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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#251

Post by BubRoss » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:36 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…

The internet is already available. Anyone can rent a vps and host their videos.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#252

Post by legolas2412 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:36 AM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #83

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/

If you hold this absolutest view of free speech, does that mean you don't believe that fraud should be a crime? I am allowed to just blatantly lie about anything under the cover of free speech, right? What about libel or slander? Can I say that brenden2 is a murderer, and make a website with photoshopped pictures of you killing people? Free speech has limits, and telling blatant lies meant to mislead people is one of…

What if you really believe that drinking bleach does cure covid? What if it is cow urine or holy water that you bestow your belief in?

Are we going to also ban religion, and the whole mess of lies it brings with it?

It is not even a slipper slope at your point, it is a cliff with a waterfall

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#253

Post by throwaway2048 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:36 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #233

knzhou wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have no idea how you managed to misconstrue what I said so badly that you came to that conclusion, but that is not the case at all. The people in the concentration camps did not get talked to death. They died because of actions that people took.

But under your logic, Hitler was not the problem, and should have been free to say whatever he liked, correct?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#254

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:36 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've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea die out when more people learn about it and scrutinize it.

Exactly. Despite the claims of the piles of misguided comments below, there has never been any such thing as a public "marketplace of ideas". At best, there's a used car dealership. Just about anybody with the slightest bit of cleverness and free time can convince any trusting person of anything whatsoever, no matter how horrible, given enough exposure. Bullshit is easy to produce and, once it's burrowed in, almost impossible to counter.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#255

Post by DonHopkins » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

nightcracker wrote: post #94

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/

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.

It sure worked well with Milo.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#256

Post by legolas2412 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #154

nightcracker wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you follow your line of thought then David Icke should be prosecuted. And then YouTube is still wrong here, acting as a judge, jury and executioner vigilante.

No, they just decided, as a commercial entity not under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment, to stop cutting him checks. Get a grip, they're not executing him.

He's not commenting on that. He's commenting to the guy who suggests that "drinking bleach cures covid" should not be covered under free speech.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#257

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

longtom wrote: post #212

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.…

The WHO seems to have been embarrassingly wrong or overconfident on many accounts: 1. Global air travel does not need to be stopped. 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. 3. There is still a "window of opportunity". 4. Masks don't work (but health workers need them!). 5. The CFR is like 4%.

> Global air travel does not need to be stopped.

This isn't what the WHO said. They said bans on air from specific places (especially those that disrupt supply chains) are bad. This is true. Banning all air travel to/from china would have hurt medical supply chains in the US, with very little benefit.

> 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission.

When this claim was made (in early january), there was not clear evidence of human to human transmission. It was revised a few days later when there was.

> 4. Masks don't work (but health workers need them!).

This isn't what was said. They said that random people shouldn't go out of their way to acquire medical PPE (save it for medical personnel)

> 5. The CFR is like 4%.

Depending on the country, the CFR varies between 1.5% and like 15%. 4% seems like a reasonable estimate there. Unless you rely on the unfounded belief that there are large completely undetected swaths of the population that are infected but entirely asymptomatic, (which would have been found in South Korea, for example), the WHO's estimate is reasonable.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#258

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #239

knzhou wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There indeed were a few dangerous vaccines, about three generations ago. That's exactly why we have the elaborate clinical trial system today: they stop potentially unsafe vaccines all the time . A large fraction of the COVID vaccines might go this way. Nobody is against banning unsafe vaccines, but some are for banning people from spreading baseless, conspiratorial anti-vax bullshit.

Exactly. But who are we trusting to tell the difference between bullshit and not? Would you trust youtube employees with that?

No, which is exactly why I'm happy they defer to the WHO. I don't trust the WHO unconditionally either, but I trust it much much more than David Icke.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#259

Post by ryankemper » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

cmckn wrote: post #125

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…

The first amendment is about the government. Your speech is not illegal. The government cannot persecute you for your opinion or beliefs. It has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to be heard on the internet.

I must admit I find your reply a bit frustrating, because I literally began my comment by addressing what I feel is exactly your argument:

> 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), but that's different from saying that we as a society should want our private platforms to engage in such censorship and suppression.

In other words, do you see how your response is taking exactly the "well, technically it's legal" attitude that I was talking about, and how my point was about that there is a difference between what is legal and what we actually want in a society?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#260

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

brandonmenc wrote: post #217

no_wizard wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you, though, actually decide in a reasonable and objective fashion who’s big enough to warrant being held to a different standard than others? How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious Look at the rise of tiktok. On one hand at least where I live they had almost no mindshare but in the past 2 months now they do, and they’re growing in user count. Should they meet the same threshold…

> How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious We set a number. Done. These are corporations that only exist because we permit them to. Given enough political will, we can regulate them however we want.

Corporations now spin off new companies so that they hover just below that arbitrary number that turns them into a public space. Instead of YouTube, we have YouTube, MeTube, ITube and UsTube.

We're now back to square one, because those companies hover below said number and advertisers control what content is allowed on said sites. All of those individual companies ban 5G conspiracy theories because it's bad for business. Next step?