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

591–600 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#591

Post by Gatsky »

im3w1l wrote: post #462
cwhiz wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is just a video advertising platform. Anyone can host a video virtually anywhere on the internet. You don’t have a right to use YouTube. If you want to upload some videos spreading some fake news propaganda there are quite literally thousands of different sites and services to do that. Google and YouTube have no legal or moral obligation to allow you to use their specific services. The only grey area here is…

I think it's very curious how we see the same people say that Google Must Remove Disinformation, and moments later they say it doesn't matter anyway. Why ask them to remove it then? And besides didn't you (in the plural sense) argue it's up to them as a private company? It's such a mess of contradictions.

1. Youtube should remove disinformation, because it is harmful to society and it would be wrong for Youtube and the misinformers to profit from it, a special and unique scenario created by the Youtube platform. It is asking Youtube to exert control over their platform in a way that is likely but not guaranteed, to have net benefit, and not create peverse incentives.

2. Youtube should not remove disinformation because it violates the free speech of the misinformers. Youtube the entity has no rights over the content they deliver, in violation of their own Terms of Use. Any content anyone decides to upload should be allowed, including all the truly horrible stuff they content moderate which you never see.

Where is the contradiction?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#592

Post by battery_cowboy »

christiansakai wrote: post #406

I used to naively believe that education and more information will fix a lot of things in the world. People will want to study and think and they will be enlightened. I don't believe that anymore. For one reason, studying is hard, critical thinking is hard. Even with given free time and privilege (hello UBI?), most people will not prefer studying or thinking critically. They'd rather parrot things from the internet a…

It kinda makes me scared that we'll never figure out how to prevent the most ignorant of us from destroying us all.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#593

Post by FranzFerdiNaN »

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 idea that you can convert people who hold racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic or other repulsive thought by just presenting them better facts is of course naive. We have the entirety of human history that shows that the liberal idea of a market place of ideas is ridiculous. It doesn’t work, if only because for example the far right isn’t playing the same game and isn’t interested in fair debate.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#594

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

fragmede wrote: post #497
PureParadigm wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 onl…

Facebook is unusable without a FB account. A walled garden can't supplant YouTube.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#595

Post by hef19898 »

ebg13 wrote: post #468
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…

> Booting people off of platforms merely reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, and further radicalizes them. Ok, except that you 1) just made this up from whole cloth and 2) have missed the point of deplatforming entirely. Deplatforming trashbags reduces their reach. It doesn't need to change their minds. The trashbag is one person. The gullible are many. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba.…

Reach is key, IMHO. Freedom of speech, already a very different thing in the US and Europe for example, is about being allowed to say what you want, with certain country specific restrictions. It doesn't mean to be granted access to biggest platforms with the highest reach out there to spread your opinion. Which is fine, as far as I am concerned.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#596

Post by t0ughcritic »

deminature wrote: post #515
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 c…

The solution isn’t deplatforming, it is arresting these people if they light stuff on fire as that’s the crime. Let them believe what they want.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#597

Post by james_s_tayler »

CapriciousCptl wrote: post #294
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'm sorry, but "freedom of speech," as in the first amendment protects the right to express opinions. It does not protect misstatements of fact. Not all people are rational animals that objectively acquire and then review all the information in front of them to weigh the merits of "5g versus virus." Sometimes, when you see a guy gaining a following by telling others that vaccines have secret microchips in them and th…

>It does not protect misstatements of fact.

What about alternative facts?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#598

Post by t0ughcritic »

lstamour wrote: post #570
rlt wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you found any new blogs or websites you visit on a frequent basis in the last 3 months? You can’t discover the voice of the little guy, there’s too much noise.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#599

Post by sieabahlpark »

floatingatoll wrote: post #142
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…

The argument is that people’s individual freedom to speak anything should be held in higher regard than the welfare of society, regardless of what harmful outcomes may come from that speech. It’s a core tenet of American racists and fascists (and, I suspect, conspiracy theorists), because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to convert others to their cause without being silenced by their platforms.

Wouldn't we want the exact opposite? Slavery was once the norm, talking out against it was how we actually changed it. Trying to imply that we should censor all those who go against the group is no better than if everyone who was against slavery was killed.

It makes no sense in any "free" America where censorship of differing ideas is something we should strive for. When did the public suddenly get too sheltered from reality?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#600

Post by endymi0n »

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…

> Let the truth fight for itself.

I used to have a very similar opinion to yours until I found out the truth rarely fights for itself if there's an alternative, much more convenient lie — preferably one that plays into peoples' confirmation bias or makes someone richer.

We've got an aysmmetry here that never existed before in human history. Any kind of large scale public addressing: newspapers, TV, books, had some kind of controlling mechanism and instances who stood in for the quality with their reputation: Editors, printers, TV stations.

All legislation, including the First Amendment (which, just picking nits here, is probably too simple to slap onto YouTube as a global content platform as a US-only law) was written regarding these conventions.

YouTube goes out there and hands everyone a big fat mike who wants to be heard, and then amplifies this voice to believers via recommendations.

I used to think the Internet would be a net benefit to the world. After witnessing Cambridge Analytica, the "Internet Research Agency", large scale online harrassment and Anti-Vaxxers, I'm not so sure anymore.

I don't claim to know what the answer is.

I just claim I'm pretty sure it's not the unbounded freedom to anonymous and partly highly maliciously motivated actors to spread their message without oversight.

Post reply on HN