Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 298 posts

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#91

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

motohagiography wrote: post #32

It would be helpful for people who have previously come out against cancel culture and deplatforming to defend the principle for someone who is not a member of their political tribe. Independent of the content of the video and who it happened to offend, the deceptive practice of shadow banning is reprehensible. Tar-pitting spammers is one thing, deceiving creators, especially ones who are politically engaged as to th…

I'm happy to defend the principle and oppose what happened, but I think you're confused about the mechanism here. The anti-cancel-culture tribe isn't a natural or pre-existing political grouping; it's just the growing set of people whose positions have become cancellable. Within a few years, I expect that stances against shadowbanning and maybe even proposals to abolish the CIA will get you categorized as part of the anti-cancel-culture tribe.

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#92

Post by ikeboy »

ganoushoreilly wrote: post #89
ikeboy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"why isn't there as much outrage over the few dozen police killed every year as there is over the nearly 2k people killed by police?" There are roughly 20k violent deaths in the US every year. Almost 10% of those are police related. That's completely unacceptable to me, having looked at the actual numbers. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65309/ has the underlying sources and analysis here.

The police aren’t the causality though, they’re a component of response to crime. Crime is the issue and that will never be a 0 sum thing.

Then why have police killings gone up despite crime going down?

Also, why are police dispatched for non-violent crimes? I don't think someone with a gun and a license for violence should be sent out for any report of a non violent crime.

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#93

Post by 6510 »

3663288262 wrote: post #16

Speaking as a lurker, this seems basically like what people have been asking for for awhile now including here. I remember seeing numerous top comment chains over the last four years (and of course before that but not here) that all boiled down to very eloquent defenses of censoring fringe thinkers. Who knows, maybe in theory land there's no reason we can't have it both ways. But it seems to me that in the real world…

At first I suspected peoples world view was build on compound falsehoods. I couldn't help but pay attention to this concept. I had to rub my eyes a few times wondering if I was not simply seeing what I was hoping to find. At later age I was seeing the unquestioned bullshit all around me. Then came a stage where I repeatedly noticed my own subscriptions to nonsense and the erroneous mindset that one would logically build on top - repeatedly, again and again! I had to learn to carefully avoid telling people how things really work which worked wonderfully with repeatedly discovering that my revised world view was almost as wrong as the previous iteration. That said, I learn a lot from people still naive enough to speak their unconventional mind. Their topics of interest are not half as interesting as the route to their world view.

I don't want to give an example since those usually get confused for the subject but I'll share 2 things that made me laugh at the time: 1) I use to think people are logical beings. I believed the first half of my life that we act based on logic and reason. Then one day I noticed this is simply something I like to believe to be true. That I can think this without a shred of evidence is evidence in it self of the opposite. 2) We build, create and design to make things as easy and convenient as possible for ourselves and for other people. Comfort is taken on faith as a valid goal so obvious that it needs not be questioned. In the process we distance ourselves from the core mechanics of our existence and we fail to challenge our mind as well as our body. If we can build the apparatus we are happy to forget how to tie our shoes. We no longer need to know what we can eat in the forest, when to plant crops, how to make all of those nice wooden things, how to forge metals, how to have a productive conversation (which requires disagreement) we think we benefit from calling that taxi but what we really needed was the 3 km walk in the sun or snow, fresh air and to see those birds fly over that old tree. Even the shoes are a solution to their own problem.

:-)

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#94

Post by snowron6 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #80
everdrive wrote: post #34

What exactly happens when Youtube shadowbans a video? The creator believes it's accessible, but no one else can access it?

From the Twitter thread, I understand the video becomes secretly unlisted - not reachable in any way other than having a direct URL to it.

You can find it by going to his youtube channel, but it doesn't show up in searches or in subscriptions if you're subscribed to him.

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#95

Post by calibas »

3663288262 wrote: post #16

Speaking as a lurker, this seems basically like what people have been asking for for awhile now including here. I remember seeing numerous top comment chains over the last four years (and of course before that but not here) that all boiled down to very eloquent defenses of censoring fringe thinkers. Who knows, maybe in theory land there's no reason we can't have it both ways. But it seems to me that in the real world…

Children are taught to not question what they're told, because it's much easier on parents and teachers when children don't question what they're told. Then when they're adults they lack any kind of critical thinking skills because they've been miseducated and they're easy targets for disinformation.

