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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#141

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#142

Post by matz1 »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #133
notadev wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If that true then they kind a deserve it, when the majority didn't use their number as strength to do something but it then they deserve to lose.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#143

Post by creato »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #113
cgrealy wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One of the most interesting things cable news networks do is compile clips of their competitors caught in acts of hypocrisy, self-contradiction, breathless hyperbole and blatant lying. They can all do this to each other because they are all guilty of it. Cable news is a tower of partisan propaganda.

Social media has the exact same problem magnified 100 fold, because there is so much more content to cherrypick from. People only see the actions of extremists and attribute that behavior to everyone that doesn't agree with them.

Traditional media definitely has flaws, but rejecting them in favor of social media because of it is an absurd and incredibly destructive reaction.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#144

Post by jimbob45 »

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.

I disagree. Five years from now, we’re all going to look back fondly at the time we were warned about AWS/EWS gaining too much power and thank each other that we heeded the warning.

At the very least, I hope this encourages companies to backup their Cloud data frequently and separately.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#146

Post by sixothree »

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?

How would any government exist if it were simple to coordinate violent acts against people you don't agree with?

How can we even exist as a society is if don't we force people to use the framework of governance?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#147

Post by mech422 »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #139
mech422 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>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.

However, you can evict me from the property and charge me with trespassing, which is closer to whats happening here.. edit: Hell, you can even infringe my 2nd amendment rights and ban me from having a gun on your property!

Also, I'm not sure 'private' property can be a 'public' square. At least in New England, the town commons was public land ?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#148

Post by salawat »

shripadk wrote: post #91
zozbot234 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No Representative or incarnation of the Government is permanant either, yet there's so much uproar hhere about threats to $current_political_figure

To be honest, I just think this is how political infrastructure restabilizes. Heavy is the head on which sits the Crown [and vulnerable the neck], as they say. Once impedance mismatch hits critical levels, out come the fangs. Fangs coming out either prompts more impedance mismatch (crackdowns and self-preservation plays by established actors), prompting more crazy, or people start getting the message, and stability is trended back toward.

It's the most simultaneously fascinating and horrifying dynamic equilibrium problem I've ever witnessed play out in my life.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#149

Post by CyberRabbi »

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?

Except everything is a trade off and the cost of saying it’s a “good thing” is sacrificing liberty for security. PATRIOT Act 2.0
Post reply on HN