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?
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.
YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
301–310 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#302I 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…
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Meanwhile, you'll be hard pressed to find any daylight between the news sources in the "Right" column and Trumpism.
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#304I 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…
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
Maybe there isnt. You could be right, but I was speaking in broad strokes. You cant say there arent bad faith actors on the left. I honestly dont care if there is someone on the left that is equivalently 'bad'. And trying to find those people illustrates my point. Again, I think Rudy G and Steve B are generally wrong and myopic. The point Im trying to make is that just because we differ in political leaning/opinion w…
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#306Earlier 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?
These sort of simplistic quips reveal that either: not much thought has gone into what your saying, or what your saying is a propagandizing effort to conceal ulterior motives.
Does it elude you that this heightened concern in quashing all discussions of violence seems to be rather targeted at a certain segment of the population? Are they the only ones that "plan violence"? Or the only ones where violence originates from?
If your goal is saying nobody "should be able to make plans involving violence," then you're saying nobody should be able to make plans of any sort without being surveiled, so that a determination can be made as to whether those plans involve violence. Who's doing the determining? What if the violence is ostensibly to an end the determiner believes is righteous?
The issues at hand are not so simple as your comment suggests, and it creates a feeling that you're trying to pull one over on people.
There are issues here that needs addressing, the events at the capitol yes, but an equally if not more important issue of how do we map old notions of private property and public property/infrastructure onto socio-techno society where these notions are converging? How do we bring the rights and norms of a healthy, functional, non-repressive society from the pre-internet world to the post internet world?
Violence pre-internet did not elicit calls of "ban all telephones," or "ban them from the telephone network," or "confiscate their printer."
We've barely begun to form the language to talk about these things, and to take in the scope and complexity of the issues arising from the way society and technology have evolved. Glib comments of "violence is bad," make it harder to discuss in a productive way.
Violence is bad. The violence at the capitol was bad. And the violence that rocked American cities all summer was bad. Great concern about quashing all discussion of violence was curiously absent this past summer? Well, discussions of it were jeered, quashed and censored unless you were praising it.
Is that a conversation you'd like to have?
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
One. And you saw this guy on the tv and monitor you were glued to? Or you didn’t see this until after the fact.. on Twitter? Further, staying inline with the thread.. This is how we define “mass armed people storming the capitol”? Contrast to the three blazes that were going on around dc in may. Did those controlled fires mean dc was burning down? I am challenging the narrative. Dc was not burning in may just the sam…
> Give me a time stamp [...] I did not see anyone armed. > One. One example is what you asked for. It's not commenting in good faith if you move goalposts like that.
Look, I am currently combing all of the video from the event for faces in a bid to help identify people who were in the capitol. That guy was NOT on any live stream. This the original claim of “saw it from being glued to the TVs and monitors” is a false one and I challenged op to find an example in the stream that he watched. Instead he provided a photo op from Twitter. You yourself even cut off the part where i set the goal posts.
Regardless when I release my project this week you will see that no one was “clearly armed” as they walked through those doors. This was a travesty, but it is IMHO just one big false narrative like DC burning in May (the original goal post I replied to)
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#308YouTube could take its engagement algorithm down a notch, thus reducing radicalization by many orders of magnitude. Otherwise, it's just playing whack-a-mole.
It's very easy to find articles that find that suggestion/engagement algorithms for YouTube, and presumably Facebook and others, pushes people toward more and more radical (extreme) content. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10419/... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/algorithms-take-ov... https://theconversation.com/youtubes-algorithms-might-radica...
> Does YouTube create extremists? A recent study caused arguments among scientists by arguing that the algorithms that power the site don’t help radicalise people by recommending ever more extreme videos, as has been suggested in recent years.
why are you misrepresenting your sources?
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#309Earlier 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…
It is interesting how strongly people have been blaming facebook for the worlds problems but as soon as tech companies start to clean up their services its suddenly too much use of power.
Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many people are trying to rationalize the polarization of our society, focusing exclusively on the ends and ignoring the means. Remember NPR's puff piece justifying looting? Or (I think) CNN's reporter standing in front of a burning building while saying that the BLM protests were mostly peaceful? (They were, but the not-peaceful bits were downplayed in an obviously biased way). There was another interview I saw…
False equivalence. Looting commercial districts (while objectionable) is not the same as falsely claiming a federal election was stolen and looting the Capital.