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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#161

Post by colejohnson66 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

ctrl-j wrote: post #53

sunseb wrote: 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?

I don't believe slippery slope applies in this situation. For the most part Youtube has been fairly lenient as to which accounts get heavily moderated and/or removed. I may revise my opinion if it is ever shown that they become more aggressively restrictive to what is hosted on their platform - but for the most part you seem to be given a wide berth to upload what you wish. The worst I've seen so far is that their vi…

> For the most part Youtube has been fairly lenient as to which accounts get heavily moderated and/or removed.

Ah yes, because people have never had their entire Google account terminated because they posted one too many emojis in a chat...

https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtub...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#162

Post by ryankemper » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

nrr wrote: post #139

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…

Unfortunately, I fear the reality of this situation is a lot less nuanced than you're expressing here. It's more likely that the advertisers who give YouTube a lot of money simply threatened not to advertise on the platform should he continue to have a presence there. In David Icke's case, he directly threatens telecommunications carriers' ability to sell 5G services. That's directly counter to said carriers' marketi…

Couldn't YouTube have adopted Reddit's quarantine concept? (Ignoring for the time-being the inherent tendency of such a concept being used to drive out dissent as happened with Reddit with respect to fringe conservative voices)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#163

Post by cameronbrown » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:04 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #152

brenden2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

YouTube is not a de facto public utility. It is not currently used as the primary means of news by any segment of the population, by any government entity anywhere in the world. It is not a means of communication like Zoom or the telephone. It's just videos. Lots and lots of videos. It provides entertainment to billions of people, but that doesn't mean YouTube is a utility. It just means its very popular.

> It is not currently used as the primary means of news by any segment of the population

This is wrong. I'm ~19 in the UK. My entire demographic gets their news from either Google, YouTube, Facebook and word-of-mouth, younger people even more so.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#164

Post by imgabe » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

I'm not going to shed a tear for David Icke, but this quote is very concerning:

> YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and the NHS [the U.K's healthcare system] [emphasis added]

The WHO at least has been flat out wrong several times during this pandemic, such as telling people not to wear masks. Anointing one agency as the sole source of truth and censoring anything that contradicts it is not going to lead to a good outcome. People need to be able to question authorities.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#165

Post by DonHopkins » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

all2 wrote: post #47

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 wi…

>> right wing conspiracy theorist nutjobs

>This kind of language is not acceptable in this platform.

Correction: Right wing conspiracy theorist nutjobs are not acceptable in this platform.

>David Icke is a citizen of the United States.

He is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

>David Vaughan Icke (/ˈdeɪvɪd vɔːn aɪk/; born 29 April 1952) is an English conspiracy theorist, and former footballer and sports broadcaster. He is the author of over 20 books and has lectured in over 25 countries.

Where and when did you hear that David Icke became a US citizen? Citations, please.

Are you a citizen of the US? I ask, because you obviously don't understand what the First Amendment actually says.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#166

Post by jariel » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

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…

This is a valid point, but as a matter of pragmatism, these platforms are going to have to police information there's no way around it.

It looks specious right now ... but in reality, they and everyone else have been doing it from the start.

It's really easy to garner attention, and even easier to buy it.

Foreign agents, like governments, can use this as a tool to nudge populations, and in many cases, that's all that's needed to change outcomes, particularly in things like elections.

As just one example.

I do however believe that platforms of sufficient scale also become a platform of public, like 'papers of record' have a special status, maybe some sites should as well.

What we need for the 'big platforms' is some kind of smart, modern regulation that maximizes freedom of expression, maybe flags the rubbish as rubbish and very rarely moves stuff off-platform.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#167

Post by aantthony » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

ordinarydev wrote: post #101

If spreading misinformation is a valid means to shut down a channel then why do channels like Spirit Science remain? They got about 900k subs and spend the whole time spouting the most insane claims you could possibly think of with absolutely no evidence to back it up and yet they continue to remain.

I think the censorship is for political reasons rather than for misinformation. David Icke has been spreading misinformation for years (e.g. lizard people) but that isn't political. COVID-19 is.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#168

Post by oyashirochama » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

afrcnc wrote: post #104

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…

There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. You're entering propaganda territory.

That's a slippery and dangerous road to say whats propaganda and whats right speech, and saying propaganda isn't allowed is like saying you can't have the government give announcements either.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#169

Post by mythrwy » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #25

xf1cf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you agree with him is one thing. Youtube, Facebook, and other companies are treading a very thin line around Provider vs Publisher. Sure, most people might think that Icke doesn't make much sense, but how long until something _you_ like is censored off the platform? If you truly do believe in a table for rational discussion all ideas should be considered regardless of how far-out they may seen. By bann…

If something _you_ like is censored for the same reason David Icke was censored, then you can get the fuck off YouTube and Facebook yourself, and throw your little right wing victimhood hissy fit as the door hits you on the way out, just like Milo Yiannopoulos did, then subscribe to his mailing list or read his blog or buy his book. YouTube and Facebook aren't obligated to tolerate him spreading his filth on their se…

What a strange comment.

Is David Icke a right winger? A nut and probably an anti-Semite ya, I would agree with that.

Would it be ok then for left wing nuts to get the boot also? Or only certain political leanings get booted with the cheering section saying "good"!

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#170

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #82

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…

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…

> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them.

Some people, after being given the opportunity to gamble, choose to place a bet, even when it has a negative expected value. Should Nevada ban blackjack?

Some people, after being given the opportunity to buy insurance, choose to buy insurance, even when it has a negative expected value. Should we ban insurance? If not, what about credit default swaps?

The reason central planning doesn't work is that everything is much too complicated for a central planner to be able to make good decisions about everything. People who are close to a thing know it better than people who are far away, so the decision is best left to the individual. It's their life, they're the one with the best incentive to get it right.

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

Let us take this question to its logical conclusion and apply it to the censors. If the censors can't tell the truth from the lie then they may end up censoring the truth instead -- oops. But how are they any more qualified to decide this than anybody else?

This is doubly true when you're talking about a platform. As if YouTube has "medical expertise" in its bailiwick.

> It is possible that platforms, being designed the way they are to maximize corporations' interest naturally lead to unintended consequences.

That is absolutely possible. But maybe then the answer is to design them differently rather than keeping the bad design while throwing hatchets at random civilians because somebody who themselves has no unique competence thinks they might be wrong about something.