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

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

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 981 posts

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

#811

Post by swiley »

ipython wrote: post #219
swiley wrote: post #2

If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.

Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? We never had unrestricted free speech in this country. There is a whole Wikipedia article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... In addition other democratic states have strict limits on free speech such as Singapore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constituti... After all even “democracy” is nuanced here…

Making analogies requires that the two ideas come from the same class of ideas. In what way is traffic and speech in the same class?

The reason this becomes an absolute is, unlike with traffic, the decision about which speech is abusive is objective and itself easy to abuse. When there's no way to talk about the abuse (a situation the abuser would create) then it will continue until the abuser's ability to censor speech is removed. In the real world this ability is often removed as the result of some serious violence and so most people don't like to create conditions that could lead to such a situation.

People sometimes say that speech in a democracy is a nicer alternative to violence.

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

#812

Post by gruez »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #562
gruez wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicol... >and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes As opposed to the na…

> Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. Its referring to herbicide-resistant GMO crops where the pesticides are Roundup or Liberty. With regard to Bt, there's a big difference between topical application of Bt and GMO Bt corn (where the Bt is produced inside the plant so bugs are poisoned by the plant). > "all pe…

>Its referring to herbicide-resistant GMO crops where the pesticides are Roundup or Liberty.

Roundup (aka glyphosate) seems to be pretty safe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Glyphosate_alone

>With regard to Bt, there's a big difference between topical application of Bt and GMO Bt corn (where the Bt is produced inside the plant so bugs are poisoned by the plant).

Why would there be? The wikipedia article I linked mentioned ingestion testing. It's not like they tested bt as a regular spray on pesticide, found it was safe, then approved bt gmo corn without further testing.

>Since the biosphere has a lot of bimolecular pathways its not possible to categorically test everything and catalog all the possible reactions, we just know we can limit the amount of unwanted reactions by using the minimum amount of pesticide. [...] Its an application of the precautionary principle where we act in such a manner to create the least possibility of harm because the scope and extent of the effects are not known.

But the scope and extent of the effects are not known. Glyphosate and bt have both been thoroughly studied. With your "precautionary principle" we'd all be not eating chocolate right now if it was first used as a pesticide (chocolate kills dogs, so if dogs were somehow a pest, it can be used as a pesticide against them).

>They aren't in opposition because mutations don't stop when you start polluting the gene pool with GMO products.

So mutations are intrinsically bad? In other words, if there were some way to stop naturally occurring mutations globally, you'd support it?

>Yes its a problem for the farmers because they can no longer rely on the herbicide to control those competitor organisms, which was the entire point of using a selective herbicide / GMO crop system.

It's a problem, but the alternative (not using any GMO/herbicide) is worst, since the weeds will still be growing out of control. At least if you used GMO/herbicide you have a few decades of weed-free growth.

>With regard to the ecosystem disruption due to pesticide runoff, its an issue for anyone who is dependent on the biosphere because of the harmful effects on biodiversity.

This is totally orthogonal to the discussion of GMOs. If you're worried about pesticide/herbicide run-off from farms, then you'd want to regulate it directly, rather than trying to regulate it by proxy by limiting access to technology that allows for greater pesticide/herbicide use. It's not like the threshold where herbicide levels tolerated by non-gmo crops is the same threshold that ecosystem damage occurs. Not to mention, non-gmo crops can still have their herbicide resistance raised by selective breeding.

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

#813

Post by UncleMeat »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #805
Frondo wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then, let's make lies illegal, if that's where you're drawing the line.

You realize how liable to abuse the idea of “truth” is in a tyrannical regime? Or even just fallible and misguided people? Like, eugenicists in the 1920s would have a whole host of horrid “truths” they thought were scientifically supported at the time. Imagine the hurdles opposition would have in trying to voice their “factual truth.”

Of course it is abusable. The state has done all sorts of tremendously evil things when wielding its power. "Free speech" has never stopped the crushing of legitimate protest. This is not a surprise to leftist activists, who have been consistently violently attacked by the state for more than a century. I find these arguments so disingenuous when people throw them out while also doing little to nothing to curb existing state abuse. I've never seen right wing "free speech absolutists" at trans-rights protests or fighting against state interference in left-coded academic work.

General restrictions on state power don't work. Capitalism crushes people. When that state power turns on the majority, the majority complains that their voices are silenced and then they go right back to ignoring the continued problems of the minority.

Perhaps the solution is to approach each situation on a case by case process. Protest and agitate when the state harms people and celebrate when the state protects people. Make harm reduction the goal.

In software people often point to how focusing on metrics can make you fail to achieve your true goal. Similarly, we should focus on the thing that free speech is intending to achieve rather than free speech itself.

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

#814

Post by dTal »

pas wrote: post #788
ceilingcorner wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, at this very moment, Facebook and Twitter prevent you from sending certain links via private message.

