Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#191

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…

The context for Maxine Waters comment was that a Trump Administration official had a bad experience at a restaurant, while that administration was in the process of separating children from families resulting in over 500 still being separated today. That administration official lied to the American public about this policy, and Waters felt that it was our civic duty to tell officials like them that in the administration wherever they go they should feel bad.

Note that at no point were these administration officials threatened with violence, just people telling them they're bad people.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#192
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying problem with this whole idea of banning "seditious lies/libel" is that it's not strategically consistent. If you ban people (especially political leaders!) from complaining that the election was stolen, what happens is that the next election will definitely be stolen, and no one will be able to do anything about it. Then that whole political side throws their support behind some military figure instead…

> what happens is that the next election will definitely be stolen, and no one will be able to do anything about it People were open to evidence for some time, but none emerged. I expect people would react differently to claims backed with evidence.

> People were open to evidence for some time

When was this, exactly? I tried posting what I believed was evidence of at least some ballot-counting fraud on HN once not so long ago, and my account was downvoted and flagged straight to hell.

Your expectations appear to be out of sync with reality. Go look for the evidence. At least to convince yourself that there isn't any, because all of the evidence has been banned.

(And in the time it took me to reply to your comment, it was downvoted for having the gall to suggest that evidence could even theoretically exist! JFC. That should change your mind if nothing else.)

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#193
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ba…

Access to legal counsel is in a special category. Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. It's extremely disturbing that political actions which may be distasteful but could never be prosecuted as crimes in normal circumstances have become a justification to harass law firms until they refuse to represent a client. I say "normal circumstances" because I'm not sure how long it will be until we get show trials and mass convictions of political figures.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#194
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.

Liberals own the media companies that are doing the banning. The government has no role in this. My claim is that if you don't like what the companies are doing, you don't like free markets. If you don't like that the government can change every 2 years, you don't like how American government works. Both of these are the smart opinions to hold.

My point was that it is reasonable to be moderate in applying policy. When did I attack free markets or the democracy? Perhaps I am not as smart as you are, but please do not insult.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#195

I think we can't reasonably be doing front page stories every time one of these things gets reported. It's going to keep happening. Different people have different feelings about that, but we've had thousands of front-page-thread comments on much more important stories than Bannon's dumb podcast channel. At some point we should just refer back to those threads. I don't need to see Bannon's culpability litigated on HN…

The story has nothing to do with Steve Bannon's podcast channel and everything to do with the sea change in how social media moderation policy is being interpreted and enforced.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#196

I think we can't reasonably be doing front page stories every time one of these things gets reported. It's going to keep happening. Different people have different feelings about that, but we've had thousands of front-page-thread comments on much more important stories than Bannon's dumb podcast channel. At some point we should just refer back to those threads. I don't need to see Bannon's culpability litigated on HN…

Not all of us think these events are unimportant minutiae to be glossed over by rendering a sphere on a quad.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#197
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?

This is literally how it used to work before the FCC removed the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. Fox news was then founded in 1996.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#198

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…

Can you not tell the difference between talking to someone and cutting off their head?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#199
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying problem with this whole idea of banning "seditious lies/libel" is that it's not strategically consistent. If you ban people (especially political leaders!) from complaining that the election was stolen, what happens is that the next election will definitely be stolen, and no one will be able to do anything about it. Then that whole political side throws their support behind some military figure instead…

> what happens is that the next election will definitely be stolen, and no one will be able to do anything about it People were open to evidence for some time, but none emerged. I expect people would react differently to claims backed with evidence.

I do agree that people react differently based on the strength of evidence, including via careful debate and deliberation. But the law (both actual law and the privatized law of Community Policies by the likes of Twitter) is a far blunter hammer. Attempts to ban "making false and malicious statements" will always come with plenty of collateral damage.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#200

I think we can't reasonably be doing front page stories every time one of these things gets reported. It's going to keep happening. Different people have different feelings about that, but we've had thousands of front-page-thread comments on much more important stories than Bannon's dumb podcast channel. At some point we should just refer back to those threads. I don't need to see Bannon's culpability litigated on HN…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN