Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

561–570 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#561
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea die out when more people learn about it and scrutinize it. Exactly. Despite the claims of the piles of misguided comments below, there has never been any such thing as a public "marketplace of ideas". At best, there'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, n…

>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.

>Sure but who decides what ideas are bad or immoral or harmful?

Simple, whoever owns the platform.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious We set a number. Done. These are corporations that only exist because we permit them to. Given enough political will, we can regulate them however we want.

Corporations now spin off new companies so that they hover just below that arbitrary number that turns them into a public space. Instead of YouTube, we have YouTube, MeTube, ITube and UsTube. We're now back to square one, because those companies hover below said number and advertisers control what content is allowed on said sites. All of those individual companies ban 5G conspiracy theories because it's bad for busin…

Subdividing your corporation isn't a right just like mergers this can be disallowed. As with any fraud laws intentionally trying to avoid it can be made illegal.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#563
post #556

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 don't believe in fighting "bad ideas" by suppressing them, I believe in shining a light on them. Let the truth fight for itself. I mean, this is testable. Look at websites where "bad ideas" aren't suppressed, and instead anyone can chime in with their reasoned or unreasoned opinion and duke it out without any real-life consequences. ...and you end up with 8chan, the site where people discuss the best ways to murde…

Related: Gresham's law as a mental model - Bad drive out good

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that I am entering propaganda territory, or instead that David Icke is/was? The meaning is not clear to me, although I assume you are referring to myself. Again, the distinction here is that I don't think being wrong (even if you think it's intentional) is something we should try to suppress. And the reason I think that is because right/wrong is ultimately a value judgement, and thus opens the door for…

Do you believe that YouTube has an obligation to publish objective, demonstrable lies that harm people? What about cryptocurrency scams, what about media co-coordinating assassinations of targets they don't like?

Yes

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#565
post #461

[flagged]

> right wing This can't be relevant. > have no place at the table for rational discussion. What if I'm researching "conspiracy theories"? What if I want to ridicule his stupid conspiracy theory, or make comedy/satire about it?

>This can't be relevant.

You are right that it shouldn't be relevant. I believe that in practice, it is. There are censorious free speech hating people on both sides, but the left-leaning ones seem to have much more power in the US in the last decade than the right-leaning ones. There are cultural issues here, and political allegiance is not irrelevant to the motivation, the rationalizations, or the power dynamics.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s an interesting thing to do, but sans a means of enforcement it seems kind of pointless to me.

This argument could have been used to discourage people from discussing the need to make any ethical improvements in our society, including, for example, ending slavery.

The power of enforcement follows from policy, in a democracy policy is influenced by public opinion, public opinion is shaped by discussion. We ought to discuss moral issues for which there is currently no enforcement.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#568

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%.

> Global air travel does not need to be stopped. This isn't what the WHO said. They said bans on air from specific places (especially those that disrupt supply chains) are bad. This is true. Banning all air travel to/from china would have hurt medical supply chains in the US, with very little benefit. > 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. When this claim was made (in early january), there was not…

There are large swathes of the population that have been infected asymptomatically: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti...

There are similar studies and similar findings in both the US and Europe.

tl;dr The virus is much less lethal for the average person than models predicted before we had more data.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem I always have with this argument is that everyone is undervaluing the unintended consequences of holding companies like YT to the first amendment only. Most people like to image that what they’ll get is more free wheeling discussions on the topic, but in reality all you’ll get is porn. See, YT bans all kinds of stuff that the first amendment protects, including pornography, violence, and a lot of other na…

You seem to be rather fixated on the "first amendment" lens, while others have their own ideas of the value of the ethical principal of free speech as a means of preventing control over 'that which we are permitted to debate'.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#570
post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If I'm interested in content not on HN, I'll find it elsewhere. Why is it any different for YouTube? Now, if you'd said to me that Google doesn't prioritize other content, I'd argue that those wanting to talk about other content always have smaller forums to do it in, they just might be more local or viral in other ways. To me it's the difference between national broadcast TV "I'll know it's wrong when I see it," and the ability to post flyers or posters in a community. One is local and the other is wide-reaching.

There is, I suppose, another alternative. If we want to promote fringe ideas, we should make it easier to organize and elect local candidates, abolish "first-past-the-post" voting systems that encourage a two-party system, and so on.

But currently scientific reasoning is an accepted system of analysis for evidence-based decisions, and most politicians rely on it in addition to emotional intelligence to alter and guide their behaviour and decisions, even as they generally do whatever the person with the deepest pockets says to do, whether because that person sponsors scientific research or conducts surveys and campaigns to sway public opinion.

The issue I have is that fringe opinion, like this, would reject cause-and-effect reasoning and evidence to rely almost entirely on emotions instead. And because it's controversial, people click on it and watch it and wonder about it. When there's no actual evidence to it.

We used to and probably still do, have courses in grade/high school on media literacy, or not believing everything you see on TV. We routinely, as an HN community, encourage reading source materials and deciding for ourselves. But we're a small community, and for YouTube, it's easier to say "it's not our problem any longer" than it is to try and provide counterpoints to the material.

There's a serious risk to YouTube to not pull this down, because of how the feedback loop of their algorithms will encourage folks who like this to watch other fringe videos, until eventually they think all of YouTube, or the world, thinks the same way as these commentators. It's easier in the short term to pull down the content than to change how the algorithms work to make them somehow less relevant. And back to my original point, folks who want this content, they will find it, regardless of what platform it's on.

Post reply on HN