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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#611

Post by Andrex » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:19 AM UTC

sieabahlpark wrote: post #599

floatingatoll wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Slavery was once the norm, talking out against it was how we actually changed it.

Pretty sure you missed a war there.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#612

Post by Kiro » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:21 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #452

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…

> COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Which is actually extremely funny, sin…

Looks like they haven't changed their stance, so not sure what you are referring to: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#613

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:22 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #504

TheUndead96 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No, because the argument that "institutions are not perfect" is a strawman that distracts from the actual question which is "is anything David Icke says anything remotely approaching the truth?" and the answer is undeniably no. Arguing about a slippery slope that the institutions might not be perfect either doesn't matter. Icke isn't trying to be correct. He's either literally mentally unwell (I've read that he has s…

> distracts from the actual question which is "is anything David Icke says anything remotely approaching the truth?"

That's not the actual question we are discussing here. Whether he is correct or not does not change any premises of this post or discussion. We are discussing censorship and deplatforming.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#614

Post by zimpenfish » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:23 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #537

zimpenfish wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> America literally has a nobility class right now. Literally nope. For example, there is no law that says the word of one group of people is worth more in court than another group. There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors. There is no law enshrining divine right.

> For example, there is no law that says the word of one group of people is worth more in court

And yet.

> There are no laws saying only certain people can be in power based on their ancestors.

And yet. Just because there are no explicit written laws does not mean this doesn't happen every single day in multiple ways.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#615

Post by vkou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:23 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #404

vkou wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, Galileo did largely deliver self-aggrandizing spittle-flecked rants, full of personal attacks against other astronomers, which were complete rubbish. His arguments for why the Earth revolved around the Sun were complete nonsense, and were more theological, than scientific in nature. His contemporaries were not particularly impressed, but he probably wouldn't have been censored, if he also didn't try his dam…

Interesting, do you have further reading on this to recommend?

If you have a few hours to kill, page through this:

https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#616

Post by Andrex » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:24 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #553

Isn’t the real problem that YouTube is basically a utility service, but one that makes a loss for the parent company. The discussion we should be making is not if YouTube should censor people, but if it should be turned into a regulated utility like a phone or electricity company. Of course if this is decision we make don’t be surprised if Google shuts down the service.

YouTube contributed 10% to Google's revenue last year ($15 billion.)

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/3/21121207/youtube-google-al...

YouTube has been break-even since 2014-2015[1]. The myth that YouTube is still somehow unprofitable needs to die.

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#617

Post by triyambakam » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:24 AM UTC

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…

You've certainly repeated this same comment a number of times, maybe it helps you feel like you believe it more.

The WHO tweeted about a study with a preliminary conclusion that there is no human to human transmission. Whatever other statements that the WHO made, you seem to be denying that by tweeting this they did not by default endorse the results. They added no other context - they shouldn't tweet something they don't believe is true and they shouldn't expect everyone to always read their other sources if they contrast with their Twitter account.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#618

Post by petersellers » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:26 AM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #439

mrfusion wrote: post #223

Just some food for thought. If youtube was around in the past and doing this stuff they could have deleted videos in support of the following: (these all started as fringe beliefs(1)) Interracial marriage Gay marriage Smoking causes lung cancer (1) interesting topical read and it has sources for these at the end https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html

Those are ideological beliefs. Yes, at one time they were very widely and strongly held. But they were never remotely comparible to spreading factually incorrect information about something biological. A simple demonstration to this: even the reverse of these (e.g. "I believe gay marriage is morally wrong") can't reasonably be argued against with "that is factually incorrect". It's fair to believe that private compan…

YouTube has no problem banning content on ideological grounds, though. I remember last year various news articles about YouTube's removal of white supremacist content.

I don't really see why it's important to distinguish whether the content is problematic "factually" vs "ideologically". Clearly there are valid reasons to ban content on ideological grounds but on the other hand removing any content that has factual errors would be cumbersome (or impossible) to do. You need to also look at other criteria to make a reasonable determination.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#619

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:26 AM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #269

gamblor956 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. Of course it matters what someone is willing to express. A person willing to express hateful speech is a person who is also more willing to engage in hateful acts. Making it harder to cross that first line absolutely matters in making it harder for them to cross the line of becoming an active danger to others.

> A person willing to express hateful speech is a person who is also more willing to engage in hateful acts. Considering how hate speech is a very flimsy term, I don't think that this always follows. I do believe that there's likely a correlation, but I doubt it's strong. Some will say that claiming that there are only 2 genders is hate speech, others that claiming that abortion is murder is hate speech. Not to menti…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#620

Post by wwweston » Mon, May 04, 2020, 7:28 AM UTC

jshevek wrote: post #544

ashtonkem wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's good work to ask how things could be better than they are, but setting aside the law may not be great way of approaching the issue because:

* a good portion of the law as it exists is actually a result of people thinking, in legal contexts, about what ought to be, at least insofar as any portion of the law represents values and ideals.

* any new "what ought to be" that turns out to be at some point in the future will need the force of law in one sense or another, which means it must be nested within a legal context, probably one enough like the present legal context that some if not all present constraints will matter.