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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#471

Post by 3131s »

sumedh wrote: post #445
casefields wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Bob Graham is the highest elected official that has challenged the government's narrative on 9/11. He was a US senator, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he led the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.

In these interviews, he indicates that there are reasons to believe that Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These statements came long before the "28 pages", which removed any doubt that there was a cover-up after the fact and provided more evidence that Bush and his terrorist friends organized the whole thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#472

Post by sumedh »

3131s wrote: post #471
sumedh wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bob Graham is the highest elected official that has challenged the government's narrative on 9/11. He was a US senator, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he led the joint congressional investigation into 9/11. In these interviews, he indicates that there are reasons to believe that Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These statements came long before the "28 pages", which re…

Can please give a direct link to the time stamp, not everyone has the time to watch almost 40 mins of video.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#473

Post by pmiller2 »

edbob wrote: post #64
tpmx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> What's left after that? We're also seeing the refusal of legal representation, which seems nearly unprecedented. At some point, the only thing left will be civil death [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death

Who's being denied the right to legal representation? I'm not talking about individual lawyers refusing to represent people, I mean literally give me an example of anyone being denied the right to legal representation.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#474

Post by rendall »

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?

Can you make it difficult to make an illegitimate, illegal or violent plan on the internet while also not suppressing legitimate activism, or protests or even normal plans?

Remember that the people in charge of deciding what is and is not legitimate may have their own agenda and interests that will not always align with yours, and will change over time, even capriciously

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#475

Post by root_axis »

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.

Ironically, if Trump supporter websites start getting banned at the ISP level they'll only have themselves to blame for their crusade against net neutrality.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#476

Post by j8hn »

flatline wrote: post #437
adventured wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can explain that one. Stick with me on this dear HN reader, as your gut reaction may be to trigger downvote, but I'm going to actually explain it for real, I'm going to tell you exactly why (I'm not going to filter it for everyone so it feels better or sounds better). Jobs. Opioid deaths. Suicides. Life expectancy. Standards of living. Manufacturing erosion. Lack of a future. Lack of wealth creation. Rural and midd…

All fair points, and yet even in the midst of this we saw white privilege at work this past week when the protestors were, for all intents and purposes, allowed into the Capitol. These people have been told that their trouble is caused by brown people coming to take their jobs, by affirmative action. They are told that the government is the problem, when in reality so many poor people in the South rely on government…

This is an interesting take that I have seen in my Facebook feed, media and Joe Biden about white privilege allowing the protestors into the Capitol building.

How did white privilege allow them access?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#477

Post by zdragnar »

rorykoehler wrote: post #389
whatshisface wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But they did:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-hous...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#478

Post by lliamander »

mushbino wrote: post #451
lliamander wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ign…

He said "I love you" in order to connect emotionally with the crowd as part of a message to tell them to go home. It's also just how he speaks to his supporters. He's not telling them that his loves them for having stormed the capitol.

You are engaging in the most disingenuous interpretations of his words.

And there is no willful ingorance here. I know the things said by randos on r/thedonald can often be pretty horrendous. There are horrendous randos everywhere. Just look at r/politics.

The things people in power have said about Trump and his supporters is also quite terrible, and the fact that they have power makes it worse.

The ignorance is yours.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#479

Post by proc0 »

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.

People forget about the streisand effect. Forget about morality, is it even effective because it seems to cause the opposite effect and no one seems to care.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#480

Post by jonny_eh »

wernercd wrote: post #362
SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are opinions though Help me out here, Hacker News. This guy thinks: "Democrats attacked the capital", is an opinion. How do we even talk to this person?

The same way he talks to you... with facts and evidence. Either he has it or he doesn't. The problem is many people act like evidence doesn't exist - just like with voter fraud. Adults can talk to each other and listen ideas and make up their own mind without Daddy Tech deciding for them what's right or wrong. It's called personal responsibility and it's theoretically the corner stone of western society. When "bad" i…

He has something more powerful than facts, lies.
Post reply on HN