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

921–930 of 981 posts

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

#921

Post by [deleted] »

Vomzor wrote: post #91
titanomachy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a right to say whatever you want to whomever you want without fear of government retaliation, as long as it isn't "hate speech" in a fairly narrow legal sense. This is what "having free speech in society" has always meant. The government will also punish people who commit crimes against you merely because they dislike your words, which frees you to say things you might otherwise keep to yourself. What you do…

It used to be that the tech companies where champions of free speech, the ideal. It changed when generation woke entered their workforce. There has been a generational change brought on by changed values in American universities. That's what really is happening. > We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government sho…

[deleted]

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

#922

Post by [deleted] »

Vomzor wrote: post #345
Daishiman wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a retconning farce this is. 40 years ago you could not publicly endorse recreational drug use, atheism, or interracial marriages without a substancial block of society chastating you as an incorrectable heathen. Values change, what people find acceptable and what they do not find acceptable changes.

I'm not sure what your point is? As we seem to agree values change.

[deleted]

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

#923

Post by [deleted] »

Vomzor wrote: post #26
keepper wrote: post #13

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -Isaac Asimov or more to the point "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Colbert You're not entitled to be heard.…

> Reality has a well-known liberal bias Except when it comes to nuclear, GMO, gender science, nature vs nurture, I'm sure there are other things I'm not remembering right now.

[deleted]

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

#925

Post by [deleted] »

Vomzor wrote: post #65
appleflaxen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

was this presented in court? what were the courts' findings?

So far it has not. The courts have shot down the the lawsuits on procedural grounds without looking at the evidence. Several states have held hearings were a lot of these allegations are discussed in detail. The hour long hearings are on youtube. Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqFTUEvMoU Wisconsin State Legislature Election Hearing is still live streaming when I post this. Second edit: Why is my first comment…

[deleted]

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

#926

Post by DonHopkins »

prucomaclu2 wrote: post #367
dragonwriter wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given the large number of affidavits that their team has provided of a similar nature, it seems reasonable that the case should be allowed to be heard in a manner that takes both sides seriously. Before presenting evidence, you have to present a legal argument for which the evidence would provide factual substantiation. The vast majority of the Trump- and Trump-allied-lawsuits have failed at that and been dismissed…

This is indeed a fair point. Several of the lawsuits have been dismissed on the general basis that "election laws being broken is not evidence that fraud occurred". It's logically a true statement, and I think it's a fair opinion to have. But I do disagree with it: The laws regarding poll observers are designed to detect fraud. It is extremely hard to detect fraud when the poll observers aren't allowed to do their jo…

Stop creating alternative accounts. It's against the rules, and there's a very good reason you're being downvoted.

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

#927

Post by DonHopkins »

prucomaclu2 wrote: post #295
metabagel wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that she's a self-described "poll challenger", which is a partisan position. We can reasonably infer that she is a strong supporter of Trump and therefore is not impartial.

That's a fair point, which is why challenged ballots get marked as "challenged" and not "rejected". It is the duty of the observers to challenge ballots. It is the duty of the election workers to record these challenges, which wasn't happening. The only reason her challenge should have been denied is if she was shown to be challenging ballots indiscriminately or she was preventing the election workers from doing thei…

Stop creating alternative accounts. It's against the rules, and there's a very good reason you're being downvoted.

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

#928

Post by DonHopkins »

prucomaclu2 wrote: post #176
Vomzor wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far it has not. The courts have shot down the the lawsuits on procedural grounds without looking at the evidence. Several states have held hearings were a lot of these allegations are discussed in detail. The hour long hearings are on youtube. Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqFTUEvMoU Wisconsin State Legislature Election Hearing is still live streaming when I post this. Second edit: Why is my first comment…

Your reply was probably flagged because it had only a link. Generally people expect some content to go with a link. I also doubt most people on HN have the patience to wait for that site to load. It took like a minute. And of course it's pro-Trump, but I'm sure that's only a small reason why it was flagged. (Odd thing, I posted a comment to you earlier and it's not visible except when I am logged in. Hopefully at lea…

Stop creating alternative accounts. It's against the rules, and there's a very good reason you're being downvoted.

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

#929

Post by thu2111 »

hackyhacky wrote: post #886
thu2111 wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically everyone trusts the scientific method. However, there are a lot of people who don't trust certain types of 'scientists' because they've observed that those people don't seem to use the scientific method, even though they claim they do. That's a very reasonable and correct form of skepticism. The lazy assumption that anyone who claims to be scientific actually is has been exploited by demagogues throughout h…

The most prominent examples of modern anti-science in the US, such as in climate change, abortion, and epidemiology, do not find their roots in well-justified scepticism of particular scientists. Climate deniers don't care what science says, or how reliable peer-reviewed journals, and have no interest in the scientific method: they base their opposition in ideological grounds: "I don't believe climate change to be tr…

As someone who has rationally argued against epidemiology based on finding a constant stream of severe errors in their papers, I can assure you that epidemiology is almost entirely pseudo-scientific. I don't think I've ever encountered a field as disastrous as this one (though I've never really looked at climatology).

Epidemiology has so many massive cultural and methodological issues you could write an entire book about it, maybe one day I will. It is absolutely de rigueur in this field to make predictions without ever bothering to go back after an epidemic played out to study how well those predictions matched reality. They cherry pick data at an absurd rate: if they can get a more dramatic paper by using data that's 8 months old and based on a sample size of 7 people when they could use data published last week and which has a sample size of hundreds of thousands, they'll happily pick the former every time. Nobody in that field will notice or care, and they'll throw in a misleading citation or two to disguise what they're doing. There is no code quality control: these people happily publish papers based on models filled with memory corruption errors that can't even replicate their own output.

As for ideology, the fact that you can't explain what climatology sceptics believe should give you pause for thought. You appear to be projecting: a blind devout belief in "scientists" (they aren't really) is itself an ideology. Rather than engaging with the concerns of people who are pointing out problems in the published literature, you're just blowing them off as irrational.

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

#930

Post by dTal »

Reelin wrote: post #882
twentydollars wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A domain and VPS are simply not a viable substitute for access to mainstream social networks; to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Nobody is claiming this. That's the whole idea of the "Freedom of reach" thing... Why should you be entitled to post lies on Youtube? There are dozens of competing platforms that will let you post these things, you actually don't even have to start your own...

> Nobody is claiming this. The person I responded to did, in fact, directly imply this. Recall that I had compared the impact of modern mainstream social media to that of the printing press historically. Directly ignoring my central point clearly places your comment in bad faith. "Freedom of reach" is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on (cultural, not legal) freedom of speech (and liberalism more generally) f…

Original person you responded to here - I did not, in fact, imply this. My thesis is that your analogy is broken. We agree that having a domain and a VPS is a poor substitute for a voice on a major social network; likewise, owning your own printing press is no substitute for, say, a regular column in a popular newspaper. It's incorrect to frame it as forbidding access to technology, when what it really is is a middleman refusing to do business with you. We can debate about the precise nature of the middleman, but the presence or absence thereof is the defining feature. You CAN publish without Facebook. You CAN'T publish (paper) without a printing press.

It also bears noting that the gap in access to publishing technology has radically narrowed - it is WAY easier and cheaper to buy a domain and a VPS and publish your thoughts to the entire world without any content middleman, than it was to procure your own physical press and set up an operation to print even thousands of leaflets, let alone publish something with global reach. You have access to - pretty much - all the same technology that Facebook does.

Post reply on HN