YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#821

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:40 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #480

snowwrestler wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to have a marketplace of ideas, then some ideas will become popular and win, and some ideas will become unpopular and lose. This is how marketplaces are supposed to work. If we want a forum for speech where every idea is always welcome, and platformed, and no one is allowed to lose no matter how unpopular they are, I don't know what you'd call that. I'd call it a form of hell, personally. Philosophical…

Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required p…

In Democracy and Distrust, Ely says rules like the First Amendment are important because they secure the channels of democracy; in his framing, it's important that the government not suppress speech because doing so prevents the people from governing. It's not because speech is an intrinsic or natural right, which is an idea he argues against.

That made sense to me when I read it.

The idea of a universal principle of reverence for speech, regardless of its substance, makes no sense to me. In fact, it doesn't make sense to most people. Even on HN, you can find people arguing for decriminalizing child pornography. You have no trouble with that idea being suppressed. Why is white supremacy less loathsome? That's what we say when we suggest white supremacist speech be tolerated.

(Violent neo-Marxism and Shining Path Maoism is trendy among left-edgelords and is equally intolerable).

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#822

Post by wildrhythms » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:41 AM UTC

geronimoe wrote: post #738

I don't think people would have a problem with this if the political public squares (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc) - and that IS what they are - applied these policy changes to everyone equally. What's happened is we've already gone over the edge. Racism has been redefined to only be effectively possible by white people in the West. The intention of this change is racist in itself. Putting aside freedom of speech, w…

I get the impression that your comment is trying to paint any retaliation against racism online as itself a racist act. Is this right? It's hard to tell between the meaningless platitudes and strawmen you've set up for yourself.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#823

Post by dwaltrip » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

stx wrote: post #447

dwaltrip wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private companies can't (mechanically, not legally) determine who has a moral right to speak. Of course not, no one is claiming they are the ultimate arbiters of morality. But they do have the right to decide who can use their platform (as long as they don’t discriminate against protected groups). The broader public can then judge them positively or negatively for these decisions.

The thing is are these companies platforms like a phone company or are they publishers? Social media companies have argued that they cant be held liable for things posted to their platforms in the past and have tried to position themselves at neutral platforms. When they start to become the arbitrators of what is and is not to be posted they are no longer neutral platforms like the phone company. I do not recall a ti…

My limited understanding is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which is apparently one of the most important laws for this topic), passed in 1996, provides very broad protections to web platforms:

1) They can't be held liable for user-generated content, e.g. Facebook can't be sued for a defamatory statement that I make in a post on their platform.

A newspaper that authors and publishes an article making a similar defamatory statement could be held liable. I believe that Facebook could be held liable if the company itself authored and published the defamatory statement, instead of merely distributing my defamatory statement.

2) They can moderate user-generated content visible on their platform as they see fit, without trying to be "neutral" and without losing their liability protections (item 1 above).

Apparently, before this law, internet companies were worried about being held liable for what users said if they did any moderation (and some companies were sued for this).

---

This article seems to be a decent overview: https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-sectio...

This longer video (33 mins) from Legal Eagle is nice as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUWIi-Ppe5k. It's been a few weeks since I watched it so hopefully I didn't miss too many important details.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#824

Post by pnako » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

archagon wrote: post #486

Ghjklov wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a copout answer. "White" usually refers to people of European heritage who have lighter skin in America.

What do generic "Europeans" have in common with each other? As a Russian, I feel like my culture overlaps relatively little with French, German, or English. Moreover, which parts of "Europe" are actually included in this taxonomy? Are Romani considered white? What about Southern Italians? Black people in France? It all boils down to "people of European heritage with white skin (whose ancestors wrote books and stuff t…

We have a culture in common which encompasses languages, religion, music, architecture, food, etc.

I've only ever heard that question asked about us Europeans, for some reason.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#825

Post by yellowapple » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:46 AM UTC

moneytalks wrote: post #817

jahaja wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing natural nor reasonable about absentee ownership. It has always been upheld by force. By kings, feudal lords etc. For other cultures, like for example native americans, the entire concept was completely foreign.

If it really was a totally foreign concept to native Americans, who did the European invaders steal the land from?

European invaders stole it from Native Americans as a whole. Just because no specific individual owns it doesn't mean it's free real estate.

From a purely anarchistic point of view, European settlers were within their rights to settle upon and use that unowned land. They weren't, however, within their rights to to use that "unowned" land at the expense of other people already using that land, and thus the Native Americans were within their rights to defend against such a deprivation of access. Unfortunately, the Europeans had numbers, guns, and smallpox on their side, and as the Native Americans retreated further West the Europeans continued to spread.

And to be clear: the Native Americans were using that land. A reasonably-healthy wilderness ecosystem is crucial for hunting, as any hunter can attest even in the modern-day; kinda hard to hunt bison if there ain't any bison.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#826

Post by salawat » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:48 AM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #713

snowwrestler wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's up to the people who run Reddit. If they want to wipe out some subreddits, who is to say they can't? Any mechanism you can imagine to prevent them from doing so would have the effect of forcing speech upon them. A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's sho…

... Except for some people, though, right? I have an idea how you feel about the guy refusing to sell (decorate) the gay marriage cake (not trying to be pithy here, just tried to do a bit of footwork before replying). Do you absolve that guy under those "American values and traditions of free speech" as you would a website in this case? For me, second-order consequences are as important as whether or not this particu…

>Importantly, a big part of my reasoning here is that, subscribing to stoic thought, I place accountability for any perceived "damage" from words on the shoulders of the person interpreting them.

