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

631–640 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#631

Post by quietbritishjim »

fantyoon wrote: post #458
quietbritishjim wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But they were never remotely comparible to spreading factually incorrect information about something biological. > Smoking causes lung cancer

The parent comment was comparing against YouTube banning videos that claimed smoking does cause lung cancer, back before the link was proven, in some steampunk world where YouTube existed 100 years ago. That is not comparible because initially there were at least some scientific studies, or even a vague possible link to a rational doctor, between smoking and lung cancer. There is nothing like a possible link between 5G and coronavirus to anyone that understands what a virus is.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#632

Post by ggreer »

Digit-Al wrote: post #575
parsimo2010 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My answer to that would be that YouTube did not de-platform David Icke because of his wacky views, remember he has had an account for ages with no problem. They de-platformed him because he was spreading dangerous misinformation that could endanger lives. For example, the 5G misinformation has led to 5G masts being set on fire and 5G engineers being threatened and (I think) assaulted. Now you can say what you want ab…

I think that argument proves too much. It can be applied in many more cases than it actually is, and I can't help but notice certain discrepancies in who gets the banhammer and who is spared.

What about the dangerous misinformation regarding the coronavirus? We had Twitter accounts telling people not to wear masks. Do we ban the WHO[1][2] and the US Surgeon General[3][4] from Twitter? Do we delete the account of NYC's Health Council chair for encouraging public gatherings during a pandemic?[5]

Those proclamations led to far more harm than just property damage, yet none of those accounts have to worry about being censored. If you support banning David Icke for his crazy views because it might have led to a cell tower being damaged, you should definitely support banning all of these accounts for causing thousands of deaths.

1. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234095938555260929

2. https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243171683067777024

3. https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...

4. https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12456974534138511...

5. https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1226566648729133056

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#633

Post by bryanrasmussen »

t0ughcritic wrote: post #587
fragmede wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Vimeo,veoh, metacafe et al need to all merge into one and realize they have failed as individual companies more or less. Secondly rush’s app will be removed, if he says anything that upsets big bro. Lastly Facebook video will be just like YouTube in terms of enforcement.

have they failed? What are their financials like?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#634

Post by megablast »

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.…

> merely reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, and further radicalizes them.

Keep them on or they will radicalize more? That just sounds silly.

Let them radicalize. See how that works when they don't have a voice.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#635

Post by quietbritishjim »

petersellers wrote: post #618
quietbritishjim wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 er…

> YouTube has no problem banning content on ideological grounds, though.

I never said they did. I just said that this isn't that, and comparisons with it just confuse the discussion.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#636

Post by WalterBright »

zimpenfish wrote: post #614
WalterBright wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Common people with nobody parents routinely wind up as Presidents, Senators, Representatives, and SC Justices.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#637

Post by zimpenfish »

pnako wrote: post #418
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?

Right now in France one doctor (professor Didier Raoult) has been mostly right about the whole thing (in my view), and he became popular thanks to YouTube. Yet his views are in radical opposition to both the French government and the WHO. Should his videos be removed? He's one of the most published expert on infectious diseases, so who in YouTube has authority to decide that he is more wrong than the minister of heal…

> (professor Didier Raoult) has been mostly right about the whole thing

Can you cite some sources? Everything I've seen about him has pointed out how bad his study was, how he has a track record of just plain making stuff up, etc.

Here's a good example (with extra links) that pretty much demolishes his claims: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/29/mo...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#638

Post by megablast »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #593
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.

Lots of people change their views. Lots of people were racist and aren't now.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#639

Post by hnick »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #467
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contemplation and retrospection into deep topics. This is a problem, but how does censorship solve it? You would in fact need to solve that problem for all ideas in order to correctly know what to censor, which nobody has time to do, hence the problem. > We have polarized ourselves into camps of right and wrong. This is exactly what the censorship m…

The biggest issue is that the open debate is vulnerable to astroturfing with corporate influence and financial backing, which can completely drown out others and turn public opinion, through sheer exposure. And when it comes to subjects like human rights, there is a definite right and wrong, not a "truth in the middle".

I think sponsored posts and conflicts of interest on social media or blogs are meant to be disclosed based on some law by the FTC, at least in the USA?

Does that apply to astroturfed reddit comments etc? I don't see why it shouldn't. Of course it's a bit harder to prove, but it's not always impossible.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#640

Post by jfnixon »

jshevek wrote: post #624
jfnixon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" The existence of technology as well as science.

Science and technology is advanced by a tiny community of humans, relative to the species as a whole. I don't think it works as evidence for "more often", rather it is evidence for the amazing results that can come when the truth wins even within a small group.

The question was not "do you have evidence the truth wins more often than lies for the species as a whole"; there was no specific context implied as I read it. So, do you have evidence lies win more often than the truth for the species as a whole?
Post reply on HN