Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

811–820 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#811
post #164

I'm not going to shed a tear for David Icke, but this quote is very concerning: > YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and the NHS [the U.K's healthcare system] [emphasis added] The WHO at least has been flat out wrong several times during this pandemic, such as telling people not to wear masks.…

I agree with your concern, but I would actually need some examples of YouTube enforcing this rule without nuance.

Questioning the validity of WHO's changing mask guidelines I can't imagine would get anyone banned.

Telling business owners to defy state orders and re-open nightclubs on vacuous constitutional grounds absolutely should get you booted.

If that's how YouTube is enforcing things, I don't see a problem with it. Icke's suspension isn't exactly the opportunity to call YouTube out, because this wasn't a questionable suspension. Until I see a questionable suspension, I don't feel compelled to complain much about YouTube's strategy here.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#812

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…

"But, indeed, the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries. To speak only of religious opinions: the Reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, and was put down. Arnold of Brescia was put down. Fra Dolcino was put down. Savonarola was put down. The Albigeois were put down. The Vaudois were put down. The Lollards were put down. The Hussites were put down. Even after the era of Luther, wherever persecution was persisted in, it was successful. In Spain, Italy, Flanders, the Austrian empire, Protestantism was rooted out; and, most likely, would have been so in England, had Queen Mary lived, or Queen Elizabeth died. Persecution has always succeeded, save where the heretics were too strong a party to be effectually persecuted. No reasonable person can doubt that Christianity might have been extirpated in the Roman empire. It spread, and became predominant, because the persecutions were only occasional, lasting but a short time, and separated by long intervals of almost undisturbed propagandism. It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error, of prevailing against the dungeon and the stake. Men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error, and a sufficient application of legal or even of social penalties will generally succeed in stopping the propagation of either. The real advantage which truth has, consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it, until some one of its reappearances falls on a time when from favourable circumstances it escapes persecution until it has made such head as to withstand all subsequent attempts to suppress it."

-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad. Stipulating that you're correct in your assessment: * the opportunity to drive trucks through and over the holes in the reasoning and teach people something through a "Stuff David Icke Says" parody channel is snuffed. * Icke gets to assume a martyr pose. * YouTube looks a trifle authoritarian. The truth doesn't have to resort to heavy-handedness to prevail. Newton's Third Law applies (in a social way) in these f…

Deplatforming works, that's proven. The truth is more fragile than you think.

Falsehood can get a bad one far, especially in a tactical sense.

Truth is the better strategic bet, every time.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Media companies should be required to host and promote anyone’s content no matter what? If I send a video to you should you be required to host it on your website?

That’s not even remotely close to what I said. All I said was it is censorship to remove something after it was posted.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe there are 15,188,406 racists in the UK and 62,984,828 racists in the USA? If you truly believe that then I feel sorry for you, because you live in a really sad world. Is that really the experience you have living in or visiting these countries or travelling around them, that 1 in 2 people you meet are racist? I think its a bit lazy and easy to substitue fringe views from within these two camps a…

Sadly, this is quite evidence backed. Somewhere around 1/3rd of the UK population have racist attitudes based on multiple surveys across multiple decades. In the 60s and 70s there was close to 75% support for ending immigration into the UK for non-whites. So yes, it's absolutely believable to have 15M racist wankers in the UK.

>In the 60s and 70s there was close to 75% support for ending immigration into the UK for non-whites.

Why is it "racist" for a white nation to keep their country, but ok for blacks, asians, etc to oppose white immigration into their countries? Recognizing basic human rights is not evil.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making a slippery-slope argument or freaking out over anything. Just noting the metric you are using will always prefer a more authoritarian response. I.e., did the policy work to silence every example I can find for any conspiracy theory that might survive to gain attention? Defenders of free speech obviously want us to take the bad with the good. As for the internet, I think of it as technology that brings…

> I'm not making a slippery-slope argument > Perhaps you'd prefer a quote like: the best response to bad speech is an authoritarian censor with unlimited powers to silence and imprison people? This is literally the slippery slope argument.

And I say it isn't. Speaking of logical arguments, you haven't really brought a lot to the table, by the way.

And you've misused "literally".

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why was this legislation introduced ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

Section 230 does not require that YT or any other service be neutral. It is extremely common for people to represent 230 as if it requires neutrality, but it absolutely does not. Here’s the entire text of 230, it doesn’t have a “unless they’re biased” clause. > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content…

I don't believe that was the point GP was trying to make.

You're correct that section 230 doesn't require neutrality, but that was part of the point of the legislation. The case law prior to section 230 did result in such a distinction, though not necessarily in those terms.

The cases in question are:

- Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., in which CompuServe was held not liable for content hosted on its systems as it was merely a distributor and did not have knowledge of the content, and

- Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., in which Prodigy was held liable for defamatory content posted on its systems as it performed moderation and was therefore considered to have editorial control over the content

Section 230 introduced a carve-out for internet service companies to avoid liability for user-generated content, but given the case law it does seem like this is otherwise a distinction made in US law.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s always possible to make an incorrect decision in service of the greater good, but that’s no excuse to give up concern for the greater good forever. Your argument also neatly contradicts personal gun ownership: “Someone was shot yesterday by their neighbor during an argument, so we should ban individual possession of weapons since guns have been used to enforce disagreeable opinions on others.”

Not the poster, but you can see why gun violence is different. Free speech is different from material harm to others. Also, you can keep pursuing greater good by education and protection of human rights. No need to sacrifice free speech.

> Free speech is different from material harm to others.

This is not a universally agreed-upon belief, and is specifically a belief I disagree with.

Free speech is just as sharp a blade as any other weapon. We seem to think that weapons can be carried safely because human beings will use good judgement about when to use them. I hold the same belief about speech: it is dangerous when wielded incorrectly, and societies are uniquely vulnerable to it above all other weapons. It's no more appropriate to me to allow wholly unrestricted use of speech than it is to allow wholly unrestricted use of weapons.

Most arguments for 'free speech' try to avoid the ethical debate about where the line between 'freedom to say anything' and 'harm to the greater good' is. I consider that line the most critical debate of all. Arguing that speech must never be restricted is just as extremist a view as arguing that speech must always be restricted. I much prefer the position "speech generally doesn't need to be restricted, but I'll make an exception in cases of significant risk/harm to societies".

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#819

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

There are videos on both sides of each of these topics on YouTube right now, so I'm not sure I understand your point.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#820
post #18

Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. This will just shift this extremist content to other unregulated and unmonitored platforms that will not engage in debate, but blindly accept such things. After all, if people believe this kinda stuff, cutting of the head won't stop them believing, just shifts the problem out of the public glare, at least on the surface.

I would rather extremists have to go to some other website to get their content, than for it to end up in tens of thousands 12 year olds' recommendations lists on YouTube.
Post reply on HN