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

541–550 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#541

Post by joshfraser »

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…

"Give your worst political enemy the power to decide what is "hate speech" and what is "disinformation" and then you'll realize that free speech isn't something we should ever compromise on". - Naval Ravikant

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#542

Post by jshevek »

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?

The degree of a corporation's control over the flow of information matters because the harm done to our society is different.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#543

Post by esoterica »

ryankemper wrote: post #250
joshuamorton wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that in some cases we do not know what is true is valid. The idea that therefore we can never determine what is true and therefore must, in the name of "free speech" support and help anyone say anything is not. David Icke is not spreading information. He's spreading nonsense about lizard people. That's objectively true.

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…

It’s very easy to maintain a logically consistent belief system that allows for private censorship. It’s called “the person who owns the servers makes the rules”, and if you don’t like then rules then buy your own servers.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#544

Post by jshevek »

ashtonkem wrote: post #533
rlt wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're commenting about "the courts" in a thread that started with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."

What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?

In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' to set aside the decisions of the courts and the letter of the law.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#545

Post by WalterBright »

james-mcelwain wrote: post #445
tomhoward wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty low effort comment, but more importantly is conceding the several upthread assertions that freedom of speech has historically been effective at correcting bad ideas. If your claim is that we shouldn't expect this to continue in the future, that's a whole new claim that you need to support.

I mean, a teleological view of history and ethics is just so absurd that it disturbs me that professed "rational" scientifically minded people believe it. There's no basis for believing just because things "tend" to get better that is in itself a causative argument about some intrinsic nature of humanity. I mean, even the example used ("the noble class") is preposterous on face because: 1. The Russian Revolution? Ger…

> Nobility still exists!

Only as formality in some countries. In America, there are some people who call the Kennedys "America's aristocracy", call JFK's white house "Camelot", and make references to members of the Kennedy family being "entitled" to office, but there's no legal basis for it.

Apartheid in South Africa is also gone.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#546

Post by rlt »

deminature wrote: post #532
rlt wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Deplatforming" is some pretty great doublespeak for "censoring". We already have a solution to idiots vandalizing 5G towers: arrest them.

This board regularly ‘censors’ people who break the rules. It’s the price of having a reasonably nice board to post on. There’s a difference between censorship and punishing bad behavior.

See this comment which makes this point already, and the subthread discussing the differences between YouTube and Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23064505

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#547

Post by jfoster »

knzhou wrote: post #263
longtom wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO seems to have been embarrassingly wrong or overconfident on many accounts: 1. Global air travel does not need to be stopped. 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. 3. There is still a "window of opportunity". 4. Masks don't work (but health workers need them!). 5. The CFR is like 4%.

> 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point m…

> Here you need to remember that the W stands for "World".

So they give dubious advice to the entire world since the good advice doesn't perfectly fit the world in entirety? There are many better options: don't give advice, explain two sets of advice, ask for advice from governments to be followed, make the advice generic enough that it still applies to the world.

An example of advice that might apply anywhere in the world:

"Face coverings will help to reduce transmission. In most parts of the world, masks will be in short supply and needed by health care workers much more than the general population. Masks can be made from any type of cloth. Although these may not have the same efficacy as high grade masks and the efficacy will be dependent upon the material used as well as the degree of seal against the face, these will help to reduce transmission."

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#548

Post by BurningCycles »

Frondo wrote: post #297
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…

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 pandem…

>Why are calls to violence bad, but spreading misinformation about a pandemic

How do you know what is 'misinformation' ? WHO claimed that face masks were worthless, now you are forced to wear them in lots of places. WHO also claimed that there was no human to human transmission of COVID-19, etc.

The powers that be will not stop spreading misinformation when it suits them, they just want no one to be able to question it. The right to question is something we can't give up just to avoid bad actors.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#549

Post by rlt »

ashtonkem wrote: post #533
rlt wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're commenting about "the courts" in a thread that started with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."

What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?

Yes.

The First Amendment is one specific protection of freedom of speech. It does not equal freedom speech, which is a general concept that private companies can also uphold (but I think everyone here acknowledges they are not legally obligated to)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#550

Post by rahidz »

joshfraser wrote: post #541
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…

"Give your worst political enemy the power to decide what is "hate speech" and what is "disinformation" and then you'll realize that free speech isn't something we should ever compromise on". - Naval Ravikant

By this logic we shouldn't let governments regulate anything, for fear of Hypothetical Hitler one day abusing it.
Post reply on HN