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

831–840 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#831

Post by ehvatum »

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…

Who decides the truth? When conventional knowledge is fatally flawed, how can it be changed?

Democracy is necessarily a battleground of ideas. The alternative is battlegrounds between groups with competing ideas.

For this reason, the by-any-means-necessary aspect of modern wokeism is terribly dangerous. What if these fuckers are wrong? Whenever we are urged to discard debate and the free exchange of ideas so that truth may prevail - watch the hell out.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#832

Post by alexandercrohde »

RIMR wrote: post #819
mrfusion wrote: post #223

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.

The point is -- at one point the founding fathers of America were terrorists, according to the government of the time.

Those in authority will never be above questioning and doubting, even if that means considering dumb questions.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#834

Post by ashtonkem »

ryukafalz wrote: post #817
ashtonkem wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

It was a distinction made in US case law, until Section 230 rendered it moot. Section 230 was in fact written partially in response to Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., because the ruling was considered such a threat to the growing internet.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#835

Post by finnthehuman »

cycomanic wrote: post #650
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contemplation and retrospection into deep topics. This is a problem, but how does censorship solve it? You would in fact need to solve that problem for all ideas in order to correctly know what to censor, which nobody has time to do, hence the problem. > We have polarized ourselves into camps of right and wrong. This is exactly what the censorship m…

> And the other is trusted thought leaders who consult a variety of domain experts on a given topic to determine the consensus of the experts and relay it to all of the people who don't have time to look at the specific details on that specific topic. This is what has completely imploded. The news media has lost their credibility by explicitly abandoning even the pretense of impartiality and chasing clickbait nonsens…

> I think that we have seen an unprecedented campaign to propagate the belief that the "mainstream media" is untrustworthy.

Both can be true. The large national news outlets can be faltering AND someone could find a partisan advantage by making hay out of that fact.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#836

Post by daveFNbuck »

benbristow wrote: post #822
deminature wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deplatforming has proven highly effective at preventing bad actors from continuing to spread misinformation on Reddit and other social media sites [1]. I support free speech in principle, but internet platforms are such a powerful megaphone for spreading misinformation, the likes of which history has never seen, that platform owners may feel ethically obligated to act against those who would misuse their systems to c…

Not defending him, nor do I believe him, but I watched a brief portion of the London Real livestream interview last night and he said that 5G provokes symptoms similar to that of COVID-19, not that 5G spreads Coronavirus.

He's said a lot of bullshit in a lot of different venues. I did a quick search and found a long, rambling article [1] on his website about how coronavirus and 5G are linked. He sums his position up at the end with

> The evidence that COVID-19 is a bioweapon is overwhelming – and so is the evidence that 5G is involved to either cause the flu-like symptoms/pneumonia people have been experiencing, and/or to exacerbate the virulity of the virus by weakening people’s immune systems and subjecting them to pulsed waves of EMF to open up their skin to foreign DNA fragments (including viruses).

So he's been saying both that 5G causes an illness that is mistaken for COVID-19 and that 5G spreads coronavirus.

[1] https://www.davidicke.com/article/564306/coronavirus-5g-conn...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#837

Post by joshuamorton »

longtom wrote: post #707
joshuamorton wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> All epidemiologists seemed to have agreed at that time

No, the 4% was based on academic papers and epidimeoligists. Granted there was and is disagreement, but the whole "it's less than 1%" thing was from nonreperts.

> but this is widely regarded as a cover-up

By who? Some people believe China wasn't forthcoming with evidence, sure. That's possibly true.

> Which is identical with not restricting global air travel.

Well no, general travel restrictions and reductions, and travel bans instituted by areas under outbreak are both within the WHO policy.

That is, Italy can ban all travel out (which they did). But the US shouldn't ban all flights from China.

> They wrote for individuals without respiratory symptoms

Yes, and if you read into the underlying papers, not just the headlines the reasons they recommend this are to prevent shortages and because it's easy to mishandle masks.

I am not sure what your goal is here, you seem to be disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#838

Post by jshevek »

ashtonkem wrote: post #784
jshevek wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>This makes it much easier to discuss

Yes, that's part of my point. That's an incentive to shoehorn, over-simplify, and strawman the ideas and arguments of others.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#839

Post by paulnechifor »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #706
roenxi wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many countries do "recognize" Taiwan unofficially, but surely matters of life or death should be treated a bit differently.

It's disgraceful that WHO refused information requests from Taiwan and to see senior officials feigning deafness when questioned about Taiwan.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#840

Post by jfoster »

Kiro wrote: post #752
jfoster wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here you need to remember that the W stands for "World". So they give dubious advice to the entire world since the good advice doesn't perfectly fit the world in entirety? There are many better options: don't give advice, explain two sets of advice, ask for advice from governments to be followed, make the advice generic enough that it still applies to the world. An example of advice that might apply anywhere in the…

Just because countries have mandated a mask requirement doesn't mean there is a scientific consensus yet. You all talk like this it's a fact that masks for the broad public will actually help. In my country the general advice is the opposite. We simply don't know so I'm not surprised that WHO hasn't taken a firm stance yet.

Is there any credible hypothesis on it not reducing transmission?
Post reply on HN