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

701–710 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#701

Post by zimpenfish »

italicbold wrote: post #697
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> you wake up one day to Brexit and Trump being elected > Forcing content/ideas underground doesnt stop it spreading

In what way were Brexit or Trump "forced underground"? Trump got millions of dollars worth of free advertising from the second he announced he was running because the media could not stop covering him. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox aired 30 minutes of an empty podium for him!

And Brexit was constantly in the media in the UK. There was no "underground" at all. The BBC were almost a full-on propaganda arm with their fawning over Farage and terror that any even slight non-worship of the Tories would be reflected in yet more license fee beatings by ukgov.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#702

Post by wyattpeak »

remarkEon wrote: post #519
me_again wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "shouting 'fire' in a theatre" meme comes from a case where the Supreme Court used the Espionage Act to restrict speech because the speech in question didn't sufficiently support entering into a World War and advocated against the draft. Not exactly the best way to convince people that restricting speech is actually good.

The fact that you need to explain that sort of demonstrates that it isn't relevant to the use of the argument. Good arguments can come from poor sources.

Most people agree that shouting fire in a crowded theatre is the sort of speech which should be restricted, wherever the argument came from.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#703

Post by marvin »

ravenstine wrote: post #97
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…

Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. The reason I say this is that, if a small number of entities control the flow of information, and they get away with picking and choosing who has the opportunity to be heard, then the first amendment is effectively made meaningless. I want to be able to choose what comments to allow on my block and, at the same time, I w…

This thread is the first time I've heard someone makes this argument. It resonates with an idea that I've had for years, since the first time someone pointed out that an internet forum is not bound by the first amendment. Yes. But. There's something there that is problematic at scale. Thanks for taking the trouble of bringing this debate forward.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#704

Post by dingo_bat »

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…

[dead]

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#705

Post by dwardu »

It all started with Alex Jones, and everyone cheered...

YouTube is a private company, and yes it can choose who it wants on its platform.

On the other hand of the argument. When do we determine that a company's platform has become so big, that it is a public space and it should just "maintain" the platform and make it as inclusive as possible? For example, we had Alexandra Ocasio Cortez blocking people on twitter, and it is a private platform that a public figure is using, however it was deemed illegal, I'm not sure if it is the same thing that happened with Trump and a few others.

I'm not an US citizen, and I don't live in there, however it's so important to see people's views, no matter how stupid or ridiculous it can be. I want to be able to make up my own mind, some views may be terrible and we should be able to hear them. Be curious in pursuing these things.

David Icke, from the little I know is crazy, and says some ridiculous things, but he should have be allowed to voice them.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#706

Post by freddie_mercury »

roenxi wrote: post #685
knzhou wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why should the WHO recognize Taiwan as a country when the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and all of Europe do not?

Expecting more from the WHO than you expect from the members who fund it seems insupportable.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#707

Post by longtom »

joshuamorton wrote: post #257
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%.

> Global air travel does not need to be stopped. This isn't what the WHO said. They said bans on air from specific places (especially those that disrupt supply chains) are bad. This is true. Banning all air travel to/from china would have hurt medical supply chains in the US, with very little benefit. > 2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission. When this claim was made (in early january), there was not…

> They said bans on air from specific places (especially those that disrupt supply chains) are bad.

No, they advised "against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks." Which is identical with not restricting global air travel.

https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...

> When this claim was made (in early january), there was not clear evidence of human to human transmission. It was revised a few days later when there was.

True, the exact wording was "no clear evidence", but this is widely regarded as a cover-up, especially because it is known there were attempts at covering up the outbreak.

https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/who-haunted-by-old-tweet-sayin...

> This isn't what was said. They said that random people shouldn't go out of their way to acquire medical PPE (save it for medical personnel).

Again false. They wrote for individuals without respiratory symptoms, "a medical mask is not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons".

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330987/WHO-...

> 4% seems like a reasonable estimate there.

All epidemiologists seemed to have agreed at that time that CFRs were inflated when compared with a more stable situation with more testing kits being available due to the unknown denominator. Simply using the country average was extremely silly data. There were much better data available from Wuhan and that cruise ship.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#708

Post by DanBC »

dwardu wrote: post #705

It all started with Alex Jones, and everyone cheered... YouTube is a private company, and yes it can choose who it wants on its platform. On the other hand of the argument. When do we determine that a company's platform has become so big, that it is a public space and it should just "maintain" the platform and make it as inclusive as possible? For example, we had Alexandra Ocasio Cortez blocking people on twitter, an…

> and make it as inclusive as possible?

This argument would be stronger if it mentioned all the people chased off these platforms by the virulent toxic supporters of Icke and Jones.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#709

Post by [deleted] »

ravenstine wrote: post #147
krapp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. That would be impossible, since the First Amendment as written explicitly only applies to Congress, and it restricts Congress' ability to pass laws, which is something private institutions don't actually have the power to do anyway.

Then something has to change, because this situation won't become more tenable going forward. Platforms like YouTube will only continue to grow and obtain power. We either need a bill of rights against these corporations or leverage to get them to comply.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN