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

691–700 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#691

Post by MaxBarraclough »

PureParadigm wrote: post #460
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…

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…

> since YouTube is a general platform and that no serious alternatives exist, we should advocate for less censorship.

Disagree. Online misinformation can kill people [0] and act as a recruitment tool for Nazis [1]. Less seriously, it can result in people burning down 5G towers. There's plenty to lose by YouTube hosting this stuff, and they're under no obligation to do so in the name of free speech.

It strikes me as odd that more people seem to want YouTube to permit far-right propaganda on their platform, than want YouTube to permit 'adult content', which just about no-one advocates.

> YouTube is the only serious option at the moment for general video content

People don't have a positive right for their poisonous nonsense to be hosted by, and discoverable on, YouTube. Such content should be forced off mainstream platforms.

> if YouTube begins to aggressively censor opinions they disagree with

'Disagree with' is trivialising the problem. This stuff is serious.

[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/iran-700-dead-drinkin...

edit It's not clear to me whether [0] was the result of online misinformation.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbzzzx/youtube-decides-to...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#692

Post by battery_cowboy »

hubert1234 wrote: post #645
battery_cowboy wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, rascist content tends to denigrate and harm people, it causes people to get killed and injured, while pro-LGBT content tends to call for love and allow people to love who they want. I can see the difference, can you? You make it sound like some slippery slope fallacy, but it's not the same speech. Calling for hate is wrong and should be shuttered in the darkness.

Really, so giving young children hormones to transition to the other gender doesnt harm anybody? You simply have no idea what the argument of the other side even is. You live in an airtight bubble.

Hmm, so letting people be themselves is harmful to others? Maybe if you're a jerk.

Don't bother responding, i don't care about your crazy interpretations.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#693

Post by thu2111 »

me_again wrote: post #491
mirimir wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the notion that we should try to pick a side to suppress. Because the same part of human nature that leads to rampant spread of disinformation is the part of human nature that tries to decide what the capital-T Truth is. Yes, we really can't have it both ways. Either we have free speech for everyone, or we have censorship. There a…

Isn't spreading dangerously false information about a viral pandemic similar to shouting "fire" in a theatre? I'm not sure it's always so easy to distinguish that actively dangerous conduct from fake news. Not that this difficulty means we shouldn't try.

By far the most dangerous and most widely spread "information" in this pandemic has come from the same authorities that are being allowed to decide what is so-called correct and what needs to be censored. The only check on their extremism and self-centred attention seeking has come from the grassroots blogging and video making community - those same people YouTube (really I suspect, Wojcicki) is trying to wipe out.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#694

Post by zimpenfish »

WalterBright wrote: post #636
zimpenfish wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think "routinely" is overstating it. These days, "infrequently" is probably more accurate. US politics is very much of the monied, for the monied. Without a huge warchest, barring odd circumstances[1], you've got little chance of making it through the various filters.

[1] e.g an extremely unpopular incumbent against a popular challenger with excellent ground game.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#695

Post by zimpenfish »

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?

"There is no alien life in the universe" vs "There is no clear evidence of alien life in the universe".

Or say I have a jug containing marbles. I tell you there are either ninety-nine yellow marbles and one blue or one hundred yellow marbles. I'll draw 10 marbles and you pick "no blue" or "no clear evidence of blue" as your statement. If you're wrong, you owe $1M to charity. I've drawn 10 yellow. Which statement do you pick?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#696

Post by hef19898 »

ggreer wrote: post #632
Digit-Al wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

There is one big difference between sharing the best avaiable information (taking circumstances into account) and conspiracy theories and disinformation. The WHO falls in the first category, Alex Jones and Co. in the latter.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#697

Post by italicbold »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #691
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…

> since YouTube is a general platform and that no serious alternatives exist, we should advocate for less censorship. Disagree. Online misinformation can kill people [0] and act as a recruitment tool for Nazis [1]. Less seriously, it can result in people burning down 5G towers. There's plenty to lose by YouTube hosting this stuff, and they're under no obligation to do so in the name of free speech. It strikes me as o…

And then you wake up one day to Brexit and Trump being elected. Forcing content/ideas underground doesnt stop it spreading, you just become totally unaware of the spread, its not even talked about in social settings. But still it silently spreads. Do you want a situation when it becomes vacine time, half your country revolts? Do you just not care about these people? If thats the case why bother supressing it at all. The time to address these ideas is now, but no its all too easy to stick your head in the sand and exclaim shock after the fact.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#698

Post by ianbooker »

PureParadigm wrote: post #684
iso947 wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

Or like https://watchnebula.com/ be owned by creators in the first place and try to finance by subscriptions without ads. But this obviously will not scale like Youtube..

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#699

Post by hef19898 »

ryankemper wrote: post #148
techsupporter wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking The problem is you’ve just said you won’t address the primary, most compelling reason to take these actions. Assuming that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contempla…

Yes, by not addressing that I put myself in the trap where I was forced to respond to it anyway in a later comment. So, in order to avoid repeating myself, I believe I addressed that notion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063309 In short, I am not saying that the truth will necessarily "win out" over the false. Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the noti…

Calls for violance can be, and are, very subtile. Just removing open calls for violance wouldn't change a bit, propaganda doesn't work that way. Nor does psychology. So in the end, both of your examples about $Group can lead to violance against that group.

EDIT: Typos

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#700

Post by danieltillett »

Andrex wrote: post #616
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...

Yes YouTube may well be profitable as it is run now, but it may not be profitable if it was run as a utility.
Post reply on HN