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

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#101

Post by cptskippy »

edbob wrote: post #64
tpmx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> What's left after that? 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]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death

This isn't about people having their civil liberties taken away.

The social network bans are businesses protecting themselves from people whom threaten their business. Like a fast food restaurant refusing to serve customers who smoke crack in the restaurant.

The platform and infrastructure bans are also businesses protecting themselves but not from people, rather from other businesses. This is on level with U-haul banning drug cartels from renting their trucks.

No one's civil liberties are being taken away

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#102

Post by blisterpeanuts »

univalent wrote: post #17

Should have banned him after the 'heads on pikes' comment. Late as usual.

And should Maxine Waters have been banned after she exhorted her followers to harass Republicans?

"Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."

What kind of civilized person would advocate this type of behavior, much less a member of Congress? And why is this acceptable when Bannon's (admittedly nasty) comment isn't?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#103

Post by 7952 »

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…

It is up to the courts to decide if these things are illegal or not. Of course people should be held to the same standard. But there is obviously nuance in how a message may be recieved by others and a question of intent. A sitting president and conspiracy theorist trying to steal an election is different to a group of people protesting against police. Maybe there are grounds for prosecution in both cases, but that's not the point. There is a difference.

I think people want to use these issues as a way of pointing out hypocrisy that only exists when you think in a culture war way. All nuance is dissolved.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#104

Post by AI_WAIFU »

matz1 wrote: post #67

What interesting is how all these company act in the same way, why don't some company/platform took the opportunity to act the opposite to differentiate themselves ? I believe there is still large enough market for people who oppose this silencing.

Isn't that exactly what Parler is doing? The reason it doesn't work is because network effects and collective action make businesses that try uncompetitive. Go against the grain and all of a sudden everyone you were trading with that made your business feasible drops you. If any other businesses try to support you in their place, they'll also be singled out and get the same treatment.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#105

Post by cgrealy »

FFRefresh wrote: post #36
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.

What's your proposal for how Fox News should be handled, given they "lie every single day"? Should Fox News have their licenses removed, and be taken off the air & internet?

Most countries have a broadcasting standards authority of some sort. If you claim to be a news channel, then some measure of accuracy is not an unreasonable imposition.

That said, given the increasing irrelevance of broadcast TV, I don't see how removing their licence would achieve much.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#106

Post by dpatru »

Consider this in context: No ban for fighting the wars in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. No ban for torturing people or extraordinary rendition. No ban for mass illegal spying on Americans and lying about it. No ban for droning wedding parties or hospitals. But if you dare to suggest that a political party, that cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination and spent the last four years lying about how Trump, the only living President who hasn't started a new war, was a Russian agent, may have had something to do with a "coup" attempt which could only benefit them politically, then you are too dangerous and must be banned.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#107

Post by dane-pgp »

derwiki wrote: post #71
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.

Latest numbers I’ve seen are 18% https://thehill.com/homenews/news/533452-poll-18-percent-of-...

It's sad that in a thread about the need to believe facts over lies, the one person who brings an actual well-sourced statistic is voted down. Maybe society really is doomed.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#108

Post by notadev »

scsilver wrote: post #26
brighton36 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are opinions though. It may be untrue, but you're going to find yourself with a ministry of truth. "Who decides" who gets charged with the crime. These opinions can be entertained. After all, most trump supporters are clearly enraged by democrats.

There is no ministry being erected, just a bunch of private parties not willing to get dragged into the mud.

So we've outsourced the parts the government can't do to companies who are essentially shadow actors doing their censorship all while everyone rushes to reply with the "censorship only applies to government" line.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#109

Post by dang »

bra-ket wrote: post #59
garbagetime wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

there's a good precedent, just send everyone guilty of thoughtcrimes to Gulag, problem solved.

We've banned this account for abusing HN with ideological flamewar and ignoring our many requests to stop. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're for or against. We especially ban accounts that have been using HN primarily for that, as yours has. That's a key indicator of bad-faith use of the site, and is obviously against the rules.

When this came up yesterday, someone raised the common objection "why not just ban all politics then?" If anyone has that question, the thread is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711241

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#110

Post by brg »

Osiris wrote: post #90
josephorjoe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem I see is that they are walking directly in to oversight through their concerted actions. They are going to end up being labeled public utilities (identity, max comm, public market have already been labeled so).
Post reply on HN