The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire • Hacker News Board

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#791

Post by igetspam » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:15 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #225

handoflixue wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: Why is this a threat to democracy, but previous censorship wasn't? There's always been an expectation of truthfulness in communication: We don't allow people to go around claiming that Pepsi causes AIDS, or cures cancer. You're not allowed to claim you're collecting for a charity, and then keep all the money for yourself. I doubt you'd be terribly okay with me claiming that you're a murderer and asking how…

>We don't allow people to go around claiming that Pepsi causes AIDS, or cures cancer I'm pretty certain you're 100% allowed to do this, though Pepsi inc may sue for damages.

I was thinking the same thing. I know people who claim all kinds of provably false things and they even form clubs.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#792

Post by somehnrdr14726 » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

A lot of discussion about whether YouTube censorship is valid or not, carries an implicit assumption that the marketplace of ideas is up to the task of sorting fact from fiction.

It isn't, at least not right now, because of technologies like YouTube's recommendation engine. When everyone thinks that virality is a signal of truthiness, an algorithm which amplifies outrage to generate virality undermines the marketplace of ideas.

YouTube isn't going to address the source of the problem because they would go out of business, or at least have a few very bad quarters. What they can do however, is pretend to moderate the marketplace and do it poorly enough that we stay focused on one another; instead of on their algorithm that literally converts outrage into money.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#793

Post by ModernMech » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

samdlathsworth wrote: post #786

hackyhacky wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kinds of "both-sides-ism" that gives centrists a bad reputation. You're basically saying: "everyone uses media to achieve their goals, therefore all sides are equally bad." No. Using misinformation to intentionally disrupt a democratic election is demonstrably dangerous to society. Say what you will about the "establishment," but traditional media still bear some semblance of the truth. Now we're seeing t…

The Democrats ran maybe the biggest misinformation campaign in my lifetime following the 2016 election. Massive turmoil and investigations later, it was all found to be false. What is this about “sides” again?

Mueller found Russia attacked the 2016 election and the Senate Intel Committee report found that Trump’s campaign manager was feeding internal campaign data to a Russian Intel Officer. Roger Stone was caught and convicted for lying to Congress about communications with Julian Assange, and the whole lot of them including Trump lied to the American people about hundreds of contacts with Russian nationals (some of whom turned out to be spies and Intel officers).

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#794

Post by Can_Not » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

samdlathsworth wrote: post #786

hackyhacky wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kinds of "both-sides-ism" that gives centrists a bad reputation. You're basically saying: "everyone uses media to achieve their goals, therefore all sides are equally bad." No. Using misinformation to intentionally disrupt a democratic election is demonstrably dangerous to society. Say what you will about the "establishment," but traditional media still bear some semblance of the truth. Now we're seeing t…

The Democrats ran maybe the biggest misinformation campaign in my lifetime following the 2016 election. Massive turmoil and investigations later, it was all found to be false. What is this about “sides” again?

The investigations that lead to convictions were entirely fabricated?

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#795

Post by UncleMeat » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:51 PM UTC

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #579

UncleMeat wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO you're not interested in free speech unless you're willing to defend speech you find repugnant. I am extremely confident that I can find examples of speech you wouldn't defend. How do you feel about false advertisement? Sharing of confidential military secrets?

I’m arguing about free expression and unpopular speech, not illegal speech.

Things aren't made illegal by the universe. Humans decide what the difference is. You simply think that false advertisement is bad but other forms of speech aren't and that is reflected in the law. We chose that some forms of speech aren't protected.

Since you aren't willing to defend that speech and fight to make it legal, are you not interested in free speech?

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#796

Post by amadeuspagel » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

205guy wrote: post #625

amadeuspagel wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know where to start here. Common carrier laws? The post office? Court cases forcing shopping malls and company towns to allow freedom of speech? I guess these are all innovations by the Textualist/Originalists you despise.

I remember that company towns had to allow private speech, but I never heard that shopping malls had to. I always thought that any protest or disruption or unpopular speech in a mall would get you escorted out by security.

