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

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#81

Post by dieortin »

throwawaysea wrote: post #69
kumarvvr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would argue that reasonable people be reasonable. Of course, 1% of trump voters may be giving the 99% a bad name.

This is very true. Tens of thousands of Trump supporters showed up to DC this last week, attending one of several fully-legal, fully-permitted protests. Almost all events and participants were peaceful. A few hundred walked into the capitol complex, and I am guessing most did not initially plan to do so but got caught up in the moment, following those in front of them. Of those few hundred, an even smaller group was…

You say it like “getting caught in the moment” and assaulting the Capitol is something completely reasonable that anyone in that situation might do.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#82

Post by ecommerceguy »

e40 wrote: post #21

The 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.

I'd argue the reason these type of people are pissed off is because they have been incessantly attacked for 4 plus years while watching the media turn a blind eye to anything that disparages any minority or "protected class." We spent 10 MONTHS watching riots every day. DC was BURNING in July.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#83

Post by [deleted] »

_qwfv wrote: post #51
shripadk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't be. These bans and policies have been going on for a really long time. It is just hitting the US now. It has been happening in India for far too long. Big Tech monopoly has gone unchecked all this while. At least I am happy to see my fellow Indians uninstalling WhatsApp and moving to Signal. The more such alternative services the better. This stronghold of Big Tech on what internet should be has to end and i…

Research actually backs up that deplatforming does reduce audience sizes for an outlet. Which makes sense of you believe that some listeners will simply not have the interest in jumping over to a new platform. Repeat several times and with every platform shift the audience reduces.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#84

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

tpmx wrote: post #2

I'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

What I’m interested in is how many people here are applauding the banning while liberal voices like Glenn Greenwald, and the ALCU are decrying it.

I’m sure some of my conservative friends would laugh if I told them this site makes me look like Regean in comparison to some others.

All good fun of course. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and ones I disagree with shouldn’t be hidden, but that itself is just my opinion.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#85

Post by _qwfv »

throwawaysea wrote: post #62
avalys wrote: post #9

Bannon 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…

If this standard is being applied, it should be applied to everyone. BLM-affiliated protest groups have suggested violence like this many times. For example, check out https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/us/protest-personal-homes... , where protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny". Neither BLM nor the councilmembers who encouraged the protesters have been banned from big tec…

> protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny"

Does these people also have a YouTube podcast that was taken offline? Or are you trying to point a finger at an unrelated issue and saying, "That is also bad!!"

What you are doing is called whataboutism. We need to evaluate situations with their context.

Constantly pulling in new examples and "they did X which excuses Y" is a child's game. It's the rhetorical equivalent to "they started it!".

For example, I might say, "the BLM was responding to threats of violence from the cops" to which you might respond, "the cops were responding to threats of violence from suspected criminals". We could continue this chain forever, coming up with some other example and historical precedent. It's not productive.

We're here, now in this thread discussing this one event.

> Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"?

I assume you mean on Bannons show? Because there are tons of examples of what you've described in other contexts.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#86

Post by Osiris »

throwawaysea wrote: post #62
avalys wrote: post #9

Bannon 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…

If this standard is being applied, it should be applied to everyone. BLM-affiliated protest groups have suggested violence like this many times. For example, check out https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/us/protest-personal-homes... , where protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny". Neither BLM nor the councilmembers who encouraged the protesters have been banned from big tec…

Yes, the standard should be applied to everyone. In my opinion, no one should ever suggest the murder of any other person regardless of whether they intend it as sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, or anything else.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#87

Post by Proven »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #20
glandium wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And GP's link, which is about Parler, is another example. I hadn't heard of Parler before it was banned.

Yes, there will be a short boost to parler and bannon, and then a long deafening silence. These bans will be effective.

lol

i've been spending ten times more time on Gab this year. just saying.

Gab is so overloaded these days it's hard to log in.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#88

Post by zozbot234 »

shripadk wrote: post #79
_qwfv wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research actually backs up that deplatforming does reduce audience sizes for an outlet. Which makes sense of you believe that some listeners will simply not have the interest in jumping over to a new platform. Repeat several times and with every platform shift the audience reduces.

> Research actually backs up that deplatforming does reduce audience sizes for an outlet. This research was done at a time when there was little to no backlash against Big Tech. When you factor in a billion+ people moving from one platform to another it is not the platform that is deplatforming users but it is the users abandoning the platform. I have seen it happen multiple times in my life: From Yahoo Messenger to…

> When you factor in a billion+ people moving from one platform to another it is not the platform that is deplatforming users but it is the users abandoning the platform.

We've seen this happen in the U.S. too with the recent conservative shift from Twitter to Facebook and Parler. If Parler does go down due to AWS pulling the plug, we will again see a shift to a new platform - it's a matter of where and when, not if.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#89

Post by Spivak »

kumarvvr wrote: post #50
e40 wrote: post #21

The 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.

I mean we’re talking about 75 million voters and likely about 150 million people in total if everyone was surveyed. The idea that you can say anything meaningful about all Tump or Biden supporters is basically zero.

We’re necessarily talking about an absolutely insane and unhinged group of people. It doesn’t mean that you can go around encouraging and feeding that level of crazy and not expect bad things to happen.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#90

Post by Osiris »

josephorjoe wrote: post #53
olah_1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violent riots have happened many times based on media lies. That part is not novel.

agreed. nothing novel about people lying to convince other people to do something. what’s novel is the centralized nature of social media (in terms of # of people reached from a single source) and the fact that some incredibly wealthy companies control these sources and face an existential risk if their platforms are used to create enough civil unrest that whoever ends up controlling the government is convinced that…

Exactly. These companies want to avoid government regulation / oversight. They are taking proactive actions to lessen the blame that would be assigned to them and thus (hopefully) avoid future regulatory action.
Post reply on HN