Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#131

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…

Is there any proof they are not already banning left-wing hosts? I feel like at this point they are banning everyone against the status quo. Anyway I feel like this is a blessing in disguise, stuff like this can cause Tech giants to lose huge market share in the long term future. It is good that people are forming other organic communities completely separate from Google/FB/Twitter.

I'm aware of precisely one left-wing outlet that was banned, and they intentionally use edgy humour that includes remarks about death and political violence which are (sarcastically) in favour of those things.

There are a few outlets left of centre caught in the dragnet, but so far the bans have got everything from Parler to Bannon to Trump to Trump's Campaign finances (Stripe) to Gab to...

It's hard to find a single lefty outlet which has had its finances attacked, let alone by a concerted effort of the five largest tech companies in America (and the world) within a 48 hour period.

I am no fan of Bannon's or anything of the sort, but try to explain what he just got disappeared for. What rule did he break? "Thou must tell the truth at all times"?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#132
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.

No, they're pissed off due to whatever in their psychology. However, they're choosing to resort to violence due to lies being spread by Fox News et al. Other people were rioting due to truth about police actions. While all rioting is to be condemned, there isn't some symmetry between a scenario driven by lies and one driven by truth.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#133
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.

Because all of their workers are coordinating these actions with one another. That also explains why most of the comments around these political issues have tons of absurd pro-censorship stances on places like HN. They're the same people.

interestingly I have had private chats with some Silicon Valley tech workers lately that find those bans and censorship repulsive but are too afraid to state this publicly.

I'm wondering if this is not the result of the ultra loud vocal minority once again?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#134

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…

> Are we quite sure we're happy with people losing their income and livelihood and brand and platform, just because the tech companies don't agree with their claims? Freedom of speech does not equate with freedom of consequences. And yes, inciting over the course of many weeks [1] an actual coup attempt that only does not end into a bloodbath because a Black cop acted as bait and led the mob away from the Senate cham…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#135
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.

Certainly white resentment is at the core of Trumpism. They also truly believe the election was illegitimate.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#136
post #72
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?

Yes. Failing that let's do what was done to the cigarette industry -- figure out how to make them legally liable for the death they cause.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#137
post #18
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

[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…

"The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions"

By "exposure", perhaps the commenter means possible sedition charges.

To me, this is further evidence that these websites are neither common carrier nor public forum. The telephone company is not going to cut off anyone's service because of seditious communications. Nor is any public place going to ban people from committing seditious acts there. They will just be arrested when they commit the the crime. Will any ISP terminate anyone's service for fear of enabling sedition. These companies like Google are, first and foremost, websites. The website is the company. If there is no website, there is no company.

What is interesting about this is that these websites are protected by Section 230. Are there limits to Section 230 protection. Do they end at sedition.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what’s being banned is systematic destruction of people’s willingness to believe facts in order to support a world view that is inconsistent with facts. If that where the case, we would see banning of gender studies and a few more ideas pushed by the left, which is clearly not what’s happening.

you are ignoring the “why”.

They really aren't. Look at the alternative narratives pushed recently about how all the Founders were raging slavers.

Many, in fact, were not, even if some participation in the practice at the time. Look at the pushing of anti-Western intellectualism and rejection of the basic tools of logical reasoning, which trace their roots far back to the Ancient Greeks, for being the "Master's Tools" to ensure supremacy.

At the end of every disagreement is violence as the final method of conflict resolution. That these ideas are pushed, is just another log on the fire. Part of classical logic and rhetoric was teaching the ability to utilize them to defuse and avoid violent resolution of disagreement through reference to an objective or common reality.

You may not think the above poster has a point, but they most certainly do.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

Indeed, no business wants to carry unnecessary liability. Funny, Didn't see all this crying about censorship when MC & Visa cut off pornhub... edit: just to be clear, I mean when MC & Visa decided pornhub was a potential liability, they cut them off. When companies decide Trump or Parler are a liability - they do the same - they cut them off. Thats just capitalism.

I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it.

I can't clobber you over the head with a product I bought just like how many countries have laws to say I can't kick you out of private property that's also a public square.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#140

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…

probably deserves at least some degree of moderation but still qualitatively different from calling for someone's 'head on a spike' in particular given that Bannon is speaking to an audience that has members who would likely take that literally.

But sure in general you're right, calls for harassment shouldn't be tolerated either.

Post reply on HN