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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#261

Post by pacala » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

runawaybottle wrote: post #238

stevebmark wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You don’t see a pattern? We went from questionable analysis of COVID cases by actual doctors last week, over to 5G coronavirus conspiracy theories this week. This is the proverbial slippery slope, albeit a bit anachronistic as the more egregious case is the latter (5G conspiracy), so the escalation is unable to be painted by the sequence. I’d also ask you consider that your line of thinking as a framework has been mi…

The '5G coronavirus conspiracy theory' is a convenient broad brush to paint any dissident thought as inane, even if 99% people entertaining dissident thoughts are just as appalled as anyone at the 5G theory.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#262

Post by DonHopkins » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

brenden2 wrote: post #52

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.

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…

MTV is a de facto public utility by the same measure, yet they stopped showing music videos decades ago. How DARE they??? That's censorship! I want my MTV, money for nothing, and chicks for free!!!

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#263

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:41 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%.

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

This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they’d managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can’t be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.

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

They don't say masks don't work either, they say that health workers need them more. Here you need to remember that the W stands for "World". They worry the most about the poorer countries who have much fewer masks available.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#264

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:41 AM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #214

olliej wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manga carts basically gave power to landlords, the American revolution protected slavery, the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated the slaves were not people. No one should be beholden to the “giants whose shoulders we straddle”. Note that that phrase is actually applied to scientists who developed evidence based theories rather than old “pure thought” silliness. As far as despotic rule - England had an…

> the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated the slaves were not people. That is categorically not true. It said some problematic things about Native Americans for sure, but they could never have gotten away with pro-slavery language in the Declaration. It's a propaganda document that had to unite wide swaths of revolutionary ideologies; abolitionists included. I assume that you are actually thinking of the 3/…

You're right, it's an implicit assumption in the declaration, made explicit in the Constitution.

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Rests on the assumption that slaves are not "men". But something else.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#265

Post by pasquinelli » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:42 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…

"More importantly, I've also seen the opposite: Private platforms actively suppressing people trying to harm humanity does work."

On who, really? David Icke and the dude from infowars? Are these the big players in the harming humanity business? I don't think so. I'd go as far as to say they're irrelevant. David Icke was a crank on youtube and now he's a crank off youtube-- which might sound significant until you remember he was a crank before youtube, and could well be a crank after youtube.

The big players, the significant forces harming humanity, they won't be challenged by private platforms, because the private platforms need their money, or need access to them, or in some other way have their interests entangled.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#266

Post by koolba » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:42 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…

The problem is that your bad ideas are my rules to live by.

Canceling the spread of ideas itself because you disagree with it or fear that others may agree is downright scary.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#267

Post by mrfusion » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:42 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #258

mrfusion wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But will youtube defer to the right group on every issue? Is there always a right group?

This issue will pass but now they have a precedent.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#268

Post by 2019-nCoV » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:42 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.

Free speech is something unconditional by definition. Congratulating YouTube for thwarting this is a performative contradiction.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#269

Post by Mirioron » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:43 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #127

Mirioron wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The studies show that it reduced the amount of overt hate speech on reddit. That's not the same thing as reducing hate speech on reddit nor is it the same thing as reducing hate speech total. The people who left might've ended up creating seeds elsewhere. We don't know that. Furthermore, overt hate speech isn't necessarily the problem for society. It matters more for society what beliefs someone holds than what they…

That's ridiculous. Of course it matters what someone is willing to express. A person willing to express hateful speech is a person who is also more willing to engage in hateful acts. Making it harder to cross that first line absolutely matters in making it harder for them to cross the line of becoming an active danger to others.

>A person willing to express hateful speech is a person who is also more willing to engage in hateful acts.

Considering how hate speech is a very flimsy term, I don't think that this always follows. I do believe that there's likely a correlation, but I doubt it's strong. Some will say that claiming that there are only 2 genders is hate speech, others that claiming that abortion is murder is hate speech. Not to mention that there are many cases where something clearly not hate speech is labeled as hate speech.

In the UK a teenager was arrested for quoting rap song lyrics on an Instagram profile page. This was labeled a hate crime by the prosecutor.[0] Do you think that this makes her more likely to engage in hateful behavior?

Bullies at school often get away with their bullying, because they bully in ways that are not overtly noticeable. They will use terms that aren't offensive to make fun of and hurt others.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#270

Post by Talanes » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:43 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…

>YouTube is a company founded and operated within the United States.

Which grants them a personhood and free speech rights of their own. They can not be forced into speech they do not approve of.