They also prevent sending links to known phishing sites. They prevent the spread of malware. Yes, this Trump-idiocy is malware. Yes, this oversight needs oversight in the open. A list of banned stuff, with explanation. Also, not surprisingly alternative platforms quickly sprung up to serve that audience and host. Though they might eventually get kicked off Cloudflare, and so on.

It's a really good analogy.

HN is fairly equivocal on the concept of walled gardens as a safety measure, despite the lack of accountability. There's some consensus that it's perfectly fine for e.g. Apple to prevent you from installing something outside the app store, or to put up major hurdles to installing anything unsigned on MacOS, because Grandma and Grandpa can't be trusted not to do something silly and get pwned. "It's not a hacker device!" is the usual refrain.

Yet the consequences of having your brain be pwned are so much worse. There are people who believe the Earth is flat and that vaccines cause autism; some of these beliefs can cost lives. Maybe YouTube shouldn't be a "hacker platform" either, but a place where people can watch videos without fear of being led down a rabbit hole.

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

#815

Post by dTal »

Reelin wrote: post #698
twentydollars wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “A group of unknown people at a technology corporation should be the ultimate authority on what I’m allowed to say, read, or share with my friends.” Literally nobody is suggesting this. It's about freedom of Reach, not freedom of speech.

> It's about freedom of Reach, not freedom of speech. What a snappy cliche. If you prohibit certain people from using the printing press but allow others to do so, then in practice you are limiting their freedom to speak relative to other people. To imply otherwise is either disingenuous or profoundly misinformed.

Everyone has access to the modern equivalent of a printing press. Anyone can buy a domain name and a VPS and "print" as many leaflets as they want.

Publishing on YouTube is more like, well, publishing. There's a middleman. They own their own press, they have a reputation and an audience, they bring the eyeballs, they make the money and they give you a cut. It has never been censorship for a publisher to decline to publish something.

Youtube isn't infrastructure.

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

#816

Post by matt_kantor »

XorNot wrote: post #702
forgingahead wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

So you're clearly not actually following the proceedings of any of this anyway, so what difference would it make? Testimony has been broadcast, court rulings are public, the reasoning and legal procedure is all happening in the open. You're demanding transparency because it suits whatever narrative you have in your head, yet demonstrating you won't put any effort into following the process which is already public.

To make it easy, here's a summary of the cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...

Be sure to click the links for each case to get details, and from there most of the references are the actual court documents.

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

#817

Post by krapp »

abacadaba wrote: post #745
_kbh_ wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p... There you go.

Ya but that debunking has been debunked https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/07/no-the-georgia-vote-cou... Partisan source? Maybe. But unfortunately the fact checkers have lost all credibility over the last few months by debunking things like, in the context of this article, hunter's laptop.

Maybe you'll accept the credibility of the Republican lawmakers and election officials in Georgia who also consider those accusations of fraud to be baseless[0].

[0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/11/30/georgia...

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

#818

Post by matt_kantor »

swiley wrote: post #811
ipython wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? We never had unrestricted free speech in this country. There is a whole Wikipedia article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... In addition other democratic states have strict limits on free speech such as Singapore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constituti... After all even “democracy” is nuanced here…

Making analogies requires that the two ideas come from the same class of ideas. In what way is traffic and speech in the same class? The reason this becomes an absolute is, unlike with traffic, the decision about which speech is abusive is objective and itself easy to abuse. When there's no way to talk about the abuse (a situation the abuser would create) then it will continue until the abuser's ability to censor spe…

I think you meant "subjective".

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

#819

Post by deeviant »

cambalache wrote: post #505
deeviant wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are attempting to make the point that the UK is not an equivalent democracy? The house of lords can not create bills nor stop them. They can look over the elected parliament's shoulders and whine, that's it. It is a vestigial leaving of the monarchy system that, like the Monarchs themselves, the UK keeps because it's cute. While in the US, un-elected corporations do very much the same thing, except when they w…

> While in the US, un-elected corporations do very much the same thing, except when they whine, they get their way. Thanks god that never happens in Britain.

I'm sure it does but in the UK, there is no Citizens United, where the Supreme Corporate Court of America (LLC) decided $$$ = speech, more $$$ = more speech, thus infinite $$$ to political campaigns = ALL GOOD HOMIES (This isn't even satire, this is actually their logic here).

Let's get real, it isn't the fact that corps lobby goverments that is the problem, there problem is when they can give unlimited cash bribes, like that can in the US. But they can not in the UK.

When you really start examining it, the US democrazy(sic) doesn't seem all that exceptional.

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

#820

Post by factotvm »

factotvm wrote: post #549
rayiner wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019... (AOC: “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."). This is flat-earth conspiracy theory level falsehood. And it’s a falsehood about an extremely politically and socially important issue that if widely accepted could have massive repercussions. Is YouTube going to censor it?

Predictions are different than lies.

According to the downvotes, my statement must be false and predictions are the same as lies.

If it’s been proven false, don’t say it. If it can’t be proven false, carry on, as that’s not against the terms and conditions.

Or, a false equivalency between saying the election was stolen, and saying the world will end in 12 years if we don’t do something.

Post reply on HN