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

371–380 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#371

Post by thebean11 »

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.

> I might also ask why you aren't protesting Hacker News having moderators? Content is deleted from this platform all the time.

You don't see the difference between debating whether there should be moderators and debating what those moderators should do?

Nobody is questioning whether YouTube should moderate its platform. We are questioning how they moderate it.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#372

Post by aantthony »

knzhou wrote: post #357
aantthony wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant they didn't know the truth about them. They obviously knew that slavery was occurring.

So you're arguing that once the public knows the truth... then the public will know the truth? Does sound like a rather weak claim, doesn't it?

No.

stevebmark said "I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea die out when more people learn about it and scrutinize it"

So I gave examples of some ideas that did in fact die out when people learned about them and scrutinized them. My argument was that it's naive to think censoring ideas this time will be on the right side of history.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#373

Post by Leary »

koheripbal wrote: post #367
knzhou wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a standard in mind that's better than the WHO? Would you prefer content prohibited on the basis of whether it sounds right or wrong to a random Google employee?

NIH? CDC? Their statements were more accurate.

The same CDC that to this day says masks don't prevent the wearer from getting infected?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#374

Post by jonathanyc »

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…

> Many may disagree, but I think we need to throw out this concept of "disinformation" entirely. I don't believe in fighting "bad ideas" by suppressing them, I believe in shining a light on them. Let the truth fight for itself.

Your argument is flawed on many counts.

(1) You’re forgetting that the people subscribing these 5G conspiracy channels on YouTube by definition already have access to YouTube and likely the rest of the web. A plethora of true information is already available to them.

(2) Stop anthropomorphizing truth: people fight to promote what they think is true.

(3) Even if the first amendment applied here, recall that it has been established that the first amendment does not protect shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater.

(4) How can you claim that the truth will fight for itself when you’re unwilling to even address the very convincing counter argument you so helpfully included at the end of your comment?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#375

Post by runako »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #271
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…

> I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea die out when more people learn about it and scrutinize it. Leaded gasoline, phlogiston, cold fusion, phrenology, scientific racism, basically the entire history of the progress of science. But let's also not forget that you're asking for a list of discredited ideas, so you wouldn't have heard of them, by definition, if things are working as they should, because they'…

When did scientific racism die out? Mainstream US publications are still publishing op-eds that assume scientific racism is a legitimate topic. This has been going on since the country was founded. I'm not sure how effective a disinfectant sunlight is if it takes centuries to work.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#376

Post by thebean11 »

knzhou wrote: post #350
unishark wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you'd prefer a quote like: the best response to bad speech is an authoritarian censor with unlimited powers to silence and imprison people? Because if your only criterion is effectiveness at silencing someone I think that misses the point. Built into the statement is the idea that otherwise the cure (censorship) is worse than the disease.

This slope isn't nearly as slippery as you're saying. If YouTube began issuing a million times more bans, it might approach the quality of an average newspaper in terms of accuracy. Would we be living in a dystopia at that point? No, we'd be living just like we did in the year 2000, when YouTube wasn't around but newspapers were. Just like a nutjob in 2000, Icke still has print, radio, TV, going outside with a megaph…

There are huge differences between YouTube (a platform for user-generated content) and a newspaper (a publisher). The latter curates and is legally responsible for anything it publishes, the former isn't.

I think YouTube is a lot closer to AT&T than to the New York Times.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#377

Post by AnthonyMouse »

aantthony wrote: post #341
quazeekotl wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I meant they didn't know the truth about them. They obviously knew that slavery was occurring.

Not only that, the truth as it's taught in history books was relatively short-lived. Prior to mercantilism and the industrial revolution, slavery and serfdom were basically equivalent. There was a lord and you worked for them in exchange for room and board and protection. You might not love it, but there wasn't really anywhere else to go for anybody who couldn't raise a military force and become a lord themselves.

Then suddenly there were factories who would hire anybody who showed up and pay them real money and plantation workers started running off to work in the factories left and right. It was no longer that people stayed because they had no better option, they were then being forced to stay against their will. The dynamic changed. Chains and beatings entered the scene to keep slaves from running off. They did anyway, so their replacements had to be forcefully kidnapped because there were no longer any volunteers.

The whole thing collapsed and was dismantled in a relatively short period of time after that.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#378

Post by WalterBright »

quazeekotl wrote: post #328
zozbot234 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "sunlight" includes the norms of a free and intellectually-open society, which didn't develop until well after those thousands of years. Censorship itself is not even that bad merely due to how it might deal with the YouTube fruitcake du jour; it's really , really bad because it's openly destructive of these hard-gained shared norms, in so many ways.

Maybe, but the argument is that mere public existence of an idea effectively promotes correct ideas and demotes incorrect ideas. That is absolutely not in evidence.

Sure it is. All kinds of ideas died when information became readily available, even when the authorities tried to suppress them.

For example, the idea of a nobility class.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#379

Post by MR4D »

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…

My argument is a bit different.

YouTube is a public platform because it is viewable without an account or membership.

If you had to log in to view a video or read an article, then it would truly be private.

I think we’ve gotten to the point where we need to define a clearer set of rules with stronger protections of speech on these open platforms. (Closed platforms can do whatever the they want, as always.)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#380

Post by thebean11 »

knzhou wrote: post #327
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's have a word about gay rights then. Once upon a time a pride parade full of rainbow hair dye and BDSM leather and face paint and drag queens and hairy-chested shirtless men would have been right next to your "spittle-flecked rants" in the proper gentleman's book of ways not to get your message out, but I wouldn't want to be the one to say that they should have been censored over it. Not everybody is a traditiona…

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.

Regardless of whether they helped public perception, should they have been censored until public opinion caught up?
Post reply on HN