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

761–770 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#761

Post by leonvv »

throwaway05041 wrote: post #713

Throwaway. I worked at an event David did many years ago. I used to be a big fan. My wife and I watched his 3 hour interview last night after hearing about these bans and discussed this a fair bit. For those that didn't watch, he categorically denies the existence of Covid-19, calls the entire thing a hoax and said that Gates is a psychopath who wants to vaccinate the entire world with nanobots that will eventually e…

The root of the problem seems to be the inability of people to correctly judge the likeliness of David's arguments to be true. This is not a problem that we're going to solve by banning David's content.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#762

Post by asdkjh345fd »

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…

[flagged]

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#763

Post by krapp »

leonvv wrote: post #761
throwaway05041 wrote: post #713

Throwaway. I worked at an event David did many years ago. I used to be a big fan. My wife and I watched his 3 hour interview last night after hearing about these bans and discussed this a fair bit. For those that didn't watch, he categorically denies the existence of Covid-19, calls the entire thing a hoax and said that Gates is a psychopath who wants to vaccinate the entire world with nanobots that will eventually e…

The root of the problem seems to be the inability of people to correctly judge the likeliness of David's arguments to be true. This is not a problem that we're going to solve by banning David's content.

>This is not a problem that we're going to solve by banning David's content.

Ok. How are we going to solve it by guaranteeing that his content proliferates as widely as possible, or even as some have suggested, by having governments force platforms to host it against their will, in the name of absolute free speech?

The principle that we can debate the merit of ideas only so long as we never prevent any idea from spreading only renders debate meaningless. It's implied in the concept of a marketplace of ideas that some ideas will have value over others. And so it seems implicit to the concept of free speech that one should have the freedom to accept or reject an idea, or try to disabuse someone of an idea you deem fallacious.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#764

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

pknight wrote: post #721
italicbold wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Forcing content out off mainstream media quite plainly does limit the spread of information and does limit radicalisation, we have plenty of examples of that. Conartists rack up millions of views because they can use free infrastructure of companies (companies that in turn convert human attention into profit via advertising, the sale of user data etc.). Without access to the infrastructure they can't have their busin…

This content has been deliberately weaponised. Various interests, some of them hostile, have a stake in promoting it. See e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency

Of course various US (Chinese, UK, Israeli, Saudi, Indian, Iranian, etc, etc) interests run their own versions, both at home and elsewhere.

And corporate astroturfing is not a new thing.

There's a huge difference between kooks sharing a bit of kookiness with each other, and industrial misinformation campaigns created for political and strategic ends - which may include political destabilisation, radicalisation, and the promotion of extremism and domestic terrorism.

The two phenomena are not even remotely comparable. But at the moment information consumers literally cannot tell them apart, because there is no practical way to do that.

The crucial distinction is between individual freedom of speech, where people with unusual views are allowed to say whatever they want as long they don't incite violence, and industrial misinformation, which is inherently toxic and cannot be excused or justified.

There is no principle that can defend deliberate mass manipulation of the public through lies, exaggeration, and wilfully misleading manipulation.

The challenge is getting that principle enshrined in law. So-called free speech advocates will of course agitate against it, and they will be wrong. Knowingly and deliberately running a campaign to mislead the public should be considered a criminal act with criminal consequences.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#765

Post by tomhoward »

zimpenfish wrote: post #694
WalterBright wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> politics is very much of the monied, for the monied

This is somewhat true of course (though Obama is a notable recent exception).

Indeed it's pretty true in most countries and systems of government (though my closest experience is here in Australia, where all our prime ministers going back almost 40 years, and most others in our ~120 year history, have come from modest origins).

But the topic at hand is freedom of speech/expression.

Whose interests are likely to be served, ultimately, by constraints on speech/expression?

Those already holding power, or those seeking to reform/subvert the system?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#766

Post by gameswithgo »

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…

what evidence do you have that shining light on bad ideas is effective? ive spent 30 years online trying to shine light on bad ideas like creationism and climate change denial and seen way way less penetration than a hastily made conspiracy video.

i'm not sure suppression is the answer either but i have sure not seen shining light winning this war.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#767

Post by wazoox »

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…

Exactly. In France there is a set of laws that forbids the denial of various genocides, in particular the Holocaust. Unfortunately this backfired badly, as several prominent Holocaust deniers, who are generally despicable nazis over that, got condemned and from then hailed by their hateful followers as "martyrs" and even "martyrs of free speech". One even managed to have Chomsky say something nice about his "oppression" (which is quite ironic given the guy's an antisemite).

Since then, antisemitism has risen, and prominent antisemites still fills up theatres, garners millions of views of their videos, always speaking in transparent allusions to keep barely out of the reach of law (Don't say "Jews rule finance worldwide", say "'The organised community' rules the world's finance"). In retrospect, that looks like an utter failure to me.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#768

Post by funny948 »

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…

Our society is based on science.

I would prefer to add an amendment to allow to censor extreme views contradicting modern science knowledge.

It is, indirect, what happens and to be honest, i do believe that people doing the youtube videos about aliens and flatearth have often enough some agenda.

It hurts our society and we need to find a proper solution.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#769

Post by watwut »

joshuamorton wrote: post #590
watwut wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the WHO's main concerns is to prevent shortages and supply chain issues (see their statements about travel and import bans). A run on medical masks is problematic, and the WHO's guidance prevents that. This argument does not pass smell test. In countries where masks were mandated, there was simultaneously lock on medical masks. People used homemade ones at first and then later you could buy non-medical cloth…

> This argument does not pass smell test. In countries where masks were mandated, there was simultaneously lock on medical masks. People used homemade ones at first and then later you could buy non-medical cloth masks. Right, and there are no studies that I'm aware of showing that cloth face masks are effective at stopping the spread of covid-19. They're good at stopping large particles (which afaik you only really h…

> which afaik you only really have if you're coughing

Which is something people do. The general advice is changing last weeks, it is more and more recommended to wear them even in countries that were super opposed a month ago.

You dont need mask to be 100% effective to be useful.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#770

Post by crispyambulance »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #480
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…

My actual answer is in the last line, but I'll ramble a bit first. You make an interesting point, but I think there are times in which we can prohibit certain types of posts and comments that might technically be censorship (using the definition of suppression or prohibition of things that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security), but they aren't bad censorship. I would place some so…

> It would be great if YouTube adopted easy to follow policies and would terminate accounts based on clear breaches of policy, rather than just playing whack-a-mole with whatever topic is hot at the moment.

The thing is it's impossible to devise effective policies that are "clear cut" to the point where an entity like youtube can apply them effectively over a media platform with the scope and throughput of Youtube.

It's always going to be a game of wack-a-mole. It's wack-a-mole even on HN. These platforms should be free to yank stuff and be responsible to some extent if harmful content is spread through them. As it is now, the threshold for being deplatformed is too high.

Conspiracy peddlers are totally free to choose another platform for their garbage or create one for themselves. Info Wars is still up and running through their own website. They would be far smaller, however, if Youtube had done the right thing and pulled the plug early-- like when Info Wars started spreading Sandy Hook conspiracies.

We're talking like facebook and google ARE the internet. They are not. They're merely platforms analogous to a "hyper newspaper". Like any news paper, they should have the right to put content of their choosing on it and be held accountable for harm spread through it. No one is going to stop maniacs or anyone else with strange viewpoints from printing up xeroxes and handing them out on a public corner -or- putting together a weird website, that's their first amendment right.

Post reply on HN