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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#491

Post by me_again » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:04 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #227

ryankemper wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the notion that we should try to pick a side to suppress. Because the same part of human nature that leads to rampant spread of disinformation is the part of human nature that tries to decide what the capital-T Truth is. Yes, we really can't have it both ways. Either we have free speech for everyone, or we have censorship. There a…

Isn't spreading dangerously false information about a viral pandemic similar to shouting "fire" in a theatre? I'm not sure it's always so easy to distinguish that actively dangerous conduct from fake news.

Not that this difficulty means we shouldn't try.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#492

Post by zentiggr » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:05 AM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #455

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 very nature of scientific inquiry is to question conventional wisdom. Often those new ideas are heretical. That is not to say that all ideas are valid forms of scientific inquiry. But suppressing all but the "blessed" opinions of the WHO goes against the scientific process.

Suppressing blatantly false, inflammatory ideas isn't "all but the 'blessed'".

It is taking the man on the corner who is shouting "Ducks are responsible for your failure!" and "Letting the blacksmith build a second shack will cause insanity in all the children!" off to a quiet room where he no longer causes people to throw stones at the blacksmith, or shoot ducks on sight.

Icke was that special kind of conspiracy nut who wouldn't dare fact check his own bile because he'd find his whole worldview based on nothing.

Slippery slope questions aside, we tend to put controls on things like schizophrenic rambling and people having psychotic breaks... I consider him in that same category. He should be isolated for his own protection and those around him.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#493

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

chrononaut wrote: post #446

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…

> Hacker News Guidelines > What to Submit > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. > In Comments > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#494

Post by zimpenfish » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:08 AM UTC

aantthony wrote: post #313

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…

> 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…

> - flat earth (before Galileo)

I believe this isn't true - the sphericity of the Earth was widely believed well before Galileo.

> - human sacrifice > - laws against gay marriage > - caning children Were these ever views held by the majority? As opposed to, say, a minority of religious zealots in power?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#495

Post by Consultant32452 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

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 could accept almost any standard if I felt it was credibly being applied to all members of the platform. We're far from that world today.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#496

Post by laretluval » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #160

hyperbovine wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you are genuinely not old enough to remember a time before YouTube and Twitter, but there were way fewer conspiracy theories floating around, and they didn't have nearly the social impact that they do today. A coordinated misinformation campaign could never have swayed elections in the US and UK before social media. Why? Because there were institutions in place that acted as a filter. Say what you will about…

David Icke rose to fame long before the Internet. Mormons. Scientologists. The benefits of smoking tobacco. The danger of smoking marijuana. (And vice versa, depending on decade.) The aberrancy/normalcy of homosexuality (take your pick... depends on the decade.) The vast conspiracy theory that is the Red Mensce. The vast conspiracy that is evil capitalism. (Once again, depends on the decade and locale as to which dis…

Where are people going in lieu of Youtube?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#497

Post by fragmede » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:10 AM UTC

PureParadigm wrote: post #460

chrononaut wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hacker News Guidelines > What to Submit > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. > In Comments > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion…

Yes, as the parent mentions, YouTube can do the same kind of content curation from a legal point of view. The question is whether YouTube is a platform where we should advocate for less censorship/more freedom. I think that since YouTube is a general platform and that no serious alternatives exist, we should advocate for less censorship. YouTube is different from Hacker News because YouTube is more of a general platf…

For one, Facebook's trying to give YouTube a run for their money. There's an entire tab in their mobile app dedicated to small bite-size videos like are watched on YouTube, and Facebook Live is all about connecting small video producers directly to their audiences. Outside of that, there are lesser known sites. Vimeo, Metacafe, Dailymotion, Twitch, Veoh. YouTube has the brand recognition, but simply hosting video online isn't that hard. It's way harder if you have to build your own colo though.

For the casual viewer, YouTube has unbeatable brand recognition, and if I was trying to build an audience for a mainstream idea, that's the obvious place. However, for dedicated fans of a specific ideology, with YouTube deplatforming that ideology, the usual considerations are fewer.

Normally, the friction associated with getting viewers to install an app would be enough to dissuade a large number of users. For users who believe the government lies and that they're seeking the truth, and only the RushLimbaughTube app can expose them to it, I don't know if there's the same friction.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#498

Post by zimpenfish » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:10 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #378

quazeekotl wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> All kinds of ideas died when information became readily available > For example, the idea of a nobility class.

America literally has a nobility class right now. The UK isn't far off.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#499

Post by streb-lo » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

rowanG077 wrote: post #193

ryankemper wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I completely agree. For the simple fact that no human or organisation can be trusted with the power to silence anyone or any group. I Think this should apply to functional social monopolys as well. YouTube/facebook/instagram etc shouldn't be allowed to remove content they deem untrue.

HN has a monopoly on discussion between people with (slightly) above-average critical thinking skills. Should we ban their moderation as well?

15 years ago the idea of an internet video monopoly didn't even exist and if it did no one would have cared.

What you are suggesting is impossible to enforce or even reason about.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#500

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 5:12 AM UTC

sjwalter wrote: post #487

knzhou wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There really is no need for hysteria here. 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 megaphone, and go…

I won't quibble the strange comparison between YouTube, whose second-most content producer is a man dubbed PewDiePie who talks about video games and anime memes, to news organizations, though it is quite tempting. This is what I find so strange. Literally zero people on this forum have indicated they are in sync with this dude's views (I hadn't heard of this guy until now, I have no idea what he's about), and from wh…

> So I gather that he's espousing a view that states that quarantines and lockdowns are terrible and ineffective, and encouraging people to ignore them and freely associate.

> I understand that you believe the expression of that view could lead to many people deciding to ignore whatever orders or ordinances that have been imposed upon them.

That is not at all a representative summary of his views, or mine. I see hundreds of people arguing against lockdowns every day, on sites all across the internet, and it's just fine, and nobody is being censored for it. It's so mainstream that even the NYT is publishing opinion pieces about it, e.g. when comparing with Sweden's response.

The actual problem with David Icke is that he espouses conspiracy theories, of the form "the lizard men, Bill Gates, the aliens, and the liberals teamed up to create 5G to wipe out the human race". Stuff like this leads to serious consequences, such as the Congressional baseball shooting, the Pizzagate shooting, the Youtube headquarters shooting, and the armed takeover of the Michigan statehouse.