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

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#161

Post by osgovernment » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:24 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.

That is precisely what IPFS and ETH domains are for:

https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/websites-on-ipfs/link-a-domain/#...

I don't want this to sound wrong, but I perceive most of the people complaining about censorship to be hypocrites. They'd be the first to censor if they were in charge of these platforms. They are some of the first to ban in moderated communities like reddit.

The reason they're upset is because they are not in control. I think in some ways they are like the people scared of change, and the once change has taken place they are scared of not being in control.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#162

Post by greesil » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:24 AM UTC

disown wrote: post #19

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

A stronger element of the power structure is silencing another. It's simple as that. Look at the relentless pro-censorship brigading on most social media. Lots of money, power and influence is being applied here. If this was china or russia, we'd call it a soft "purge". They'd call it promoting "harmony" or "protecting the people". Not sure what we are going to call it. Seems like whatever battle Trump and his factio…

Have you considered that it's not brigading, but a broad swathe of unrelated people genuinely feeling a certain way?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#163

Post by AaronFriel » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:24 AM UTC

ecommerceguy wrote: post #82

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.

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.

If you truly believe that DC was BURNING, then I think you have fallen prey to those lies.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#164

Post by forrestthewoods » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:25 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?

Depends on the price.

We could prevent humans from using communications technology to plan violence by banning all such technology. That would be an unacceptable price imho.

There is _always_ collateral damage. You can’t ban all the bad content and only the bad content. There’s a wide range of mitigation strategies. If we discussed specifics it might possible to establish some first principles.

If end-to-end encryption were banned and the US government had full access to all private communication they might be able to stop some violence. On the other hand many governments, the US included, would likely use that power to commit violence. I would not support this particular strategy.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#165

Post by longtimegoogler » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:25 AM UTC

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.

My reading of current events are that we are more likely headed towards modern Russia where journalists are imprisoned or murdered for not supporting populist ideals than we are headed towards some sort of communist state.

I mean Trump did everything in his power to become the next Putin.

Your concern about sending people to the Gulag is pretty far-fetched.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#166

Post by greesil » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #102

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…

If you think there was an implied threat of violence, then yes.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#167

Post by gameswithgo » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

sn41 wrote: post #158

As a liberal and a person who believes in the milk of human kindness against all contrary evidence, I do have a problem with this overenthusiasm. When the trifecta becomes republican, will liberal podcasts be banned? There must be some arbitration. I believe flagging and moderation and proscribing individual videos is better than banning channels outright and deplatforming.

>When the trifecta becomes republican, will liberal podcasts be banned?

If they incite violence perhaps they will

>I believe flagging and moderation and proscribing individual videos is better than banning channels outright and deplatforming.

That may indeed be a better course of action, though when you have habitual offenders, in this case bannons channel got 4 warnings, its a huge burden on you to keep checking each and every video, and the violence gets incited while you spend time checking.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#168

Post by garbagetime » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

sixothree wrote: post #146

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?

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?

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

Isn't it already the case that it is simple to coordinate violent acts against people one doesn't agree with?

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

Why wouldn't we be able to?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#169

Post by corndoge » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:26 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?

Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if pedophiles couldn't use encrypted messengers to exchange child pornography on the internet?

As always the means need to be weighed against the end.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#170

Post by shrimp_emoji » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

willis936 wrote: post #128

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think companies would save us from a fascist government; if the government falls, everything falls. So, in the meantime, trust the government more than companies (which gives you a higher stake in seeing it and Constitutional protections don't fall) by tax-funding public platforms/news delivery networks that have to abide by the First Amendment. That seems like the only way to cut this knot.

Besides federated dark web anarchy, which is a nice thing to try in parallel.