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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#541

Post by roenxi »

txru wrote: post #268
S_A_P wrote: 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…

To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". Politics is going to be messy. There's a lot of fait-accompli-as-fiat. But while there are two parties, there is no inherent need for the parties to be symmetrical. There is no equivalent person on the left to Giuliani, because he's meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition, while in power. I hear things like this, and I think i…

> To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides".

When one side is being banned for not meeting a standard, "both sides, both sides" is an extremely valid argument.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#542

Post by erulabs »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #387
brighton36 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are opinions though. It may be untrue, but you're going to find yourself with a ministry of truth. "Who decides" who gets charged with the crime. These opinions can be entertained. After all, most trump supporters are clearly enraged by democrats.

Guiliani said: "Believe me, Trump people were not scaling the wall. So there's nothing to it that he incited anything." That's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact whose truth can be evaluated. About the only thing that is even slightly ambiguous is how you define "Trump people", but given that essentially every person that has been identified in the insurrection has been shown to have documented pro-Trump views,…

Thank you for the vital context. “Democrats are to blame” -is- an opinion, but “No one who scaled the walls of the capital was a Trump supporter” is a statement of fact which can be disproven trivially (literally hundreds of photos of the hats and the shirts and the flags on the people scaling the walls).

The lack of -context- irks me far more than any other issue here - particularly when the context is so damning.

I’m always more frustrated with those with facts on their side when they fail to argue properly than with those who are wrong. Being wrong is easy - the burden of argument is on the intelligent - not the slow witted.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#543

Post by [deleted] »

pmiller2 wrote: post #521
j8hn wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be that this particular group at the Capitol didn't have any supposed proclivity to violence? This was supposed to be a group of people who "backed the blue" and stood for law and order. Perhaps their guard was let down because of this? Perhaps it was because the police response to mass gatherings has changed and become more lenient since the beginning of the BLM protests. Interesting that you posted this li…

So, you're telling me the response had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that almost all the 1/6 "protestors" were white, that that was just a coincidence ? You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#544

Post by j8hn »

pmiller2 wrote: post #531
j8hn wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just giving you plausible explanations. But sure it's always easy to say "X" got away with this because of white privilege. I don't think that Mayor Bowser refused to get additional law enforcment because of white privilege.

Given the difference between the two types of protestors, Occam's Razor leads us to the obvious conclusion. Now, I say again, if you want to claim it wasn't white privilege, I'm still gonna need more than "could it be the case," and "perhaps." Are you actually trying to make that claim or just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I don't agree that that's the obvious conclusion, and I have give you three very plausible arguments against that.

That's fine, obviously we don't have to agree.

I do ask that you be a bit more civil though in our discussion.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#545

Post by erik_seaberg »

creato wrote: post #522
erik_seaberg wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foreign competition is a choice (by setting low tariffs). I happen to benefit from it, but it seems a lot of working citizens don’t, and they want more protectionism than they got from Trump.

I'm not one of the economists that knee jerk reject protectionism, but I don't think it would help that much either. Trading partners won't accept tariffs without reciprocating. The US might be big enough now to get away with this to some degree, but that won't last forever, and tariffs would probably accelerate that reduction in influence. I'm all for tariffs when there is some other goal that makes sense (for examp…

Yeah, free trade offers a larger pie to those of us who earn a slice of it.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#546

Post by djur »

lliamander wrote: post #429
GavinMcG wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

Nowhere near enough to actually influence the election.

What information do you have that allows you to make that determination? It was a very close election.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#547

Post by colejohnson66 »

enriquto wrote: post #534
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. So you cannot tell lies on the internet? What happens to religion, then?

God is in a unique position as, by his very nature, is unfalsifiable. The “Democrats are behind the siege” claim, OTOH, is falsifiable. Sure, you could probably pull up some shred of evidence to put a Democrat behind the curtain, but there’s mountains more that put the alt-right behind this.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#548

Post by djur »

perl4ever wrote: post #523
weare138 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Protesting electoral fraud is also absolutely required, even if I am extremely extremely sceptical that it actually happened. But you can't compare people committing act of violence to perpatuate a lie at the greater expense of society to people protesting for civil rights. And no the people that stormed the Capitol building, which hasn't happened since the war of 1812 and was committed by a hostile foreign nation,…

>Sedition is not a right I've been seeing lots of people write things like this very recently. But honestly, when did you start using the word "sedition" and when did the word acquire emotional weight to you, as a dastardly crime? When and how do you think other people got familiar with the word? If I'm being honest, my association with the word sedition before pretty recently was almost entirely a very dim memory of…

It hasn't been used in normal conversation before recently because we haven't had a significant political movement and officers of the US government who were engaged in acts worthy of the term.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#549

Post by gabereiser »

refulgentis wrote: post #433
dane-pgp wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad that in a thread about the need to believe facts over lies, the one person who brings an actual well-sourced statistic is voted down. Maybe society really is doomed.

I think you might be catastrophizing, it's definitely positively voted now, a mere 2 hours later. In the short term, votes are a Brownian process :) Edit: this post itself has swung between 3 and -1 over just an hour!

People are downvoting against their beliefs instead of for the guidelines of discussion. It’s a hot (headed) topic.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#550

Post by roenxi »

csa wrote: post #18
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

[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…

> Some people think that the companies have ulterior motives.

It isn't just ulterior motives, there is an argument to be made that they do not have the competence to police their own policies. Twitter's argument for what constituted incitement had nothing to do with the words Trump used and everything to do with the context in which they were typed.

It is impossible to use that standard of evidence for action and get fair results. If it were possible, "oh yeah everyone knows that" would be a normal standard in the court system. It isn't, because we have established through countless moral panics and knee-jerk reactions over history that higher standards are needed to get fair results.

Media companies as powerful as YouTube using substandard evidence to moderate political debate is huge news. With this standard they aren't half as suitable a platform for political news as they used to be.

Post reply on HN