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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#171

Post by stevebmark » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:07 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…

> I believe in shining a light on them

I hear this a lot. Light is the best disinfectant. What evidence do you have for this? I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea die out when more people learn about it and scrutinize it. However, I have repeatedly seen the opposite: Sharing bad ideas increases their audience, increases ignorance, hate, fear, and human suffering. You're looking at an article describing this phenomena right now.

More importantly, I've also seen the opposite: Private platforms actively suppressing people trying to harm humanity does work. Deplatforming these people and, importantly, showing social pressure that these are bad ideas and shouldn't even be entertained as valid debate, has shown to work repeatedly. In fact, social pressure is one of the most effective tools against hate and ignorance like this.

I don't think you're basing your "shine the light" argument in evidence, which I suspect is ironic because I suspect you believe you're objective and use evidence to judge things.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#172

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#173

Post by cameronbrown » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #140

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?

This slope isn't nearly as slippery as you think it is. If YouTube began issuing a million times more bans, it might approach the quality of an average newspaper in terms of accuracy. Would we be living in a dystopia at that point? No, we'd be living just like we did in the year 2000, when YouTube wasn't around but newspapers were.

Not a convincing argument. The average newspaper is all clickbait drivel.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#174

Post by jariel » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

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…

"presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true."

If you're thinking that 'society used to be able to tell what was a lie from the truth' I'm sorry to say but that was never close to being true.

Newspapers were a pretty strong filter of information and therefore could have some kind of 'rough' credibility, biases notwithstanding obviously.

But with 'every Instagram a source of news' ... we have an existential truthiness problem that we're only beginning to learn to deal with.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#175

Post by mrkeen » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

scythe wrote: post #31

An amusing casualty. Newsweek states: >David Icke, Man Behind Coronavirus 5G Conspiracy Can this be true? Does David Icke have a following that isn't just laughing along with it? I remember his reptilian shapeshifter theory being a running joke from back when I was in high school in 2005! Surely, someone else must have started the whole 5G conspiracy theory, right? Icke just latched on to it?

> Does David Icke have a following that isn't just laughing along with it?

I thought the same thing about flat earth a while ago.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#176

Post by zalkota » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

tootie wrote: post #159

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 disagree. I think you have to accept the consequences of destructive behavior. If someone was talking like this at my office, I'd expect them to be fired. Same as if they were outwardly racist or sexist. It's detrimental to other people's well-being.

What if the person was in the street? Should they be removed?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#177

Post by colinplamondon » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

Especially right now, communication is moving more and more online. Online communication is increasingly mediated by corporations.

If our speech is mediated by corporations, and those corporations tell us what we can and cannot say, what good is freedom of speech?

Companies like YouTube take advantage of their economies of scale to offer video services for free. To be able to do that, they had to dump services at a loss for years funded by venture capital.

How can you build a meaningful paid platform, while a VC-backed company spends tens of millions on R&D at a loss?

The argument thus far is that this is in the consumer's interest - free services at a high quality. That dumping being good for the consumer is contingent on the business being able to monetize with advertising.

If YouTube couldn't make money with ads, they'd have to charge for their services - opening them up to competition. VC backed businesses offering consumer products for free is most certainly dumping. So far, that dumping has been to consumer's benefit. YouTube's behavior is reversing that benefit.

There's also a lot of other options they could go with, all of which would be far less un-American.

1) A Reddit-like quarantine system, and eat the cost of hosting (like Reddit does)

2) Require Ickes to pay for his own hosting on YouTube, at YouTube's favorable pricing and peering contracts.

3) Enable a separate ad ecosystem for quarantined content.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#178

Post by zalkota » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

zalkota wrote: post #176

tootie wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think you have to accept the consequences of destructive behavior. If someone was talking like this at my office, I'd expect them to be fired. Same as if they were outwardly racist or sexist. It's detrimental to other people's well-being.

What if the person was in the street? Should they be removed?

Who chooses whether it’s detrimental to other well being? What if that person who chooses is tyrannical like the CEO of Reddit, who suppresses all right wing posts?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#179

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #164

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.…

Do you have a standard in mind that's better than the WHO? Would you prefer content prohibited on the basis of whether it sounds right or wrong to a random Google employee?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#180

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

cameronbrown wrote: post #173

knzhou wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This slope isn't nearly as slippery as you think it is. If YouTube began issuing a million times more bans, it might approach the quality of an average newspaper in terms of accuracy. Would we be living in a dystopia at that point? No, we'd be living just like we did in the year 2000, when YouTube wasn't around but newspapers were.

Not a convincing argument. The average newspaper is all clickbait drivel.

The point is that even if Youtube literally censored everything overnight, we wouldn't end up living in hell, we'd be living in the year 2000.