Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#291

Post by cambalache »

knzhou wrote: post #180
cameronbrown wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You cant have it both ways. Either youtube is relevant and important in the public discourse and you agree with them there is a risk that vast portions of the population will be misled by those videos , or Youtube is an incosequential player so it does not matter what publishes. If you agree with the second point you should not care what it is published there, the same reason you dont care about the contents of the "monthly bulletin of the crypto-anarchist Fidjian association"

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#292

Post by CapricornNoble »

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…

Nobody complains when the most blatant kooks get disappeared (Alex Jones), but it's absolutely affecting more mainstream content creators, who can't even produce opinion pieces reporting on related news without their videos getting deleted or forced into Private.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO4cPAm7QkQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30g_pIVUGpQ&t=814s

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#293

Post by verdverm »

throwaway122378 wrote: post #215
cmckn wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Corporations should not be allowed to persecute based on option or beliefs either. Corporations already cant persecute based on sex, race, religion, orientation or age. Why should beliefs be any different?

You're missing the application part.

Employers may not discriminate based on these things. They can let you go for what you say. It's called employment at will and I should have the right to remove someone from my private company who is toxic to our culture. If someone is acting unprofessional, I can see no way to force the company to retain them.

This is completely separate from private publishers and platforms. Should a magazine or news paper be forced to publish anything? Does YouTube not charging you for producing content somehow change their relationship?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#294

Post by CapriciousCptl »

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'm sorry, but "freedom of speech," as in the first amendment protects the right to express opinions. It does not protect misstatements of fact.

Not all people are rational animals that objectively acquire and then review all the information in front of them to weigh the merits of "5g versus virus." Sometimes, when you see a guy gaining a following by telling others that vaccines have secret microchips in them and that humanity has to fight 5g in order to survive, you tell him to go to hell and host his vile videos somewhere else.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#295

Post by throwaway829 »

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 who decides what's a "bad idea"? Every group has its own list, whether it's Scientology, the CCP, NAMBLA, PITA, etc. What group do you trust with defining your list of "bad ideas"? Historically the "bad idea" list has been generated by whoever rules/controls you. Why do you think it's different this time?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#296

Post by chii »

detaro wrote: post #57
chii wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is. have youtube put on a warning saying that this content is misinformation/wrong. But not censored because censoring "wrong" content just gives those who blindly believe it to feel that they're being targeted - it doesn't change their mind. Censoring it is just promoting it to other underground channels that are more difficult…

> censoring "wrong" content just gives those who blindly believe it to feel that they're being targeted - it doesn't change their mind. And having warnings slapped on it doesn't?

it looks less conspiratorial. if you see a warning, but you have the freedom to view it, you won't get emotionally triggered to think that you're being attacked. it's like banning books, vs putting a warning out about it, but continue to allow it to be sold and read.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#297

Post by Frondo »

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…

So, so far I haven't seen anyone on here take the strong free speech absolutist position -- that nothing should be censored ever, including calls to violence. I've seen several comments that basically say "don't censor in general, but do remove calls to violence," so that seems like it's not a controversial opinion at least in this discussion.

Why are calls to violence bad, but spreading misinformation about a pandemic (whether it's that it is a hoax, that it is not transmissible, or that you can cure it by drinking bleach) is okay?

It seems to me that, if you're saying calls to violence can be censored because they will inspire people to act badly, then you've crossed the line into saying people can't be trusted to act appropriately.

Why ban that, but not misinformation about the pandemic?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#298

Post by knzhou »

remarkEon wrote: post #287
knzhou wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, n…

>I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea Sure but who decides what ideas are bad or immoral or harmful? Everyone pretends like this is some simple problem to solve but come on. It's incredibly complex and it seems that both sides of this argument that want to anoint an Arbiter of Truth are only okay with it insofar as it's their Arbiter.

Just imagine traveling back in time and trying to convince your grandmother of this.

"We just can't know if the polio vaccine will work, because it's just fundamentally impossible to decide what is true and false."

"What about the trials the scientists did?"

"No, grandma, believing the scientists would be picking a side."

The only reason that anybody thinks deciding the truth is impossible is because we're currently living with the greatest amount of free speech in history. It's a slippery slope but in the exact opposite direction than everybody thinks.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#299

Post by pacala »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #272
pacala wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

are 99% of people entertaining dissident thoughts getting banned from youtube?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063265

> We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063531

> Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#300

Post by BubRoss »

legolas2412 wrote: post #252
cortesoft wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

YouTube isn't the internet
Post reply on HN