wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

The big problem with this argument is that youtube is the platform that "recommend" videos based on a hidden algorithm, leading to filter bubbles.

Perhaps someone should analyse and pop such filter bubbles instead. We all know US gov is incapable going to bathroom by their own, so perhaps EU could step in and require platforms to publish such filter bubbles. I'm fairly sure most platforms actually curate the bubbles already.

IMHO EU should work on disinformation harm reduction strategy. Similarly how some members deal with drug addicts - contact people infected with bullshit and try to set them straight. I guess that (public mental health) would sound too dystopian for HN crowd.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#142

Post by floatingatoll »

Gatsky wrote: post #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 You…

The argument is that people’s individual freedom to speak anything should be held in higher regard than the welfare of society, regardless of what harmful outcomes may come from that speech.

It’s a core tenet of American racists and fascists (and, I suspect, conspiracy theorists), because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to convert others to their cause without being silenced by their platforms.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#143

Post by kiba »

ravenstine wrote: post #124
kiba wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big problem with this argument is that youtube is the platform that "recommend" videos based on a hidden algorithm, leading to filter bubbles.

I definitely agree. Yet when a platform like YouTube deletes accounts and publicly announces the censoring of information that doesn't conform with the Ministry of Information(aka the World Health Organization), there's no mystery that they're violating people's rights.

Not promoting the video in their algorithm would basically accomplish the same functional difference as censorship. Ditto for any platforms that can demote content from their ranking.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#144

Post by gamblor956 »

wnoise wrote: post #77
rajup wrote: 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.

Wherever did people get the idea that the only form of censorship is governmental?

It's quite literally in the definition of censorship, and has been since its origination in Ancient Rome. More importantly, the restriction on censorship has been tied to government action since it was first enshrined in the First Amendment.

A private party can choose not to spread the content of a third party. That is not censorship. That is one party choosing not to spend their own resources to further the interests of a different party. If the third party has an issue with that, they can spend their own resources creating their own platform to spread their own ideas.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#145

Post by knzhou »

evv555 wrote: post #12
gameswithgo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what happened is the trolls and insane people got all the clicks and it made the public dumber.

Would that have happened if these platforms "organised _the world's_ information, and made it _accessible_ and useful" instead of using engagement driven filter bubbles?

Yes. This inevitably results in all mass-adopted systems, even messaging services where people just talk to each other. It's not the systems, it's the people.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#146

Post by colejohnson66 »

chasing wrote: post #93
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/

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

Where do people get this idea that it’s only censorship if the government does it? Regardless of your view on this, it’s censorship. Period.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#147

Post by ravenstine »

krapp wrote: post #132
ravenstine wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

>Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. That would be impossible, since the First Amendment as written explicitly only applies to Congress, and it restricts Congress' ability to pass laws, which is something private institutions don't actually have the power to do anyway.

Then something has to change, because this situation won't become more tenable going forward. Platforms like YouTube will only continue to grow and obtain power. We either need a bill of rights against these corporations or leverage to get them to comply.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#148

Post by ryankemper »

techsupporter wrote: post #120
ryankemper wrote: post #46

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…

> I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking The problem is you’ve just said you won’t address the primary, most compelling reason to take these actions. Assuming that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contempla…

Yes, by not addressing that I put myself in the trap where I was forced to respond to it anyway in a later comment.

So, in order to avoid repeating myself, I believe I addressed that notion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063309

In short, I am not saying that the truth will necessarily "win out" over the false. Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the notion that we should try to pick a side to suppress. Because the same part of human nature that leads to rampant spread of disinformation is the part of human nature that tries to decide what the capital-T Truth is.

So, my personal belief system - and I know how unpopular this viewpoint is, especially in current times - is just let them have at it. Remove blatant calls for violence, and nothing more. ("nothing more" should include racism and other unpopular beliefs, by the way, in case my viewpoint isn't controversial enough thus far).

So, saying "We should go out and attack $GROUP" should be removed. But saying "I think $GROUP is inferior due to highly discredited scientific-seeming reasons" should not be removed, because however wrong or distasteful it is, it's not directly advocating for violence. Similarly, something like holocaust denial or anti-vax beliefs, etc should similarly not be suppressed.

Again, I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I hope that helps you understand my thoughts on these issues.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#149

Post by runawaybottle »

barrkel wrote: post #39
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.

It's not a binary. The more places extremists can find like-minded people, the more their worldview is normalized and validated. The fewer places, the higher the probability that they realize (or be continuously confronted by) how far out their views are, and the less extremist a position they'll end up taking. I genuinely don't think universal free speech is the answer, because people aren't confronted with the coun…

When you ban these people you erode something we all hold dear in Western countries, and that’s free speech. Even those who are not aligned with you share that ideal, and we have integrity on this one issue because there’s proof of it - you don’t get censored.

When you do start censoring them, we will all start losing faith in our values as we don’t apply it across the board.

If you look at other non free countries, the average person doesn’t really believe that you have the right to express your views. Take the Muhammad cartoons for example, a vast majority of Muslims in non-western countries think that’s a no go from a rights perspective ( as in, you shouldn’t even have the right to draw it). That kind of thinking extends and extends to all kinds undermining of individual rights. If you look at China, the vastness of inaction to their Internet being censored is another key example of this. It takes a lot to get a society to value it, and we worked pretty hard to get those values ingrained in our culture.

There might be some absolutely abhorrent people in our country, but even they cannot deny that they do have the right to express themselves here. We lose that baseline integrity of our values when we start withering it away, until we ourselves can’t even recognize ourselves anymore, where suddenly we have all these caveats to a principle that defines our society.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#150

Post by jfnixon »

techsupporter wrote: post #120
ryankemper wrote: post #46

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…

> I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking The problem is you’ve just said you won’t address the primary, most compelling reason to take these actions. Assuming that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contempla…

Therefore we should let those with power choose what everyone can say and hear? Sorry, I'm not following.
Post reply on HN