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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#381

Post by henry_bone »

renewiltord wrote: post #288
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…

Sometimes I, too, wonder why we didn't just compromise with Hirohito. Was it necessary to fight them? Maybe we could have just talked to Unit 731 and just reached some consensus.

Are you seriously suggesting that Trump & co are in that league??

If so, can you lay out the case for me? Even just a few links for me to check out would be good. Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#382

Post by [deleted] »

zdragnar wrote: post #187
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.

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…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#383

Post by weare138 »

TheOperator wrote: post #234
ashayh wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protesting racial injustice (peacefully) is absolutely required. Claiming such protests are "violent mobs" is nothing new: https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/status/1300196044693741574/p... Also note that some of the violence was instigated by the police: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-p... OTOH mobs in DC, Michigan were motivated by "masks=slavery" & "election fraud" both of which are comple…

Protesting electoral fraud is also absolutely required, even if I am extremely extremely sceptical that it actually happened. Some of the protests that happened in the civil rights movement were indeed violent although this has been rather aggressively whitewashed in government approved public school classes meant to teach students the way to affect real change is to stand around with signs and sing songs and have ra…

>Protesting electoral fraud is also absolutely required, even if I am extremely extremely sceptical that it actually happened.

But you can't compare people committing act of violence to perpatuate a lie at the greater expense of society to people protesting for civil rights. And no the people that stormed the Capitol building, which hasn't happened since the war of 1812 and was committed by a hostile foreign nation, were not 'protesting'. Sedition is not a right.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#384

Post by triceratops »

tpmx wrote: post #48
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 AWS banning is what really concerns me. It's a clear escalation. First it's the app level (breached by Apple and Google), then the infrastructure level (breached by AWS - although there are alternatives here. Next up is DNS, I guess? And after that, routing. The ultimate Internet Death Penalty.

There was once a thing called net neutrality. As long as you had the means to operate a server, even a shitty old laptop in your mom's basement, you could have a presence online*.

It's so unfortunate we don't have that anymore though. I wonder who's responsible for that...

*Modulo DDOS attacks. Maybe Cloudflare et al should also be required by law to serve everyone regardless of content.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#385

Post by jancsika »

S_A_P wrote: post #292
txru wrote: post #268

Earlier 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…

> we cant let media/twitter/social media/ state actors amplify this.

I'd strongly suggest taking a harder look at the systems like HN, and consider how-- for example-- the posting speed it encourages works against you in this respect.

E.g., what made you write "equivalent person on the left" since that turns out not to be a relevant detail to you?

I think the system here-- like Twitter et al-- encourages posting too quickly in this context. Sure, it works great if I'm just complaining from memory about the SVG spec or something. If I get it wrong, someone will call out the error and I can double-check the spec and confirm the mistake.

But it's a royally bad idea wrt large political issues like this one. Instead, the entire system should go slower in general, encouraging one to reflect on their current knowledge and current blind spots before finalizing a post. That process could even be piecemeal over the period of days. A UI could easily be designed that makes it an enjoyable process to slowly build a post out of more meaningful little "lego-like" blocks.

To me there's a frightening disconnect here on HN. A significant portion of the users know about or perhaps even work on dark patterns like recommendation algos where one can fairly accurately predict the number of users who will fall down into conspiracy rabbit holes. Yet with HN's opaque posting/sorting/scoring system that knowledge goes down the memory hole; for some reason "personal responsibility" always seems to stand in for any serious attempt at analyzing the system.

Edit: clarification

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#386

Post by cptskippy »

edbob wrote: post #193
cptskippy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" be…

> Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome.

We're entitled to an attorney when defending ourselves from criminal prosecution, but where does it say we're entitled to legal counsel at any other time?

At the end of the day Law Firms are businesses, and again these are just businesses protecting their own self interests.

If they end up needing legal counsel for a criminal trial they'll receive it. Otherwise they can just grab a phonebook and start calling ambulance chasers until they find one who will meet their other legal needs.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#387

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

brighton36 wrote: post #23
bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

These are opinions though. It may be untrue, but you're going to find yourself with a ministry of truth. "Who decides" who gets charged with the crime. These opinions can be entertained. After all, most trump supporters are clearly enraged by democrats.

Guiliani said: "Believe me, Trump people were not scaling the wall. So there's nothing to it that he incited anything."

That's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact whose truth can be evaluated. About the only thing that is even slightly ambiguous is how you define "Trump people", but given that essentially every person that has been identified in the insurrection has been shown to have documented pro-Trump views, what else would you call them?

So what about this statement isn't provably false to you?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#388

Post by redis_mlc »

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…

> According to what the companies say:

> - The President incited some people last week to engage in violent behavior at and towards Congress.

No, the actual words he said and tweeted did not suggest violence. "Going over to the Capitol" and "I won't attend the Jan. 20 ceremony" are not calls to violence.

> - There is evidence that further violence is being planned via a variety of platforms.

What evidence?

> - The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions.

Based on what facts?

> Some people think that the companies have ulterior motives. I will leave it to you to decide what you think the real reasons are.

SV tech giants spent around $1 billion on the 2020 election to elect Democrats. GA alone was over $200 million for 2 senators. It's not ulterior at all, it's very clear.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#389

Post by rorykoehler »

whatshisface wrote: post #310
maroonblazer wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False equivalence. Looting commercial districts (while objectionable) is not the same as falsely claiming a federal election was stolen and looting the Capital.

Perhaps the people who were looting commercial districts would have looted the Capitol if they were put in the same situation. Perhaps the people who looted the Capitol would have looted storefronts if they had been mad at what they represented. There's one way to look at it where you have a generalized trait of not caring about following the law when you're surrounded by a large group, a trait that some people have,…

But they didn't and that is all that matters here.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#390

Post by nwienert »

_y5hn wrote: post #325
donatj wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you want to genuinely understand the other side and not comfort yourself by relying on simple slanderous slurs to do the work, this is worth at least an hour of your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5xxlajTW0

Post reply on HN