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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#451

Post by mushbino »

lliamander wrote: post #434
mushbino wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rudy: "Let's have trial by combat" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5FfcbpVLNo Trump: The entirety of this speech, but specifically the "fight like hell" part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjYh4tIhVi4 Trump: "Be there, it will be wild": https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-t... This article covers a lot of it too. It's been stoked for a while: https://fortune.com/2021/01/07/trump-speech-capit…

All figurative language that politicians (and non-politicians) use all the time. Joe Biden literally expressed a desire to physically harm the President, and dramatic, ecstatic portrayals of his death have been shared for his entire presidency.

It's looking like there might be a trial in the senate so we'll see if the "figurative language" argument holds up. Trump telling the rioters "I love you" after they stormed the capitol doesn't look too good in that regard.

Comparing what you're saying about democrats and Biden to what the president has been saying for years and all of the talk on facebook, twitter, r/thedonald, Parler, and Gab is being willfully ignorant. The results speak for themselves.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#452

Post by CerealFounder »

ecommerceguy wrote: post #82
e40 wrote: 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.

I'd argue the reason these type of people are pissed off is because they have been incessantly attacked for 4 plus years while watching the media turn a blind eye to anything that disparages any minority or "protected class." We spent 10 MONTHS watching riots every day. DC was BURNING in July.

Youre both right and wrong. Its much simpler.

These people are pissed off, simply because theyre being told to be pissed off. There is no nuance, culture is what we are told at scale. Its why everyones pissed off. Anger is the easiet engagement to bait and advertising based businesses at scale are powered by engagement.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#453

Post by TheGRS »

torwayburger wrote: post #446
chongli wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm still fairly upset that the outrage wasn't louder over that, but recent events have at least pulled that event back in the spotlight.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#454

Post by threeseed »

antifreeze0 wrote: post #402
lokedhs wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not in the US, and I haven't visited the country in a very long time. But I'm casually curious about all of this, and have looked at US media. You are absolutely right that CNN is biased. They clearly are not trying to make it seem as though they aren't. The same with Fox, who are equally biased. However, only only of those outlets lets their reporters outright lie. Now, it may be that I'm looking in the wrong pl…

CNN ran with the Russia collusion story for almost 4 years straight. However when it was found out that Biden is meeting with Chinese companies or Hunters laptop they are extremely silent.

Hunter Biden is not running for President nor part of the Biden administration.

So what he does in his spare time is frankly irrelevant.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#455

Post by 8note »

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.

Sure, but is that notable for Steve Bannon?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#456

Post by asdff »

garbagetime wrote: post #22
csa wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

Here's an important question: would it be a good thing or a bad thing if it was very difficult to make plans involving violence on the internet?

Good thing, of course. The internet has the power to amplify a small message into a massive one and can trivially be used for evil. There is an argument that forcing people to use private chats prevents this stuff from getting out in the open, but come on, the NSA has a back door in everything. There is more harm done letting those messages out into the public space where there is a chance of radicalizing more people, or at the very least making that sort of abhorrent speech more normalized.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#457

Post by TheGRS »

ars wrote: post #28
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.

I agree lies are bad. But lying is enough to get you banned? All the discussion up to now was "there's no slippery slope, only calls for violence" will get you banned. And now it's slipped to lying will get you banned?

Maybe go peek at some of Lin Wood's posts then.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#458

Post by sumedh »

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…

> We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence:

No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy"

> Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians.

Many of you also believed that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi and Republicans wasted millions of dollars and time on that investigation and yet she was not guilty.

> replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort

So he and many other broke the law and went to jail for that, why is that a bad thing. Why did Trump pardon them though?

How many people in the US went to jail because of the Benghazi investigations?

Mueller did not say that Trump was innocent, why didnt he say that?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#459

Post by renewiltord »

henry_bone wrote: post #381
renewiltord wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hardly, but once you admit that there are those with whom compromise is impossible and suppression permissible then the discussion becomes a matter of degree.
Post reply on HN