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

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#491

Post by [deleted] »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #346
qwerty456127 wrote: post #258

Never heard of him (I'm from Europe and generally uninterested in politics), now I'm really curious about what did he actually say in his podcast and in fact am listening to it already. I seriously wonder how much generally pro-dem or apolitical people are going to find themselves Trump-curious or even Trump-sympathizing after all these bans and removals. I have almost no doubt there is going to be such effect, the o…

It seems unlikely that there are people in the US with any interest in politics that aren’t already well aware of who Trump, Bannon, and Guliani are.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#492

Post by pmiller2 »

j8hn wrote: post #476
flatline wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They got in because police reaction to this protest was far different from police reaction to BLM protests in DC: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/07/metro/photos-how-law-...

I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#493

Post by happytoexplain »

proc0 wrote: post #479
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.

I disagree - people aren't forgetting. The effect is simply often overstated, and gets applied to any kind of ban, even reasonable ones.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#494

Post by heavyset_go »

nprz wrote: post #230
dboreham wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're pissed off due to whatever in their psychology. However, they're choosing to resort to violence due to lies being spread by Fox News et al. Other people were rioting due to truth about police actions. While all rioting is to be condemned, there isn't some symmetry between a scenario driven by lies and one driven by truth.

As Chomsky[0] I think rightly points out, the suffering and grievances of trump supporters is real, but unfortunately they are unable to correctly identify the cause of their suffering. Evidence seems to support this as deaths of despair have been climbing over the past few decades[1]. This is something I rarely see mentioned in left news outlets, instead we are told trump supporters are only motivated by racial hatr…

There were doctors, lawyers and owners of IT companies in the group that broke into the Capitol. I find it hard to believe they were driven to terrorism by despair and not entitlement.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#495

Post by o-__-o »

jacquesm wrote: post #487
wilsynet wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any beliefs about this. A violent mob invaded the capital. Some of them carried weapons. I’m not claiming they were all armed or that they were filmed using the weapons. Although they certainly did attack police officers. With flag poles, ladders, fire extinguishers, pepper spray. I’ll leave it there.

And killed a police officer. By beating him to death. With American flags and a fire extinguisher. They were still beating him long after he was down.

Yup, and DC was also on fire, nearly burned down by reckless protesters in May! Maybe we should have a larger police presence in our nations capitol to prevent all these insurrections?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#496

Post by snapcore »

tenpies wrote: post #464
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.

> At some point the lies need to stop. Imagine that all the news agencies actually spread the lie. Imagine that for the next 4 years of Biden's presidency, they would talk non-stop about election fraud, how he's illegitimate, and how there needs to be an investigation. Imagine that the opposition party appointed a special investigator who's sole mission was to take down Biden by uncovering fraud. Now imagine that aft…

"Yet that's exactly what the Russian collusion narrative was. A lie."

That's false equivalency. There is 1000+ page report by the Republican led senate about Trump and Russia. It's highly suggestive that the senate was investigating him because of his and his associate ties with Russia. And Russia also interfered in the election to boot. No one knows the full truth yet and we may never know it.

As opposed to the election fraud claims from 2020: they are just baseless accusations from Trump that have no evidence to warrant further investigation and got thrown out of every court. If they turn out to be legitimate concerns, I'm sure the senate will investigate them.

BTW, most news media is overly dramatic regardless of which way it leans.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-international-news-el...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#497

Post by jacquesm »

TheGRS wrote: post #453
torwayburger wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the normalization of deviation in the real world at work. Less than a few weeks ago a suicide bomber blew up half a city block and it's already been forgotten because there is so much other crap happening.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#498

Post by apple_innocent »

invisible wrote: post #175
apple_innocent wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions" By "exposure", perhaps the commenter means possible sedition charges. To me, this is further evidence that these websites are neither common carrier nor public forum. The telephone company is not going to cut off anyone's service because of seditious communications. Nor is any public place going to ban people from committing seditious…

If Times Square sold advertising that incited violence against the government, I think they would be involved in any charges.

Wrong analogy. If someone got up to speak in Times Square, incited violence, and was charged with sedition, then the owner of Times Square is not going to be named in any charges.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#499

Post by apple_innocent »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #319
apple_innocent wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions" By "exposure", perhaps the commenter means possible sedition charges. To me, this is further evidence that these websites are neither common carrier nor public forum. The telephone company is not going to cut off anyone's service because of seditious communications. Nor is any public place going to ban people from committing seditious…

I believe section 230 only protects you from civil suits, it does not protect you from criminal charges.

Yes, there are limits. See, e.g., 230(e)(1)

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#500

Post by runawaybottle »

FFRefresh wrote: post #36
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.

What's your proposal for how Fox News should be handled, given they "lie every single day"? Should Fox News have their licenses removed, and be taken off the air & internet?

Just so everyone knows, this is the type of stuff that aired of Foxnews days before the riot:

https://youtu.be/oV97eEFJ4xI

A rallying call like that simply doesn’t work on Democrats, but god does it work on Republicans. I just don’t see any of this dying down at all, and the Republicans are always prepared to tap into this demo around election time (in two years time at the mid terms). They live for this.

Banning them just validated their world view. This is all going to get even bigger now, and they will head into the catacombs.

Post reply on HN