Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no ministry being erected, just a bunch of private parties not willing to get dragged into the mud.
No official ministry, but the private parties appear to be acting with a great deal of coordination.
YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
61–70 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#62Bannon said on this podcast that he would mount Anthony Fauci and Christopher Wray’s “heads on pikes” outside the White House as a “warning to other bureaucrats.” This was a few months ago. I presume he has been saying similar things since then. For years, the defense of these assholes has been “Oh, that’s just rhetoric, it’s not meant to be taken literally.” Well, we’ve just seen what happens when it gets taken lite…
Treating Steve Bannon differently is hypocritical and unfair.
> Well, we’ve just seen what happens when it gets taken literally.
Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"? Because I don't think you can find that evidence.
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#63Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#64I'm not even in the US, but all of this banning makes me really curious about what's being banned and why. Something that some of you may have missed: This banning thing already moved into the infrastructure/cloud services layer (AWS): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959
The AWS banning is what really concerns me. It's a clear escalation. First it's the app level (breached by Apple and Google), then the infrastructure level (breached by AWS - although there are alternatives here. Next up is DNS, I guess? And after that, routing. The ultimate Internet Death Penalty.
We're also seeing the refusal of legal representation, which seems nearly unprecedented. At some point, the only thing left will be civil death [0].
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree lies are bad. But lying is enough to get you banned? All the discussion up to now was "there's no slippery slope, only calls for violence" will get you banned. And now it's slipped to lying will get you banned?
Lying was allowed because it made Google money, and it would have been unqualifiedly allowed until the end of time if it hadn't started getting people killed. Rest assured, though, lying will continue to be allowed except for this one lie for this one moment in time until this blows over. Google will be happy to let any content through as long as it makes money and they can get away with it without facing consequence…
Do not let GAFA evade responsibility just because they're scrambling to pull the plug after 7 years of digital sectarian chaos.
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#66Bannon said on this podcast that he would mount Anthony Fauci and Christopher Wray’s “heads on pikes” outside the White House as a “warning to other bureaucrats.” This was a few months ago. I presume he has been saying similar things since then. For years, the defense of these assholes has been “Oh, that’s just rhetoric, it’s not meant to be taken literally.” Well, we’ve just seen what happens when it gets taken lite…
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#67Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#68Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#69The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population of people that only hear these lies, day in and day out? They're going to react just like they did on 1/6.
One would argue that reasonable people be reasonable. Of course, 1% of trump voters may be giving the 99% a bad name.
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#70I'm not even in the US, but all of this banning makes me really curious about what's being banned and why. Something that some of you may have missed: This banning thing already moved into the infrastructure/cloud services layer (AWS): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959
[Note: Trying to present this as factually as possible.] According to what the companies say: - The President incited some people last week to engage in violent behavior at and towards Congress. - There is evidence that further violence is being planned via a variety of platforms. - The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions. Some people think that the companies have ulterior mo…
I am very curious as to what exactly was said and how this is incitement to violence.