To me, the solution is obviously better education. When people believe the Earth is round only because that's what they were told, it's not that hard for a clever talker to convince them the Earth could be flat. When people know the Earth is round because they actually understand the physics behind it, there's no way you're ever going to convince them the Earth is flat.

Instead of admitting our education system has failed, people's ignorance is being used as an excuse to tighten control over the media even further.

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#96

Post by rightbyte »

ikeboy wrote: post #40
commentrix wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I think it's "anti-American" to deliberately editorialize and misrepresent the police as illegally violent and biased, when the facts are otherwise: - black people kill black people far more than police or white people kill black people, but the dominant story about it is, police violence is at fault - police have to deal with 1000s of violent encounters with unstable and dangerous individuals every week, and asi…

"why isn't there as much outrage over the few dozen police killed every year as there is over the nearly 2k people killed by police?" There are roughly 20k violent deaths in the US every year. Almost 10% of those are police related. That's completely unacceptable to me, having looked at the actual numbers. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65309/ has the underlying sources and analysis here.

So for 19 civilian killings the police kill one person? I wonder what would be a "reasonable" share given the amount of violent criminals.

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#97

Post by bladegash »

stephenhuey wrote: post #87
bladegash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you? Not to over simplify things, but freedom, liberty, and equal treatment were pretty much empty words and applied only to white American men (see: treatment of Native Americans, the Mexican-American war, slaves, and women). Federalists were very clear in their commentary and design of the Constitution that they were in favor of broad federal powers and feared populism and direct democracy. The Bill of Rights wa…

While I agree with a lot of your comments, I was alarmed by your Patrick Henry misquote. He was arguing FOR the Bill of Rights, not against it. https://wwnorton.com/college/history/america7_brief/content/...

Yeah, that was a huge oversight on my part and thank you for bringing it up! I added an edit to the original comment to correct it/apologize (based on another comment mentioning the same thing).

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#98

Post by tsimionescu »

inatreecrown2 wrote: post #42
jeanlucas wrote: post #23

Just watched the video, read the thread. Here are some thoughts. First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the C…

the video uploader is promoting his own competitor to youtube, a streaming service. that is mentioned in the end of the video, and it should really be mentioned in the thread title.

There are many videos promoting competitors to YouTube that don't get shadow banned, nor visits from Homeland Security. For example The Legal Eagle channel always promotes a competitor to YouTube, as paid advertising in each video.

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#99

Post by gruez »

capableweb wrote: post #76
gruez wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Talk about the military industry, crime financial complex, pretexts to war or history of US foreign policy [...] and see yourself get delisted from Google, smeared in the media, then get harassed by various agencies uhh, what? You frequently see posts critical of all of those on reddit and hn, and to my knowledge the things you've listed didn't happen to them.

I don't know what to think here. If you get harassed by US agencies, you might stop posting on the internet, so we wouldn't see anything from them. Simply impossible for us to guess what happens to strangers on the internet, after they post US critical thinking publicly.

That might be true, but these posts have been on reddit/hn for years. You'd think that if there was some sort of effort to harass people making these posts that we'd stop seeing them and/or hear more people speaking out about government harassment.

Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

#100

Post by dalbasal »

We have long reached the point where, if we want to keep making analogies between social media and analogue media (pun intended), then we need to compare social media to a publication with an editor.

Demonetization, age-gating, recommendation engines, bans, shadowbans and their subtler varieties are many-2-many media's equivalent of an editor. Every one impacts the distribution of a video on youtube. Every one of these also impacts what content gets made/posted, because views are like currency.

It doesn't matter if it's algorithmic, and it doesn't matter if there are other reasons for (eg) demonetisation to exist. It's still an editor. You need to make the editor happy to succeed on youtube. The single difference between an editor and a censor is scale. If you edit all the magazines, magazines are censored.

The innocuous type example for censorship is (as usual) pornography. IDK what the consequences of posting pornography and its juniors (nudity, etc) on youtube, but they're obviously sufficient to make youtube mostly nudity free. It's not because no one wants raunchy videos. The same toolkit can be used (and is) to make any kind of content more or less prevalent on youtube.

It's funny that "section 230" is being mentioned by so many under informed politicians and pundits. Changing 230 is unlikely to "fix" the problem, considering that most politicians obviously don't even understand the problem. But section 230 at least captures the main part of the problem. Youtube is not "dumb pipes." Youtube is a content business, and they have a lot of control over content. It's not direct, "delete this segment" control like they have at FOX, but it is editing nonetheless. At youtube, twitter or FB scale, editing is censorship.

Post reply on HN