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

511–520 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#511

Post by chrononaut »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #480
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…

My actual answer is in the last line, but I'll ramble a bit first. You make an interesting point, but I think there are times in which we can prohibit certain types of posts and comments that might technically be censorship (using the definition of suppression or prohibition of things that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security), but they aren't bad censorship. I would place some so…

Great set of questions and points.

> I struggle a bit with whether YouTube should be legally required to follow the First Amendment (they are a US corporation, not a government), but I can say that I think that their deletion of David Icke's account leaves a bad taste in my mouth- not because I like him, but because I worry that YouTube may one day bow to majority pressure and censor a topic in which I belong to the minority.

As an aside to this topic, I would be a bit troubled if YouTube were enforcing policies silently without telling stating what they were. In this case, they are stating what those guidelines are, and how the criteria of how they enforce them, although that brings up another point of yours:

> It would be great if YouTube adopted easy to follow policies and would terminate accounts based on clear breaches of policy, rather than just playing whack-a-mole with whatever topic is hot at the moment. There are tons of other videos spreading misinformation on YouTube about other public health topics (the anti-vax movement being a big one), why is David Icke's account being deleted and not theirs? There are tons of other conspiracy theorists on YouTube, why are Alex Jones and David Icke the only ones to get their accounts deleted?

I would surmise it could be a factor of scale, but even if it wasn't I am not sure it necessarily matters. For example, let's say they state their position on an arbitrary policy (unrelated to this latest policy) and let's assume that the users would nearly universally support it. However, let's also say they only take action on "the worst offenders" (of some definition), would it be better for them to not do anything at all until they have the means to capture the majority of videos / users that violate those policies, or start with the larger groups first?

Another way I like to look at these sort of problems is switching the position around in how the platform developed. If YouTube still positioned itself as a general platform from the beginning, but at their very start they stated that any health / medical content must adhere to WHO policies, and then YouTube grew to the ubiquity it is today, I am curious what sort of acceptance we would have for it in today's environment right now. Would it have made YouTube less likely to become as popular, opening the door further for competitors to enter the space?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#512

Post by ashtonkem »

imgabe wrote: post #207
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?

I would prefer content not to be prohibited at all. Content is not a problem. Actions are a problem. Watch all the videos you like telling you to burn down a cell tower. Once you do burn down a cell tower, then you go to jail. Perhaps we should also then hold the people telling people to burn down cell towers responsible, criminally and civilly, for the people who listen to them. David Icke might not be so cavalier a…

If you’re worried about freedom of speech, then giving more people standing to sue David Icke for taking his dumb advice would be far more stifling than allowing YT to ban people. This would basically allow anyone with deep enough pockets to police speech using the courts.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#513

Post by thdrdt »

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…

There are other ways to censor content.

On HN bad comments get very light. Still readable but everybody knows they were downvoted.

YouTube could add labels over the videos like "this content contains false and dangerous information". Then the content can still be discussed but everybody will be alerted to be very sceptical about the information.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#514

Post by JSavageOne »

chrononaut wrote: post #485
JSavageOne wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a niche community focused on startups and tech. Youtube is the monopoly on user-uploaded video content and has 2 billion users.

I am unsure of your argument. Are you saying that the size of the company factors into what policies it can enforce? i.e., smaller companies can have more freedom in policing content, but if an undefined critical mass is reached (perhaps market share), they should have less flexibility on curated content? Or is it a factor of what it's trying to build? e.g., if YouTube only focused on hosting political content, shoul…

Yes the size most certainly matters, obviously Facebook should be held to a different standard than some niche social network for pet owners with 100 users. Monopolies should be held to a different standard.

I'd argue that the nature of the business should factor into it as well. Since Youtube advertises and presents itself as a platform where any user can upload any kind of content excluding pornography and dark stuff (eg. animal abuse), I don't think that censoring on the basis of political views alone is justified (I'm not familiar with David Icke, so I can't speak for this specific incident).

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#515

Post by deminature »

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…

Deplatforming has proven highly effective at preventing bad actors from continuing to spread misinformation on Reddit and other social media sites [1]. I support free speech in principle, but internet platforms are such a powerful megaphone for spreading misinformation, the likes of which history has never seen, that platform owners may feel ethically obligated to act against those who would misuse their systems to cause global societal harm.

Some misinformation is just unambiguously harmful and so profoundly incorrect that no reasonable person could see stopping it as a slippery slope of free speech. For example, the misinformation being proliferated by Icke, that 5G spreads coronavirus and that people should destroy 5G towers. People actually went out and set 5G towers alight in response to Icke's posts [2]. It's quite reasonable that Youtube or any other social media platform would not want to be responsible for disseminating information to leads to real-life crimes.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...

[2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/4/21207927/5g-towers-burning...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#516

Post by rlt »

ashtonkem wrote: post #509
JSavageOne wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a niche community focused on startups and tech. Youtube is the monopoly on user-uploaded video content and has 2 billion users.

Why should the size of the community matter? Under what rationale are you going to decide that HN can moderate but YT cannot?

Platforms that are monopolies or close to it are essentially the modern day town square, except instead of police and government enforcing rules, it's tech companies.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#517

Post by erk__ »

TheUndead96 wrote: post #489
joshuamorton wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is the exact type of escalation that is not helpful. This caricatures the argument that institutions are not perfect. In the beginning, the WHO said the virus could not be spread between people. And YouTube & friends are actively censoring to imperfect sources (since all sources are ultimately imperfect).

Note that WHO never said that, it is correct that they in the middle of January said that the evidence they had at the current time then did not show transfer between people. But they never spoke about it as it was a fact.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#518

Post by syrrim »

Gatsky wrote: post #99

I don’t understand the free speech arguments here. Youtube is an advertising platform. They can do what they want with their platform. If I own a billboard, and someone wants to advertise their bags for dead kittens, I can say no. There needs to be some sense of proportionality. If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech. But getting banned from You…

>I don’t understand the free speech arguments here.

It's pretty simple. Many people rely on youtube's platform to reach viewers. This is the case for youtube recommendations, but also for subscriptions. When youtube bans someone, that person will reach a vastly smaller audience, in effect censoring them. Questions?

>I can say no.

That is a free speech issue as well. We might decide that you chose correctly, usually on the balance that the dead kittens advertiser has an equivalent platform available to them, but that doesn't rend it out of the arms of free speech

>If the government bashed down Icke’s door and smashed his computer then sure, we should worry about free speech.

Free speech is not only a concept in law. Freedom refers to the ability to do something, not only the legal right to do something. Free speech refers to the ability to reach an (non-captive) audience, not a legal right to say things in an empty room.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#519

Post by remarkEon »

me_again wrote: post #491
mirimir wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The "shouting 'fire' in a theatre" meme comes from a case where the Supreme Court used the Espionage Act to restrict speech because the speech in question didn't sufficiently support entering into a World War and advocated against the draft.

Not exactly the best way to convince people that restricting speech is actually good.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#520

Post by ashtonkem »

rlt wrote: post #516
ashtonkem wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the size of the community matter? Under what rationale are you going to decide that HN can moderate but YT cannot?

Platforms that are monopolies or close to it are essentially the modern day town square, except instead of police and government enforcing rules, it's tech companies.

The courts have made it quite clear that they’re unwilling to consider companies to be similar to the “town square” unless if they’re doing literally what governments have traditionally done. There is no clear way to argue that YT is doing something that governments traditionally did, so you’re out of luck there.

If you believe YT is a monopoly, then it would be far less harmful to everyone if it was just broken up, rather than basically banning moderation on the internet.

Post reply on HN