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

681–690 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#681

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

I'd look up those examples listed in history books if I were you; it was widely taken as fact that non-whites were biologically inferior. Look up Nazi propaganda, or what the US civil war was about. It really doesn't take much research to realize that people were (and are) othered using "scientific / biological facts".

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#682

Post by ProvideEvidence »

zentiggr wrote: post #492
clarkmoody wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very nature of scientific inquiry is to question conventional wisdom. Often those new ideas are heretical. That is not to say that all ideas are valid forms of scientific inquiry. But suppressing all but the "blessed" opinions of the WHO goes against the scientific process.

Suppressing blatantly false, inflammatory ideas isn't "all but the 'blessed'". It is taking the man on the corner who is shouting "Ducks are responsible for your failure!" and "Letting the blacksmith build a second shack will cause insanity in all the children!" off to a quiet room where he no longer causes people to throw stones at the blacksmith, or shoot ducks on sight. Icke was that special kind of conspiracy nut…

Have you actually read any of his books, or simply believed the misinformation spread by the media?

If you had read his work first hand you would be aware of how much research, references and citations are included.

It's amusing that you say David Icke doesn't fact check, as this only highlights that you haven't..

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#683

Post by vixen99 »

jonathanyc wrote: post #374
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…

> Many may disagree, but I think we need to throw out this concept of "disinformation" entirely. I don't believe in fighting "bad ideas" by suppressing them, I believe in shining a light on them. Let the truth fight for itself. Your argument is flawed on many counts. (1) You’re forgetting that the people subscribing these 5G conspiracy channels on YouTube by definition already have access to YouTube and likely the re…

The 'shouting fire' example is not a trump card that's valid outside non-live situations. It's not applicable in a live situation where someone [as in your (2)] believes the fire, for what appeared to be a good reason, to be a true risk. Finally, in (4) you seem to believe that an abstract statement is necessarily rendered invalid by someone's failure to adhere to the thrust of its message. It isn't.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#684

Post by PureParadigm »

iso947 wrote: post #672
mschuster91 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're absolutely right with the advertising aspect. YouTube is not simply a video hosting platform. It is also an advertising platform.

YouTube's dominance is not because video is impossible to host but because YouTube takes care of the advertising/revenue aspect for content creators. Any competitor would need to provide a similar service, and that's hard to do at the same level when you're not run by the world's largest advertising company. A serious alternative to YouTube would need to draw creators like YouTube does, and you need some sort of built-in way to (probably economically) incentivize them to create videos and put them on your platform.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#685

Post by roenxi »

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…

Go to their daily situation report and search it for "Taiwan". An entire country isn't there.

Now I don't particularly care whether they want to list Taiwan or not, but the only reason for that decision (when they are listing places like the Holy See!) is because they are moderating their position based on Chinese interests.

This is basically conversation ending evidence that the WHO is willing to act as a mouthpiece for Communist Party positions. That really should be it as far as YouTube's decision is concerned. The WHO are not an appropriate source for deciding what media people see. No body where the CPC is involved is. The CPC is not trustworthy; they can and will abuse the trust YouTube is placing in a body they have serious influence.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#686

Post by Cthulhu_ »

hubert1234 wrote: post #641
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…

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.

You're appealing to authority and you're using weasel words. What are these arguments? Who made them?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#687

Post by sagichmal »

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.

It does not "merely" do that. It also prevents their message from reaching others.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#688

Post by pjc50 »

ryankemper wrote: post #151
DonHopkins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit. And the Constitution decides that the truth is that the First Amendment doesn't apply to YouTube. That's an objective truth you seem to be unaware of.

I consider your statement to really be saying the following: "According to myself, YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit."

Yes?

I mean, Icke is the most clear-cut of examples. Otherwise you end up backing into "nobody is ever qualified to determine the truth of any statement objectively and correctly". Nihilist anti-positivism.

The thing about the coronavirus is that wrong decisions, both by public health and private individuals, produce real body counts. And quite alarmingly high body counts in those countries which have embraced disinformation.

(Before someone starts in on it, the Iraq war was also a body count produced by the embracing of disinformation)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#689

Post by mda »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #146
chasing wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing this isn’t censorship. It’s a non-governmental media company curating and policing the content it chooses to host and promote.

Where do people get this idea that it’s only censorship if the government does it? Regardless of your view on this, it’s censorship. Period.

And they can censor whatever they like, why not?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#690

Post by sneak »

knzhou wrote: post #354
koheripbal wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the alternative is to create "oracles of truth" that cannot be questioned? That's just the opposite idiotic extreme.

Who said that? The range of bullshit information you can find at a moment's whim remains extremely high, in fact higher than it ever has been in history.

That's a sign that the system is working as intended, providing publishing ability to millions that never had it before.

Any time that's not happening, you should be asking:

1) who's gatekeeping this forum? what are their motivations or objectives? to whom are they beholden?

2) who always gets access? who always does not?

3) what personal information or other information do they have to give in exchange for access? who's excluded as a result of these requirements?

4) how much access do they get? how many posts are they allowed to make? how much audience are they allowed to reach?

5) are there hidden reach penalties for certain types of users, or certain types of content? are the rules published and the applications of penalties/boosts apparent?

6) what are they allowed to say? what are they not? are the rules different for different people?

7) who decides when their accounts get suspended? can they be unsuspended? is there an audit trail to make sure policies are applied fairly and consistently, or is it all backroom/hidden?

Post reply on HN