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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#351

Post by AaronFriel »

o-__-o wrote: post #314
wilsynet wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any beliefs about this. A violent mob invaded the capital. Some of them carried weapons. I’m not claiming they were all armed or that they were filmed using the weapons. Although they certainly did attack police officers. With flag poles, ladders, fire extinguishers, pepper spray. I’ll leave it there.

There were three separate bonfires in DC in May. In that case, DC was also burning back then from angry mobs of protesters. My point is the narrative. Take a step back and observe and claim the wrong done by both parties instead of saying one is right and one is wrong.

My god, bonfires?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#352

Post by BoorishBears »

casefields wrote: post #333
sumedh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

If we rewind back to 9/11 there were plenty of Truthers on the left spreading nonsense. I remember the internet at the time used to feel like there were tons of Truthers that would argue and argue on all sorts of forums. Where did all those people go anyway?

What about if we don't rewind to 9/11 and talk about today's platforms?

I'm for banning anyone who's inciting violence like what we saw at the capital regardless of political leaning, so it's not a rhetorical question

I want to know who to report

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#353

Post by pixl97 »

ryandrake wrote: post #344
throwawaysea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I am just explaining the psychology of how people can get swept up in the fervor of crowds. So, “Whoopsie! I accidentally entered the Capitol through that broken window and got peer pressured right into the Senate?”

"Oops, I may have committed some light treason"

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#355

Post by triceratops »

dionian wrote: post #66
avalys wrote: post #9

Bannon said on this podcast that he would mount Anthony Fauci and Christopher Wray’s “heads on pikes” outside the White House as a “warning to other bureaucrats.” This was a few months ago. I presume he has been saying similar things since then. For years, the defense of these assholes has been “Oh, that’s just rhetoric, it’s not meant to be taken literally.” Well, we’ve just seen what happens when it gets taken lite…

I'm a native-born American citizen and we used the phrase figuratively in my household as I was growing up. Just saying.

Here's the full quote:

"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes".

Now the generally understood figurative meaning of putting someone's "head on a pike" is "fire them in disgrace". But Bannon's ruled that one out in the first sentence. So I'm honestly at a loss as to what he meant.

Can you, as a "native-born American citizen", help me understand what his figurative meaning was here? I've asked a bunch of people on here who claimed "no big deal, it was a figure of speech" but they failed to explain what it means.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#356

Post by GlennS »

csa wrote: post #18
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

[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…

I wonder if the right answer to all this is some sort of parallel justice system with the responsibility to moderate things on the internet?

If you are a website which allows users to publicly post some kind of media, and have a user base >N per year, then you have to connect your website to the public moderator API, and pay some amount for the privilege.

Social media companies don't want responsibility for moderating things people publish on them, nor the blame when they get it wrong (or when they get it right but some people disagree, or when it's just plain judgement call).

At the same time, most people probably don't trust social media companies to do that moderation correctly. Also, as individual and companies we want some certainty about the rules and access to timely recourse if we do get moderated.

Not having moderation isn't an option (see child porn etc.).

(The fact that these are international platforms makes this extra difficult.)

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#357

Post by rodgerd »

donatj wrote: post #160
dboreham wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're pissed off due to whatever in their psychology. However, they're choosing to resort to violence due to lies being spread by Fox News et al. Other people were rioting due to truth about police actions. While all rioting is to be condemned, there isn't some symmetry between a scenario driven by lies and one driven by truth.

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

Ahh, yes. The unheard such as CEOs, the sons of state supreme court judges, the wife of a US supreme court judge, retired millitary intelligence officers, general counsels, and state legislators.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#358

Post by _y5hn »

cgrealy wrote: post #237
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most interesting things cable news networks do is compile clips of their competitors caught in acts of hypocrisy, self-contradiction, breathless hyperbole and blatant lying. They can all do this to each other because they are all guilty of it. Cable news is a tower of partisan propaganda.

Sorry, but no. CNN, MSNBC, etc are far from perfect, but let's not pretend that "both sides are as bad as each other". Fox (to say nothing of the absolute swamp that is OANN or Newsmax) are an order of magnitude worse than the so called "left" channels (only in the US would CNN be considered a left wing news channel). The reason that CNN, etc are "biased" against Trump is because reality is bisaed against Trump. He's…

Just consider the birther gaslighting, or everything else.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#359

Post by SulfurHexaFluri »

pmiller2 wrote: post #309
SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it makes you feel any better, I blame Facebook for a lot of issues in the modern world, and I'm glad tech companies are finally doing something about some of them.

I think facebook has made the right call by cleaning up this mess but I do wonder if a corporation is the right one to be making these calls. Tech companies now hold more power than most governments which makes me wonder if we should start having public elections on who gets to run them. Or maybe they should be tied in more with the government. If someone starts inciting violence on facebook maybe it should be the job of the police to deal with this rather than some moderator sweatshop.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#360

Post by colechristensen »

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 far right not-so-fringe elements led by the president tried to overthrow the government last week. If it had gone slightly differently they could easily have murdered a large chunk of the legislature.

As a result there’s been a wave of deplatforming of the voices that helped encourage that culture.

It is indeed unfortunate that this came to pass but it was a necessary response.

When you test the limits and protections, you ultimately change the nature of them. This is why you really want to avoid doing so in a free society because then you’re faced with the negatives of being forced to restrict freedoms to prevent that test from happening again and facing the threat of the next time someone trying, them having learned the lessons of how to test the limits much more effectively.

Post reply on HN