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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#191

Post by Mirioron » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:15 AM UTC

hyperbovine wrote: post #92

bcoates wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

NASA faked the moon landings, UFOs, Elvis is not dead, JFK second shooter, Marilyn Monroe murdered by FBI/CIA. These are examples of some of the most popular conspiracy theories from the US from over half a century ago. Apparently early 19th century US politics was also rife with conspiracy theories.[0] This even happened in Rome: Mark Antony and Octavian battled with each other using misinformation. [1]

[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/conspiracy-theories-a...

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/aaf2bb08-dca... (amp link bypasses paywall)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#192

Post by 01100011 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:15 AM UTC

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.

Yes. But association with those unregulated and unmonitored sites will hopefully assist viewers with putting the content in its proper context. Having your content on a major broadcast network is different than having your content on public access. If YT decides to regulate content, it may provide a measure of credibility to popular content still on YT, and that is certainly something that may be beneficial to their brand and something they should be free to do.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#193

Post by rowanG077 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:15 AM UTC

ryankemper wrote: post #148

techsupporter wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 noti…

I completely agree. For the simple fact that no human or organisation can be trusted with the power to silence anyone or any group.

I Think this should apply to functional social monopolys as well. YouTube/facebook/instagram etc shouldn't be allowed to remove content they deem untrue.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#194

Post by mrfusion » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:15 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #158

ryankemper wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 noti…

OK. I guess we should let anti-vaxers spread disinformation causing a whole bunch of people dying unnecessarily because people believed it.

I agree anti Vaxers are ridiculous. But just to play devils advocate. What if there ever was a dangerous vaccine out there, wouldn’t we want people to be able to speak out?

Honestly I don’t have any solutions. I don’t like either option.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#195

Post by smitty1e » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:15 AM UTC

new_guy wrote: post #63

luckydata wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It really doesn't though. I run a pretty big social platform based on 'free speech', every time a site like Youtube or Facebook goes on a purge like this our membership increases and we make bank.

Capitalism is a beautiful thing.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#196

Post by catalogia » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

stevebmark wrote: post #171

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 th…

> I hear this a lot. Light is the best disinfectant. What evidence do you have for this?

The propensity of totalitarian governments to censor dissidents is proof of it.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#197

Post by Proven » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

1) YouYoube has the right to practice censorship on their own Web property. We may not like it but that's how it is and how it should be

2) Icke should have expected this and primed their accounts on alternative sites

Fxxx YouTube, Google and the rest of their globalist friends.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#198

Post by colordrops » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:16 AM UTC

stevebmark wrote: post #171

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 th…

I know that HN is an international community but it's based in the US and most users are Americans. In the US, you need strong evidence of negative repercussions to restrict speech, and even then it's extremely difficult, due to the 1st amendment being one of the most important laws of the land. It's not the other way around - evidence is not needed to show that allowing speech is helpful.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#199

Post by DonHopkins » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:17 AM UTC

ryankemper wrote: post #151

DonHopkins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit. And the Constitution decides that the truth is that the First Amendment doesn't apply to YouTube. That's an objective truth you seem to be unaware of.

I consider your statement to really be saying the following: "According to myself, YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit."

That's right, because "Lizard People" are technically "Jews", so he's not actually ranting and raving about fictitious lizards, he's ranting and raving about Jews, so maybe he's not technically objectively full of shit because Jews really exist, huh?

But maybe YouTube's lawyers advised them that the First Amendment doesn't apply to them because they're not Congress, so they booted him for anti-semitism, and inciting terrorism, and being a menace to public health, among other subjective but perfectly legal and valid and morally justifiable reasons.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#200

Post by mrfusion » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:17 AM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #97

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…

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…

It’s kind of the same argument for your water company. There’s only one company in town, are they allowed to deny you water service without some sort of published process with oversight?