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

671–680 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#671

Post by amelius »

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…

By the way, there is a different form of censoring which YouTube uses: its discovery/recommendation system.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#672

Post by iso947 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #663
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…

> As far as I know, YouTube is the only serious option at the moment for general video content. Are they? There's Vimeo, Facebook, Pornhub's SFW option, Twitter can host short videos, there's a metric shitload of porn hosts, and if you're in for premium service every major CDN offers video hosting/distribution.

And a video tag in your own website on a raspberry pi.

There’s no problem hosting wacky content. What people complain is they don’t get free hosting and advertising.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#673

Post by iso947 »

jlawson wrote: post #457
chrononaut wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hacker News Guidelines > What to Submit > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. > In Comments > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion…

YouTube isn't a 'community' any more than the roads we all travel on. There is no viable alternative to YouTube/Google. There is no way to escape its influence. And being banned from it can ruin you (depending on how your life/work is structured). HN is totally different because of the completely different scale and the existence of viable alternatives.

I watch videos on Vimeo and search on DuckDuckGo.

I struggle to find a good place to read and talk about interesting tech news other than HN though

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#674

Post by robertlagrant »

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…

> 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

This analogy is misleading, because it does not make it clear that in this situation, everyone has a megaphone.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#675

Post by jshevek »

wwweston wrote: post #620
jshevek wrote: post #544

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.

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…

Did you post this comment in reply to my comment in isolation, or as a reply to my comment in the context of the previous comments in the exchange, starting with

"I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."

and ending with

"What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?" ?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#676

Post by SpelingBeeChamp »

close04 wrote: post #648
identity0 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an issue that’s difficult to distill in a way that could work as a law or as a winning argument against snarky commenters playing Devil’s Advocate. In theory the line between rules and censorship is vague and grey, but in practice it’s pretty easy to tell what is rule enforcement and what is political censorship. I guess a good place to start would be examining the rules of a website and determining if the taked…

While banning or deleting accounts could go all the way from legitimate to oppression, it doesn't seem like banning the account of someone spreading false information that leads to dangerous situations to be an abuse in any way. Yes, we have to hold YouTube to higher standards than others simply because of the disproportionate power the platform has. But this doesn't change the fact that in such cases the measure was…

>Yes, we have to hold YouTube to higher standards than others simply because of the disproportionate power the platform has.

That's rather conclusory.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#677

Post by fmoralesc »

triyambakam wrote: post #669
zimpenfish wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no human to human transmission "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus" There is a world of difference between "no human to human transmission" as you claim they said and "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" as they actually said. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

I fail to see this world of difference. Can you explain?

It's the difference between:

- There is no evidence that P

- There is evidence that NOT-P

(without accounting for whether higher order evidence [evidence of evidence] counts as first-order evidence).

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#678

Post by SpelingBeeChamp »

JSavageOne wrote: post #522
ashtonkem wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the size of the community matter? Under what rationale are you going to decide that HN can moderate but YT cannot?

Because Youtube presents itself as being agnostic to the content and letting anyone upload anything (excluding porn and dark stuff that any reasonable person would deem inappropriate like ISIS propaganda or child abuse). If Youtube presented itself as being a video platform for from the getgo, then I wouldn't see a legal problem with moderating videos containing opposing views.

No they don't. YouTube is very clear that they will remove many types of videos, and even ban accounts.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#679

Post by dntbnmpls »

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.

> 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.

What? We have countless examples of it. What world are you living in? It's free speech, facts, ideas that change individuals and society.

> We have the entirety of human history that shows that the liberal idea of a market place of ideas is ridiculous.

Entire human history? What are you talking about. For most of history, censorship was the norm. That's what made america and our concept of "free speech" unique and exceptional. It was new and rare.

> 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.

Neither are the far left - which in america is the greater threat. But guess what? Neither the far right or the far left can take over the US precisely because of free speech. We can call them out. Which is what you are really upset about.

The best protection against extremist far right and far left lunatics is free speech. Also, one of the easiest way to spot far right and far left lunatics is their hatred of free speech.

Post reply on HN