YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#91

Post by shripadk » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:15 AM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #88

shripadk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Exactly right! No platform is permanent. No company is permanent.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#92

Post by drogon2020 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:16 AM UTC

tpmx wrote: post #48

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

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.

It’s the ultimate power play for wealthy Silicon Valley elites to permanently deplatform the most powerful man in the world.

I’m sure they all get off to it.

It seems only right that they get massively regulated after an action like this. I’m sure all Trumps supporters would support this now which is half the voting population.

They should worry about there platforms rather than trying to save the country - that is not their job as much as they may wish it to be.

It’s sad it has to come to this though because regulation sucks, but silencing your political opponents is such a slippery slope that Les been done so many times through history.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#93

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

garbagetime wrote: post #22

csa wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

Here's an important question: would it be a good thing or a bad thing if it was very difficult to make plans involving violence on the internet?

Hmm, well, is it possible that a corrupt fascist could ever take control of our government? If yes, it seems like it would be prudent to make sure we had avenues of free speech protected even from monopolies or duopolies that may provide platforms.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#94

Post by dane-pgp » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

tpmx wrote: post #48

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

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.

> Next up is DNS, I guess? And after that, routing.

Alternatively (or additionally) they could move the damage from the server side to the client: think OSes and browsers, not to mention hardware. It won't be long before "secure boot" technologies prevent people from installing "extremist" operating systems.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#95

Post by glitcher » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

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…

> the same standard won't be applied to those on the political left despite hundreds of riots being held across 2020

I beg to differ. Any time protests turn into riots, there are many who will jump at labelling the entire movement as being full of thugs and criminals. Your own words could be used to describe exactly how the BLM protests were viewed by the right. And actually, you yourself only mentioned "riots" without any acknowledgement of how there were far more peaceful protesters in that movement. Hint: the peaceful protests aren't as exciting, so they're not on the news as much.

So now am I supposed to feel sorry for the peaceful Trump protesters who are being mislabeled unfairly? Please. I didn't see a whole lot of diversity in those crowds, and somehow I think they are still going to be represented pretty well by their elected leaders going forward. Cry me a river.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#96

Post by Osiris » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

satya71 wrote: post #15

YouTube could take its engagement algorithm down a notch, thus reducing radicalization by many orders of magnitude. Otherwise, it's just playing whack-a-mole.

It's very easy to find articles that find that suggestion/engagement algorithms for YouTube, and presumably Facebook and others, pushes people toward more and more radical (extreme) content.

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10419/...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/algorithms-take-ov...

https://theconversation.com/youtubes-algorithms-might-radica...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#97

Post by throwawaysea » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

dieortin wrote: post #81

throwawaysea wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it is reasonable - I am just explaining the psychology of how people can get swept up in the fervor of crowds. I am fully in support of arresting all who participated. But my point is that it is not reasonable to conclude that Trump's speech incited people to illegally invade the capitol, commit theft/vandalism, and assault officers. His speech literally had a line saying "peacefully protest". The vast majority of people hearing his speech did not break the law. So how can there be a conclusion that he incited people to break the law? Those who broke the law are independent humans who hold personal responsibility for their actions. Unless Trump explicitly urges them to commit crimes, charging him with incitement is wrong.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#98

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

throwarayes wrote: post #49

I’m curious what the legal liability is for platforms that host content that “incites violence”[1] 1 - I realize this can range anywhere from emotional calls to protest up to the “clear and imminent danger” doctrine. And the specifics of the “inciting” and context around it certainly matter too.

Depending on the hosts knowledge, and the specific crimes of violence, and the exact relation of the content to the crimes — and concrete organization of a violent attack on a joint session of Congress in an attempt to coerce a preferred result in the tally of the electoral votes, to pick a not-quite-random example, would seem very much to qualify — there is a risk of criminal liability under 18 USC Sec. 2339A, Providing material support to terrorists.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#99

Post by ptato » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

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…

Why is it that whenever a prominent right wing figure gets banned (or similar), all that right wingers can answer is whataboutism?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#100

Post by cgrealy » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

Darmody wrote: post #72

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.

Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.

This is the fundamental problem in the US. There is a large group of people on the right that think that pointing out the objective issues with Trump is being "biased".

Sometimes, there just aren't two sides to a story, or more accurately one side is true and the other believes they had the biggest inauguration crowd ever.

The rest of the world clearly sees this. I'll openly admit to being a left-leaning liberal, but even my friends who vote right wing think that Trump is an embarrassment.