YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#781

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

james-mcelwain wrote: post #429

zozbot234 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point stands that even these seemingly "queer", radically expressed ideas clearly became a lot tamer, less insolently-stated and more agreeable over time, despite the lack of anything approaching real censorship. That's precisely what you want if you care about not harming society at large, especially in the longer run.

> That's precisely what you want if you care about not harming society at large, especially in the longer run. Please, explain: how do queer ideas harm society, in the longer run?

My whole point is that censorship is what harms society, not ideas themselves.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#782

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, May 04, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

nfoz wrote: post #461

herdodoodo wrote: post #3

[flagged]

> right wing This can't be relevant. > have no place at the table for rational discussion. What if I'm researching "conspiracy theories"? What if I want to ridicule his stupid conspiracy theory, or make comedy/satire about it?

From BBC coverage:

[Youtube] will still allow videos posted by others that feature Mr Icke to remain live, so long as their content does not break its rules.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52517797

Icke's own channel has been removed. He is not entirely barred from YouTube.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#783

Post by api » Mon, May 04, 2020, 11:58 AM UTC

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…

I want to believe what you write here, but reality seems to be proving that there are just far more absurdly gullible people out there than I would like to believe.

I mean flat Earth is an actual thing. That proves to me that there are no limits.

What I don't know is whether this is new or an eternal part of the human condition that was just masked in the past. I know there have always been gullible fools, but have there always been this many?

I personally wonder if there might be more today due to too many people being too insulated from the "real world" beyond the easy cushy paths of school -> college -> office job. There are too many people who have never deviated from these paths and thus have never seen the "real world."

I don't think it's stupidity. A lot of these people seem relatively intelligent. They just seem shockingly naive.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#784

Post by ashtonkem » Mon, May 04, 2020, 11:59 AM UTC

jshevek wrote: post #569

ashtonkem wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I always have with this argument is that everyone is undervaluing the unintended consequences of holding companies like YT to the first amendment only. Most people like to image that what they’ll get is more free wheeling discussions on the topic, but in reality all you’ll get is porn. See, YT bans all kinds of stuff that the first amendment protects, including pornography, violence, and a lot of other na…

You seem to be rather fixated on the "first amendment" lens, while others have their own ideas of the value of the ethical principal of free speech as a means of preventing control over 'that which we are permitted to debate'.

The first amendment is a legal principle with clear implications, limits, and enforcement mechanisms. This makes it much easier to discuss rather than the more nebulous “free speech” which allows everyone to just make up their own definition in-situ, leaving the conversation unmoored from any common definitions.

Aside from that, removing the first amendment from my argument changes very little. You’d still be obliged to create a definition of what is and is not free speech and a mechanism for enforcement, which would be subject to the pitfalls listed above.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#785

Post by ethbro » Mon, May 04, 2020, 11:59 AM UTC

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…

> [On YouTube] You can still go subscribe to the channels you like and be completely unaware of the content you don't want to see

Generalized, therein lies the crux of the tension.

It's not about the existence or accessibility of content, but rather its discoverability.

That YouTube's recommendation algorithm is so psychopathically ammoral that they had to rig it (several months back) not to suggest conspiracy video after conspiracy video should have been the alarm bell.

Content + discoverability composes the potential danger to society, and YouTube wholly controls one of those levers.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#786

Post by MaxBarraclough » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:02 PM UTC

asdkjh345fd wrote: post #762

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…

[flagged]

> What is right wing about claiming 5g causes covid?

Nothing. I hadn't meant to imply it was, but I can see how my comment could be read that way.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#787

Post by ashtonkem » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:03 PM UTC

t0ughcritic wrote: post #589

ashtonkem wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts have made it quite clear that they’re unwilling to consider companies to be similar to the “town square” unless if they’re doing literally what governments have traditionally done. There is no clear way to argue that YT is doing something that governments traditionally did, so you’re out of luck there. If you believe YT is a monopoly, then it would be far less harmful to everyone if it was just broken up,…

Monopolies are hard to break if the product is free for consumers.

The problem with YT tends to be less the price, and more the fact that Google controls search, most ads, and YT. Compare this to FB which mostly controls ads on its own site, Google as a whole is more problematic.

Of course “more problematic” is not the bar for anti-trust regulation; I leave that to the lawyers.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#788

Post by ashtonkem » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:06 PM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #630

ashtonkem wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re worried about freedom of speech, then giving more people standing to sue David Icke for taking his dumb advice would be far more stifling than allowing YT to ban people. This would basically allow anyone with deep enough pockets to police speech using the courts.

> This would basically allow anyone with deep enough pockets to police speech using the courts. Which, tbf, the US and UK already have to some degree.

Which is what I was thinking of.

But there is a big difference between the U.K. and America here; in the U.K. if you lose a litigation, you have to pay your opponents legal bills. In America the cases where the loser must pay are very limited with high bars to clear. This means that it’s absolutely possible to bankrupt someone in America with frivolous lawsuits, so long as those lawsuits aren’t bad enough to trigger the limited exceptions.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#789

Post by christophilus » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:08 PM UTC

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…

I think they’d be more effective if they added an un-skippable ad before each video which contains the best argument against the content that follows.

I guess the expense would make that an unrealistic option, but it would be much more effective than chasing folks away to their own uncensorable corner of the web.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#790

Post by rowanG077 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 12:11 PM UTC

streb-lo wrote: post #499

rowanG077 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. For the simple fact that no human or organisation can be trusted with the power to silence anyone or any group. I Think this should apply to functional social monopolys as well. YouTube/facebook/instagram etc shouldn't be allowed to remove content they deem untrue.

HN has a monopoly on discussion between people with (slightly) above-average critical thinking skills. Should we ban their moderation as well? 15 years ago the idea of an internet video monopoly didn't even exist and if it did no one would have cared. What you are suggesting is impossible to enforce or even reason about.

I don't think HN has a monopoly on discussion between people with (slightly) above-average critical thinking skills. Many sub-reddits fit that definition as well.

I don't follow how this would be impossible to enforce. The person whose content on youtube is removed for example is going to complain. It's dead simple to slap youtube with a couple million dollar fine for such things.