YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#411

Post by protastus » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:38 AM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #328

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.

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

That's why valor only exists in the presence of opposition.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and AWS had 4-6 years to make the same choice made in the last few days. Yet they refused, again and again.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#412

Post by rorykoehler » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:39 AM UTC

jojobas wrote: post #405

rorykoehler wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can sue for defamation. We need similar laws for politicians (yellow cake WMD claims) and news media (Fox News blatant lies) where the people responsible are legally liable for what they say if they can't prove the veracity of their claims in court and/or if what they say turns out to be fabricated. Jail time is a must in this case. You can't have free speech without honest speech.

No need to sue if you can just ban your opponent from the internet.

I want accountability not censorship.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#413

Post by chongli » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

strogonoff wrote: post #328

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.

No I think a violent insurrection in the Capitol was the tipping point. Up until then, all of the dangers associated with the rhetoric was theoretical.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#414

Post by markdown » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:41 AM UTC

TearsInTheRain wrote: post #365

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…

Of course your causes are absolutely required and moral and just but those guys over there with their concerns, those we dont need to protect and claiming they are "violent mobs" is totally justified...

Both the rioting by BLM protestors and the rioting by the Trump/GOP supporters would be moral and just if they were in fact based on truth.

I mean, if the Presidency was indeed stolen by election fraud, protests and rioting would be justified. But unlike the BLM protests, they were based on lies. Those lies did real damage, and they haven't stopped, so publishers are cutting ties with them to avoid further crime and terrorism.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#415

Post by YarickR2 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

GavinMcG wrote: post #243

phkahler wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. The dems ran around for 3 years claiming the Russians somehow handed Trump the 2016 election.

"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling." - Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/8/rubio-s...

Now you trust Republicans.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#416

Post by hombre_fatal » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:42 AM UTC

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…

Bedrock cultural events (or signs of them) should gratify anyone's intellectual curiosity. IMO we downplay them only because of fatigue and denial and even helplessness. "Surely this is a one-off thing over one dumb podcast, not symptoms of a larger problem that I can avoid thinking about" or maybe "It's fine cuz I don't like that guy". And that's how we deathmarch into the next, for example, Holocaust.

That said, I will admit that our comments sections sucks ass on these topics which is perhaps reason enough to avoid them. But that's a reason I accept unlike "lol it's just one dumb podcast cmon."

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#417

Post by jojobas » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

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…

This "reality" thing you're talking about is not singular.

Easiest illustration is that Rittenhouse fellow, a brave-ish kid standing for himself in one reality and a cold-blooded murderer in another.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#418

Post by Thorentis » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

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.

Politicians have been making false claims about the opposing party for centuries. Suddenly now Big Tech decides they have the right to pick and choose which lies will be allowed and which won't be? Pathetic.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#419

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #376

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?

How about Adam Schiff, whose lie that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion was the cornerstone of the case for a Special Council?[0] We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#420

Post by ghufran_syed » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

maroonblazer wrote: post #217

zdragnar wrote: post #187

Earlier 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.

Because destroying people's businesses and livelihoods is more worthy somehow than damaging a political symbol where the damage will be paid for by taxpayers as a whole? They both seem morally wrong to me - The description "Damaging other people's property" seems applicable to both, or "equivalent", you might say?