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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#321

Post by sumedh »

Guthur wrote: post #290
sumedh wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who will be the arbiter of this blurry line of truthfulness. Is there any proof that the rioters wearing Auschwitz Tshirts, carrying Trump and Confederate flags who were told by the President that he loves them were Democrats?

My point is not that they were telling the truth, just that both sides tell blatant lies. And career politicians will have racked up a bewildering history of lies and mistruths. YouTube, Twitter or whatever are private property but they are increasingly being used for political discourse on both sides this would not be a probably except that the parent companies are very obviously partisan in they're application of "…

> just that both sides tell blatant lies.

This is the old both sides are equal argument which is wrong.

Can you please give a source where a democrat President wanted to "find the votes by putting pressure on election officials or when he told violent protestors that they are good people and the President loves them?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#322

Post by txru »

S_A_P wrote: post #313
txru wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are bad-faith actors on the left. This isn't just kids disagreeing though, this is one of your boys helping push the mom out of the house so the boys get preferential treatment. It is acceptable in times like these for people to make an ethical stand.

This is also the kind of thing we need to be able to talk about without getting caught in our feelings. I generally am just lamenting that this is where we are.

Yes, I'm very sad. This is a hard time. All the best to you and your family.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#323

Post by maroonblazer »

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…

Professional organizations, uncontroversially, regularly set limits on what kinds of topics can be considered for discussion. If I pitch a talk on homeopathy to the American Medical Association's next conference I fully expect them to reject me. Even if I was a fully credentialed M.D. - much less someone with just an undergraduate degree - I wouldn't expect them to compromise with me.

Why do we not treat our general discourse similarly? Why don't we demand a minimum threshold based on, say, the same criteria we use in a court of law: internal consistency, causal-based, preponderance of evidence, etc. If one can't meet this minimum threshold then the others incur a penalty: being robbed the time and attention for those ideas that meet and exceed the threshold.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#324

Post by pmiller2 »

war1025 wrote: post #311
pmiller2 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they saw that over the past 4 years and then voted for him again, so, I have no sympathy, and neither should anyone else.

Then again, the other side voted for Biden, so it's not like we've got stellar options here.

True enough. I voted for "not Trump." That just happened to be spelled "Biden" on the ballot. :/

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#325

Post by _y5hn »

donatj wrote: post #294
tjr225 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absurd. You must know it to be so. They are angry because they lost and they are being told that they didn't lose. If you can be told that anything you don't like is the case then you will always be "unheard." MLK didn't make this statement so that anyone who was unhappy could justify violence. You can't just live in unreality and pretend you're a victim. Either you can't see it for some reason or you do see…

The anger started a long time before they lost the election. If you didn't see it, blame your filter bubble. It started well _before_ the 2016 election. The anger is what got Trump elected in the first place. > MLK didn't make this statement so that anyone who was unhappy could justify violence. No, but it's a reflection of a common symptom, not a justification. Silencing begets violence _because_ it's all that's lef…

Anger about what though?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#326

Post by im3w1l »

matz1 wrote: post #67

What interesting is how all these company act in the same way, why don't some company/platform took the opportunity to act the opposite to differentiate themselves ? I believe there is still large enough market for people who oppose this silencing.

From a naive game theorethic perspective, a cartel should not be stable. But if we look deeper we see that big tech has methods of punishing defectors, methods of punishing companies that "differentiate".

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#327

Post by war1025 »

pmiller2 wrote: post #324
war1025 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, the other side voted for Biden, so it's not like we've got stellar options here.

True enough. I voted for "not Trump." That just happened to be spelled "Biden" on the ballot. :/

In the same way, in 2016 a lot of people voted for "not-Clinton".

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#328

Post by strogonoff »

ulfw wrote: post #267

Took 4-6 full years (if including the primaries) and 30,000 lies to grow a conscience. Not like any of these lies have been new. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...

> Took 4-6 full years (if including the primaries) and 30,000 lies to grow a conscience.

Arguably, it took election results. Easier to do what is right when the wind blows the right way.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#329

Post by symlinkk »

fphhotchips wrote: post #213
hombre_fatal wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Does this gratify anyone's intellectual curiosity though? Ie. Is it on-topic for HN? I don't get to make that decision, but I do think the bar for US Politics Article #5046 should be higher than "rendering a square on a quad". A good analysis article around _why_ technology companies are moving in one direction on moderation policy at once? Yes. Excellent. As-it-happens news articles? Ehhh. Not as much. There are oth…

Yes, the discussion around articles like this frequently gratify my intellectual curiosity.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#330

Post by [deleted] »

txru wrote: post #305
S_A_P wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are bad-faith actors on the left. This isn't just kids disagreeing though, this is one of your boys helping push the mom out of the house so the boys get preferential treatment. It is acceptable in times like these for people to make an ethical stand.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN