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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#331

Post by remarkEon » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:24 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #298

remarkEon wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

This is a really stupid example because they didn't actually do the kind of double-blind peer-reviewed trials for the polio vaccine that you seem to think is the only way for "science" to declare something as acceptable - they just did it. And actually, in the first round of "trials" for the Polio vaccine a bunch of children died. But, thankfully, we didn't have some annoying corporate apparatus running things at the time, so we eventually got over that initial hiccup and BAM ... no more Polio.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#332

Post by throwaway17_17 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:25 AM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #199

ryankemper wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just as a statement of legal fact, the First Amendment applies to more entities than Congress.

Just to preempt any question, I’m not saying the First Amendment prevents YouTube from not publishing Icke’s content

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#333

Post by aantthony » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:25 AM UTC

quazeekotl wrote: post #322

aantthony wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. There is a significant amount of evidence for it. For example, one could measure the effects of showing people fact-checks, and it has been demonstrated that it does indeed work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-checking#Effects And there are countless ideas that have die…

Most of those ideas didn't die out because one day people found out about them, and then we put an end to them. Most of them _everyone_ knew about for thousands, or even tens of thousands of years, why didn't this "sunlight" disinfect them?

Why has the goalpost moved from an idea dying out, to dying out within one day? And who is "we"?

> Most of them _everyone_ knew about for thousands, or even tens of thousands of years

That's not true. People didn't know about it. When the sunlight came, people changed their beliefs relatively quickly compared to how long the false beliefs were held. Sometimes within a few years, but generally within a generation.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#334

Post by CapricornNoble » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:25 AM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #274

ryankemper wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally agree that what David Icke is spreading is a bunch of nonsense. But I'm against suppressing him because otherwise I can't maintain a logically consistent belief system. That is to say, as soon as we can ban the lizard guy, we can also ban a lot more viewpoints that are not quite as controversial / outright crazy but straddle the line. And just to head this off, the dimension of palatability to advertiser…

>ban the lizard guy He's not "the lizard guy", he's "the antisemitic guy". Lizards = Jews. It's not crazy speech, it's thinly disguised hate speech. Got it? Understand yet? Because all the racists do. Are you against banning the antisemitic guy or not?

Not the OP, but I'm against banning the anti-Semite. I'm against banning Mein Kampf. I'm against banning the writings of Marquis de Sade. I'm against banning people who advocate for a "spectrum" of non-binary genders.

An adult should be capable of consuming information from disparate sources, especially distasteful ones, and formulating logical arguments to deconstruct those positions. It takes some practice. That practice can't be done in an information vacuum. If there are deficiencies in the population's ability to perform the above, then we should be rectifying that through education (whereby I mean improving how people go about mentally solving problems), rather that scrubbing the world of "bad" data or opinions.

Entrusting institutions to ban media is essentially saying "These people know what's good for you, better than you do." and I absolutely abhor that sort of arrogant, misplaced, condescension. It often comes from people who are intelligent, but nowhere near as infallible as they think they are.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#335

Post by quazeekotl » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

aantthony wrote: post #333

quazeekotl wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those ideas didn't die out because one day people found out about them, and then we put an end to them. Most of them _everyone_ knew about for thousands, or even tens of thousands of years, why didn't this "sunlight" disinfect them?

Why has the goalpost moved from an idea dying out, to dying out within one day? And who is "we"? > Most of them _everyone_ knew about for thousands, or even tens of thousands of years That's not true. People didn't know about it. When the sunlight came, people changed their beliefs relatively quickly compared to how long the false beliefs were held. Sometimes within a few years, but generally within a generation.

Do you really think people at large didn't know about hanging, slavery, human sacrifice, and ideas about a flat earth in societies where these ideas were applicable?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#336

Post by throwaway17_17 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #274

ryankemper wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally agree that what David Icke is spreading is a bunch of nonsense. But I'm against suppressing him because otherwise I can't maintain a logically consistent belief system. That is to say, as soon as we can ban the lizard guy, we can also ban a lot more viewpoints that are not quite as controversial / outright crazy but straddle the line. And just to head this off, the dimension of palatability to advertiser…

>ban the lizard guy He's not "the lizard guy", he's "the antisemitic guy". Lizards = Jews. It's not crazy speech, it's thinly disguised hate speech. Got it? Understand yet? Because all the racists do. Are you against banning the antisemitic guy or not?

But his anti-Semitic content did not result in the ban, his mis-information concerning Covid-19 did. YouTube has not taken any measures to implement a policy of banning for anti-Semitic speech.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#337

Post by quazeekotl » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #317

quazeekotl wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Hitler was guilty of no crimes then? It would have been a good, or at least morally obligated thing that nobody stopped him, yes?

Is giving a speech a crime? Which speeches are crimes? Who is going to determine that? You? More importantly, who would you like to put in charge of determining whether your speech is a crime? Contrary to what is expressed above, Hitler did much more than give speeches. He also gave orders which is a different thing entirely. Saying "Gee I wish so-and-so were dead" is not a crime in any reasonable democracy. Telling…

So you would be perfectly fine with Hitler at least being elected then, and anyone who tried to stop him would be a bad person?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#338

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #329

knzhou wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not actually how it worked out. Gay marriage didn't go from an unpopular stance to a popular one throughout the 2000s by displays like this. If anything, they were used as ammunition by people strongly against gay marriage in order to slow the change in public opinion.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/08/gay-rites-are-civil-ri... First you show the world you exist and convince your friends it's worth trying to change things, then you convince the moderates, then you win the fight, then you wait for your bitter enemies to die because they'll never be convinced but at least their kids are open to new ideas. Pissing off your bitter enemies can be hard to avoid and still get the job…

But this article is making my exact point. By the time gay marriage was actually gaining acceptance, the largest pride parades had become as tame as 4th of July celebrations, with SF pride marching with the police, the mayor, and Google employees. They're completely different from their predecessors, like the Stonewall riots.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#339

Post by koheripbal » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:29 AM UTC

stevebmark wrote: post #311

throwaway829 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, this is a completely valid question. In this specific case: Do you think it's bad for YouTube to be active in reducing the spread of this information? Because to me it's almost self evident it shouldn't be entertained as a valid idea. I might also ask why you aren't protesting Hacker News having moderators? Content is deleted from this platform all the time.

Again, the issue is the abuse of power. Google is very nearly a quasi-government organization. They have endless government contracts, they spend more on DC lobbying than anyone else, and they actively share data with US intelligence agencies.

At some point, the laws that protect us from government, must also apply to these massive quasi-government monopolies - or they quickly become worthless.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#340

Post by koheripbal » Mon, May 04, 2020, 2:31 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #228

colordrops wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there should not be a standard of truth, that's the point. It's a market place of free ideas.

It's not a "marketplace of ideas", in practice it'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.

So the alternative is to create "oracles of truth" that cannot be questioned?

That's just the opposite idiotic extreme.