Whoa there buddy. You can't just suggest that other people be responsible for their own emotional responses and learn to moderate them and move along. If people started doing that, then what nwxt? You'd start having people independently then! Furthermore, that would completely negate a degree or manner of social control capable of being leaned on.

Apologies for the tongue in cheek, but I have the feeling your words may fall on deaf ears. Even worse, they'll fall on malicious ones who would turn it against you for the gall or privilege you demonstrate by aiming you can just say anything to anyone else, and whether or not they get offended is their problem.

I think I'm starting to understand the mentality a bit better;and it isn't necessarily unhealthy if taken at reasonable degrees. On the one hand, there is some level of required empathy to one's audience in any exchange. On the other hand though, no one is entitled to never getting in a verbal sparring match, and it's not terribly graciously or respectable to just say "That is your problem."

You have to bring your full rhetorical toolkit to the table. You have to meet on levels of logos, pathos, and ethos all. Leave any one out, or conspicuously absent, and you're liable to get binned more often than convincing anyone.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#827

Post by a9h74j » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:56 AM UTC

neylonbill wrote: post #330

roenxi wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of multiple-headlines-in-one-day undermines the argument for bans. In the Alex Jones case in particular it appeared he was being selected for a broader community image rather than actions on specific platforms. Private companies can't (mechanically, not legally) determine who has a moral right to speak. If we had a magic method for figuring that out it'd have been a feature of politics since at least the Ro…

I love Robert's Rules of Order! I'd love to see someone build video meeting software that implemented it somehow. Or does that exist? A brief search was fruitless.

The last copy I owned had a great introductory essay, describing the principles a rule of order could help realize: e.g. 1) to focus on potential concrete actions rather than some interminable search for agreement on beliefs; 2) to allow even minority/fringe opinions to get some hearing

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#828

Post by salawat » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:08 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #818

rayiner wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. By your logic, the first amendment has no salutary rationale. We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. There is no animating principle that we mig…

We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. That is pretty much the exact reason the Courts have given for allowing Neo Nazis to march, so its not anathema to how the first amendment has been understood. It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s an appropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment. T…

>The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government not private entities and attempting to turn it into a club to force private entities to publish speech they find abhorrent is inappropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment, which provides that individuals have the right to say something but not to force others to disseminate it (or even pay attention).

Wanted to touch on this because I think you're missing out on some socio-cultural nuance here. Yes, the Constitution is strictly a limitation on Government, but it is also expected that Citizen's of a Government also internalize the enshrined ethos of their highest laws.

To argue that the Constitution and Bill of Rights only effects the Government is to strongly demote the force and centrality of said document in Ameri an life. It may only say the Federal/State governments of the United States of America, but the truest message has always been one of the Supremacy of the liberties of the People over the systems that would oppress them. This is why you'll find there is so much resonance and vitriol inspired by the argument that private companies get a pass because they aren't the government. It doesn't matter. The infrastructures there, and it has woven itself tightly into the political fabric and discourse of the United States. I'd make the argument it's a Sixth Estate, of a central and sensitive enough nature that it should be looked at in the same ways we looked at the Press and Fairness Doctrine. Yes, that may have been overturned (and I'm honestly curious as to whether that overturning was truly beneficial), but damn, if you're going to sit by and let private individuals A/B test and gaslight your population in the name of private enterprise, to he'll with the consequences; and elevate whoever ends up in overall control of that edifice in particular... Well... I just don't think that's terribly kosher. Obligation increases to the 4th power of scale and reach. That's just how it seems to be. As an IT person, I internalized that valuelong ago. The bigger and more impactful the system's I end up working on, the more people are counting on me not to abuse my position of power and influence over the system.

I don't think I can buy into any suggestion that it should be any other way...

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#829

Post by 0xy » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:22 AM UTC

erik_seaberg wrote: post #574

throwmehaweh wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny I see this comment all the time on HN, but in a very similar scenario recently, where DHH launched Hey app and was stonewalled by Apple, I didn't see a single comment saying "hey just go build your own app store". Telling someone to "just go build your own" is lazy and weightless.

"Just build your own web host" is feasible, but "just build your own app store" is not because it requires replacing half of your users' mobile phones.

No, it's not. Because eventually you get censored by domain registrars themselves. Not to mention DDoS mitigation providers, payment providers, browsers etc.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#830

Post by 0xy » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:27 AM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #126

anticonformist wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public square is owned by private companies and they're enforcing anti-first amendment principles. One can't even argue that these banned people can move to another platform if they're all coordinating. Leftist extremists are effecting public banishment of their rightist extremist opponents. It wouldn't be as bad if leftist extremists were getting banned at the same time. The problem is that leftist extremists ha…

Today, Reddit banned the Chapo Trap House left extremist group. From someone not involved in either extreme, it appears to me like they're being consistent and banning people for behavior and not politics. I've not heard anyone calling for George Will to be deplatformed, for instance.

Just checking, but you know the standard for "consistent" is not "at least one far left extremist group was banned" right?

That is absolutely not the definition of consistent, so I have no idea why you've tried to square this circle. Consistent means proportional enforcement without political bias, which has clearly never been a priority for reddit.

After all, reddit has repeatedly targeted right-leaning subs with shadow bans and stealth editing including directly from the CEO. Which left-leaning subs have received CEO stealth editing treatment?