Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#441
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…

Out of curiosity what do you agree on with Bannon and Guiliqni? Can you elaborate please?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#442
post #375
post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

So some lies are ok, just not the ones you don't like. How are we measuring this scale please? I'm uncertain.

Are you saying that Trump did not put pressure on the Georgia official to find the votes, was that not Trump on the call.

Did Trump not tell the rioters that he loves them and that they are special?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#443
post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? In Germany, we have the section §130 StGB in our criminal code: incitement to hatred. While it would be extremely hard if not impossible to get a TV station such as Fox News to be banned here, its hosts/mouthpieces/guests could certainly be sanctioned - up to actual jail time. Also, our core media codex ("Medienstaatsvertrag") binds all broadcasting stations - radi…

>I have yet to see a report that CNN broadcasts people that claim that the election was "stolen" or "manipulated". There is a massive difference between biased reporting and openly distributing lies. You may have missed it being in Germany, but for 3 years CNN, NYT, MSNBC, et al reported 24/7 that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. The Justice Dept spent millions thoroughly investigaing that claim…

False.

The bipartisan senate intelligence report clearly lays out connections between Trump's campaign and Russian intelligence, see page 27, 178, 527, among many many others:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

You are correct in that the justice department's investigation was flawed, it did not force Trump to answer questions under oath. However, we have Trump's own words: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you find Hillary's emails."

> The Justice Dept spent millions thoroughly investigaing that claim and it turned out to be all lies.

The Mueller investigation paid for itself in civil forfeiture ($42-46m) after convicting Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager of tax fraud, wire fraud and other financial crimes and got convictions of ten defendants. The only reason they did not indict Trump was in deference to a memo that the Justice department cannot indict a sitting president.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#444
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly believe that DC was BURNING, then I think you have fallen prey to those lies.

If you truly think a mass of armed people stormed the capitol then you too have fallen prey to lies. What I’m saying is both actions didn’t end with a good look and they both should be condemned Edit: I seemed to have touched a nerve. I was rewatching video from people storming the capitol. They were not armed and they were all milling about without a plan. Even the lady that was shot was unarmed Edit2: I think we ar…

Whoa are you arguing that armed people DIDN'T storm the capitol? They were indeed armed and yes it was televised. Your inability to see what's in front of you willingly doesn't cause rest of us to be blind.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#445
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?

Not sure what do you mean by Truthers, were there any elected officials or high profile people like Bannon saying that?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They arrested a bunch of people in Michigan over a plot on the governor, no? We moved out of the theory a while ago.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#447

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.

Only ISPs can ban you from the internet.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#448
post #72
post #21

The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population of people that only hear these lies, day in and day out? They're going to react just like they did on 1/6.

Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.

I couldn't give a shit about CNN and I imagine most on here who don't watch Fox would say the same.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#449
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, you mean the truth about people like Bandar bin Sultan and other connections between the Bush administration and the Saudis?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#450
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Legal rights are distinct from ideals and principles. "Freedom of speech", for example, is primarily an ideal. It has some encoding in law because it is such a valuable ideal, but no one should conflate the two and think that the ideal of "freedom of speech" doesn't apply unless the law says so. The law is not an ideal.

Access to legal representation is similarly an ideal that can't be reduced to its partial encoding in a very flawed legal system.

Post reply on HN