At least in california, they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#797

Post by kenjackson » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:17 PM UTC

forgingahead wrote: post #692

kenjackson wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very different situations though. Hillary conceded. And no one I personally knew really thought that Trump would not become president. Most people believed there was Russian interference, but most didn’t believe they were literally changing votes. The Senate agreed with that assessment. While I’m no fan of Trump and vote mostly Democratic I do think Trump won in 2016 and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t. I have a much…

So why not then support the process of: 1. Signature matching on mailed ballots 2. Broadcasting the hearings in the accused states (MI, PA, GA, WI, AZ, etc) 3. Actually hearing the cases at both the state and federal level, and then throwing them out on the facts presented , instead of refusing to hear them on "lack of standing" to begin with? Win in the court of transparency. Make the crackpots look like crackpots,…

There’s refusal because it’s not sincere. If we did all that and Biden still won then it would just lead to the next conspiracy that the judges didn’t listen to the facts really. And the signature matching wasn’t stringent enough. And then they would argue that they didn’t let everyone required speak at the proceedings. Next they need to actually interview everyone who did a Mail in ballot and if they don’t show up then the vote doesn’t count. Etc...

And having standing is pretty important in something like this.

Lastly the crackpots already look like crackpots.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#798

Post by ModernMech » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

beaner wrote: post #708

hackyhacky wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about banning disagreement. It's not even about opinions. It's about combating weaponized misinformation. It's strange for Americans to be on the business side of a propaganda weapon, as we're more used to using against our enemies. Technology has finally made it feasible for malicious actors to cheaply and effectively manipulate people with lies, here in the US. If you don't believe it's a weapon, you're wr…

"Weaponized mininformation." The same people claiming this now are the same ones who promoted Russigate for 2+ years. It had absolutely no basis in reality and resulted in no evidence of collusion - at all. But the whole time we were bombarded with claims of it by the media. It wasn't just fringe youtubers or twitter commenters, it was the actual mainstream media. Where was this attitude of yours when that was going…

So Trump’s campaign manager shuffling internal campaign polling data to a Russian Intel Officer (the Senate Intel Committee’s characterization, not mine), while Russian Intelligence is busy waging a directed psyops campaign against the American public, and then lying about it to the FBI is not evidence of collusion? Trump’s close associate Roger Stone had advanced knowledge of hacked DNC materials from Wikileaks and told Trump, but not the FBI, then lied about it to Congress. Not evidence of collusion? Trump’s son, son in law, and campaign manager met with a now convicted Russian spy in Trump’s house, who laid out terms for delivering materials damaging to Clinton - relaxed sanctions. Trump lied about this meeting’s existence to the American public. Not evidence of collusion?

To summarize:

Trump knew Russia was trying to help him. He knew they wanted to offer dirt on Clinton in exchange for better relations. The hacked information was indeed delivered, meanwhile Trump’s campaign was funneling internal data to Russian Intel, which was attacking The election. And surprise surprise, the Republican platform that year was softer on Russia than it ever had been in the last 40 years. Suddenly Republicans don’t care about Russian annexation of Crimea? For no reason at all?

No evidence? Really? Let me guess, you only read the Bill Barr memo, which a Federal Judge has noted seemed to be intentionally misleading of the Mueller Report. I guess you also haven’t read the Senate Intel report, which lays out 900 pages of evidence related to Russian interference of the 2016 election, and the Trump campaign’s entangled involvement with it.

Maybe you don’t believe they colluded, but let’s remember that the original, official Trump campaign line was that they had zero contacts and zero deals with Russia. This turned out to be a complete lie.

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#799

Post by rayiner » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #676

rayiner wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the harm model here? After the 2016 election, more than half of Democrats disagreed that the elections “were free and fair.” https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/e... > Of registered voters surveyed, 53% said the 2016 election between Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton was free and fair and 33% said it was not.... 39% of Democratic or Democratic-leaning voters said it was. Half of Democr…

Very different situations though. Hillary conceded. And no one I personally knew really thought that Trump would not become president. Most people believed there was Russian interference, but most didn’t believe they were literally changing votes. The Senate agreed with that assessment. While I’m no fan of Trump and vote mostly Democratic I do think Trump won in 2016 and I don’t know anyone who doesn’t. I have a much…

As I said, I’m not comparing the candidates and judging their behavior. I’m comparing what the public believed: “Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the President – something for which there has been no credible evidence.” The point is to understand what’s the effect of people believing the election was not fair.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...

Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

#800

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:29 PM UTC

totony wrote: post #421

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others? I'm not familiar with that being a part of any philosophy.

>To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others Yes, I am saying personal freedom allows for potential adverse side effects. (Edit: Or why would you be allowed to drive a car, own a gun, insult someone?)

Well we have some limits on those personal freedoms, since while you can own a gun you can't shoot me. So who decides?