Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

651–660 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#651
post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence that censorship wins over lies? Considering that one of the most fundamental and important US laws is freedom of speech, it behooves you to prove that censorship works, not that free speech works.

If anything, history shows that eventually, censorship will only allow the lies of those in power.

History also shows that eventually those regimes fall too.

The question should be which set of policies maximizes the power of the informed general citizens relative the incumbents and the irrationals (or very-very boundedly rationals).

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#652

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.

Genuinely curious why you think this is so (is there data about this?). It's entirely possible that letting things out makes people less likely to act on them.

In Myanmar there were widespread street attacks on Muslims actively organized on social media, if you've ever been to a country where minorities are subject to online propaganda and lies and the devastating consequences it has on their safety on the streets you wouldn't even think that letting hate overrun online communities somehow pacifies people is believable.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#653

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?

[deleted]

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#654

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…

In theory I agree, but freedom speech should come with responsibilty of speech, especially when you have a broad audience. When you built an audience that you make believe "science is bollocks" and spread that 5g is responsible for the spread of COVID-19, how do you prevent the potential death and destruction it's gonna result in? I agree that just shutting down a youtube account is not the best approach, but in this case, something has to be done and there's no good framework for that currently.

I do believe strongly that people should be held responsible for any act caused by them spreading lies.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#655
post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Not only are they not legally obligated to uphold free speech, very few (almost zero) companies allow anyone to say whatever they wish whenever they wish.

Im still wondering why anyone expects this of youtube but would never ever expect it of the bar down the street.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#656

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 ki…

I also like to cite Ben Franklin, writing about the time more than 250 years ago, about him being one of a very few printers in the whole new nation, and facing the same dilemma:

"In the conduct of my newspaper, I carefully excluded all libeling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country. Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind, and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press, and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which anyone who would pay had a right to a place, my answer was, that I would print the piece separately if desired, and the author might have as many copies as he pleased to distribute himself, but that I would not take upon me to spread his detraction; and that, having contracted with my subscribers to furnish them with what might be either useful or entertaining, I could not fill their papers with private altercation, in which they had no concern, without doing them manifest injustice. Now, many of our printers make no scruple of gratifying the malice of individuals by false accusations of the fairest characters among ourselves, augmenting animosity even to the producing of duels; and are, moreover, so indiscreet as to print scurrilous reflections on the government of neighboring states, and even on the conduct of our best national allies, which may be attended with the most pernicious consequences. These things I mention as a caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their presses and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily, as they may see by my example that such a course of conduct will not, on the whole, be injurious to their interests."

From "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin", written between from 1771 to 1790, now in public domain.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the first amendment exists is strong evidence that censorship works. If it didn’t work, why is it so important to prevent the government from censoring people? After all, censorship is futile right?

The question is who censorship "works" for . In most cases it works for despotic dictatorships.

They too switched to misinformation, direct control of media, supression of independent media, etc.

This kind of transparent content removal is not what dictatorships do.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#658
post #375

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. Leaded gasoline, phlogiston, cold fusion, phrenology, scientific racism, basically the entire history of the progress of science. But let's also not forget that you're asking for a list of discredited ideas, so you wouldn't have heard of them, by definition, if things are working as they should, because they'…

When did scientific racism die out? Mainstream US publications are still publishing op-eds that assume scientific racism is a legitimate topic. This has been going on since the country was founded. I'm not sure how effective a disinfectant sunlight is if it takes centuries to work.

The body of opinions designated as scientific racism has changed over time. Giving the parent the benefit of the doubt, I took their statement to be referencing traditional scientific racism, such as that which rested on craniometry and other bizarre pseudoscience.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#659
The case for a free and open web is terminal. Assange, christchurch, numerous political commentators. Liberty is deflating into traditional culture and we are all being pinned down into our most basic identities for the sake of the coming command economy in the 2040s. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#660

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…

you really think that somebody cant come up with strong scientific evidence to support all of those? cmon, it's a lack of knowledge and imagination on your part. There are plenty of real scientific arguments against gay marriage or gay rights at large. You just dont ever hear them because everyone who ever so much as hints at them gets banned immediately.

>There are plenty of real scientific arguments against gay marriage or gay rights at large

Such as?

>You just dont ever hear them because everyone who ever so much as hints at them gets banned immediately.

Then where do you hear them?

Post reply on HN