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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#261

Post by amanaplanacanal »

throwawaysea wrote: post #97
dieortin wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like “getting caught in the moment” and assaulting the Capitol is something completely reasonable that anyone in that situation might do.

I don't think it is reasonable - I am just explaining the psychology of how people can get swept up in the fervor of crowds. I am fully in support of arresting all who participated. But my point is that it is not reasonable to conclude that Trump's speech incited people to illegally invade the capitol, commit theft/vandalism, and assault officers. His speech literally had a line saying "peacefully protest". The vast…

If he does get charged, it will be a jury that decides, after they hear all the evidence. All we know are what we see in the internet.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#262

Post by undersuit »

notadev wrote: post #108
scsilver wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no ministry being erected, just a bunch of private parties not willing to get dragged into the mud.

So we've outsourced the parts the government can't do to companies who are essentially shadow actors doing their censorship all while everyone rushes to reply with the "censorship only applies to government" line.

Well the free market is more efficient. /s But not /s because I'm actually mocking people and dang should censor me(Don't do it this time though dang).

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#264

Post by nradov »

LimaBearz wrote: post #202
clarkmoody wrote: post #150

> At some point the lies need to stop. It's politics. Everything is lies.

Yeah but this one wasn’t about telling your partner they look good in that shirt. We are talking about rhetoric that lead to an insurrection on the Capitol and the death of 5 Americans. I don’t quite understand why every one of these events devolve into high reductive free speech or slippery slope arguments. What is going to take for the people start accepting some personal responsibility? From where I sit I see a gr…

I don't support the insurrectionists but they are far from being a tribe. If you listen to interviews with them there was a huge diversity of motivations. The crowd included anarchists, neo-nazis, rabid Trump supporters, constitutionalists, revolutionaries, people who honestly (but wrongly) believe the election was stolen, etc. The whole scene was chaos with no real organized tribal leadership.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#265

Post by S_A_P »

sumedh wrote: post #255
S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

That’s just it. A lot of people of all political persuasions are reasonable and rational. I don’t think the current administration is at all. I’m a generally middle of the road guy that has a general viewpoint of live and let live. The problem is we are letting fringe opinions dictate the narrative.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#266

Post by amanaplanacanal »

pmiller2 wrote: post #245
donatj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLK said that violence was the language of the unheard. The silenced will turn to violence. That's not surprising in the least.

Oh, please. The people who elected the man who was President for the past 4 years are "the unheard?"

To an extent they are, in that they elected him hoping to get something out of it, and he didn’t deliver much of anything useful. He conned them. Such is the way of politics sometimes.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#268

Post by txru »

S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". Politics is going to be messy. There's a lot of fait-accompli-as-fiat. But while there are two parties, there is no inherent need for the parties to be symmetrical. There is no equivalent person on the left to Giuliani, because he's meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition, while in power.

I hear things like this, and I think it would be great if corporate policy in general were appeal-able to the government the banned person resides in. People get put into corporate jails and excluded from service wrongly all the time. That's a conversation I'm willing to have. But the like of Bannon and Giuliani have just been fleeing from platform to platform as their detestable ideas and statements finally catch up with the strong stomachs of advertisers. The government shouldn't be overriding private corporations who make an ethical objection in the face of boycott, without a very clearly laid out due-process.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#269

Post by camhart »

newacct00 wrote: post #241
camhart wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides have media working for them. Both are bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings The issue is people only ever consuming one side.

No, no, no. I literally made an account to comment on how wrong this is. Both sides are biased ignores the little matter of degree. One side is completely unmoored from reality in a way that the other simply isn’t. One side promotes conspiracy theories and lies from the top down. Both sides is a way to make yourself feel smart without critically examining on a deeper level what those biases are, how widely they’re co…

I'm 100% in favor of criticality examining on a deeper level. I'm confused about how you disagree with me or how my comment is wrong. I'm trying to encourage people to listen to both sides.
Post reply on HN