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

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#121

Post by mschuster91 »

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.

> Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored?

In Germany, we have the section §130 StGB in our criminal code: incitement to hatred. While it would be extremely hard if not impossible to get a TV station such as Fox News to be banned here, its hosts/mouthpieces/guests could certainly be sanctioned - up to actual jail time.

Also, our core media codex ("Medienstaatsvertrag") binds all broadcasting stations - radio, TV, streaming - to journalistic integrity and truthful reporting (§§6, 19, 51 MStV).

> What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.

I have yet to see a report that CNN broadcasts people that claim that the election was "stolen" or "manipulated". There is a massive difference between biased reporting and openly distributing lies.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#122

Post by disposekinetics »

ptato wrote: post #99
throwawaysea wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe they somehow got the message this was all ok after it was literally all ok for eight months.

They're despicable, but it is easy to trace exactly how the mainstream rhetoric made this palatable to them.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#123

Post by dang »

drogon2020 wrote: post #54
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…

It’s a figure of speech. Grow up.

We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

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

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#124

Post by SoSoRoCoCo »

brighton36 wrote: post #77
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are opinions though Help me out here, Hacker News. This guy thinks: "Democrats attacked the capital", is an opinion. How do we even talk to this person?

Maybe you would benefit from looking up the definition of opinion...

Ok, I did. Explain to me where it says anything about lying is an opinion: https://bit.ly/39nLiwz

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#125

Post by matz1 »

grzm wrote: post #119
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.

The firms are responding to the same events and pressures in similar ways. It doesn't require coordination or conspiracy to explain that. You're right that there's likely opportunity for some disruptive differentiation. That often comes from the outside rather than established companies, and also we tend to hear about the few successful disrupters and not the many, many more failures.

I certainly hope we can see some disruptor come out from this.

People been saying google/fb/apple is too big to compete, to me this seem like golden opportunity.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#126

Post by lsh123 »

dang wrote: post #109
bra-ket wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Dang, I grew up in Soviet Union and what I see in the last couple days looks exactly like communists doing in 30s (removing unwanted people from photos, firing from work, kids betraying their parents to authority, etc). While I don’t know the history of this account, I don’t think this comparison is far fetched and it is way closer than I thought I will ever see after coming to US 20 something years ago.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#127

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

LatteLazy wrote: post #16
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #4

This stuff makes me really, really suspicious. At this point, the reason for deplatforming is that someone accused a bad thing on the opposite party. It would be ludicrous to ban anyone blaming the events at the Capitol on Trump and/or Republicans, even if you earnestly believe that's unfair. There is no objective case for blaming it on anyone except the individuals doing it. Anything beyond that is subjective, and y…

>There is no objective case for blaming it on anyone except the individuals doing it I don't think we should be banning anyone. I'm very pro-free speech. I'm not a Conservative or a trumper. I'm a limey brit. But I don't quite think I'd go as far as you have in the above quote. I think Trumps continued lies and the support of multiple other republicans encouraged and legitimised these actions. Does that excuse the ac…

Truth in whose eyes?

I believe what Bannon said is false. But at no point has any social media standard been "you must tell the truth", even if we just pretend there is some objective truth that everyone knows.

Easily a hundred million Americans have watched Trump lie AND be lied about.

But the issue here is that Bannon is being disappeared from YouTube for what, exactly? Speaking an untruth?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#128

Post by willis936 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #93
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?

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.

So then a government telling companies how to moderate their platforms would stifle free speech?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#129

Post by dang »

lsh123 wrote: post #126
dang wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Dang, I grew up in Soviet Union and what I see in the last couple days looks exactly like communists doing in 30s (removing unwanted people from photos, firing from work, kids betraying their parents to authority, etc). While I don’t know the history of this account, I don’t think this comparison is far fetched and it is way closer than I thought I will ever see after coming to US 20 something years ago.

I hear you, but there are many ways of making the same point without breaking HN's rules, which call for avoiding flamebait, snark, name-calling and so on. For example, the way you've made your point here is well within the site guidelines. Also, please keep in mind that I didn't ban the GP account for that comment, but rather for a consistent pattern of breaking the rules and flouting our many requests to stop.

HN's guidelines are not ideologically driven. They're designed to help the site achieve its mandate of being a place for intellectually curious conversation [1]. People can't be in curiosity mode and battle mode at the same time—the nervous system doesn't work that way. (They probably can't be in curiosity mode and ideology mode at the same time either, but that's not really where we draw the line.)

When accounts are using HN for battle, smiting enemies, lashing out, and generally contributing to burning this place down, we ask them to stop, and if after repeated warnings they don't stop, we ban them. That's not because we disagree with them ideologically—we ban all accounts that do this regardless of what side they're on. It's because it's the only way to preserve this community and prevent it from destroying itself the way internet forums usually do [2,3]. The goal is for HN is to stay interesting, and scorched earth isn't interesting [4]. We've tried to be true to this core value from the beginning; it hasn't changed and won't change for as long as we can manage to keep it. We do get better over time at articulating it and iterating on the ruleset for keeping it [5].

Actually, the irony is that such accounts resemble the corresponding enemy accounts (and vice versa) far more than either set resembles the majority of users here, who are coming to the site in curiosity mode.

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

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

[4] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

[5] The guidelines have changed a lot in the last year or two. For example, they used to say "Be civil", but now they say "Be kind". That wording reflects the intended spirit better. There are many other things like that, but none of them have changed the core value of the site—they're all an attempt to serve and preserve it better.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#130

Post by Barrin92 »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #68

The only reason tech companies are doing this is because the democrats have a trifecta and they want to be in their good graces in order to avoid regulation. It's not about decency, it's about power.

it's arguably the inverse of this. They're doing it because they don't feel threatened by a Republican administration any more. With or without specific regulation threats the workforces and often also leaders of these companies would have done it years ago.
Post reply on HN