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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#561

Post by akhosravian »

bitcharmer wrote: post #553
endymi0n wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from the original article: "On November 5, 2020, Twitter permanently suspended Bannon after he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded in an episode." It's good they finally pulled the trigger, but considering that Steven Bannon has been constantly putting oil to the fire on every single channel available, that point was very certainly much earlier.

I've seen the term "permanently suspended" several times already. Not a native speaker, could someone please explain to me the difference between that and "banned"?

They mean the same thing; it’s just a choice of words.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#562

Post by bitcharmer »

pmiller2 wrote: post #304
tptacek wrote: post #181

I think we can't reasonably be doing front page stories every time one of these things gets reported. It's going to keep happening. Different people have different feelings about that, but we've had thousands of front-page-thread comments on much more important stories than Bannon's dumb podcast channel. At some point we should just refer back to those threads. I don't need to see Bannon's culpability litigated on HN…

You know, stories don't just get to the front page on their own. If people stop upvoting them, they won't make it to the front page.

Isn't it enough that all other social media are vividly discussing it?

I'm from Europe and slowly getting tired of this. It is not what I come to HN for. Not everyone lives and breathes America.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#563

Post by hndudette2 »

antifreeze0 wrote: post #393
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.

[flagged]

It's just a numbers game, there's more Dems here (probably 4:1 given the industry demographic) and so you lose the popularity contest on a topic like this which stokes tribal sentiments.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#564

Post by chordalkeyboard »

rodgerd wrote: post #374
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…

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?

> Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?

Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#565

Post by pmiller2 »

j8hn wrote: post #544
pmiller2 wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you think I'm being uncivil, don't step out into the rest of the comments section, bud. I haven't called you a single name, or done anything, other than express incredulity at your position. I didn't even point out how racist it sounded that you were claiming one side was more prone to violence or less law and order oriented.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to disagree with Occam's Razor, given the history of racial relations in this country, including the fact that there's an entire protest movement about police violence against non-white people, you've gotta bring something besides "could it be," and "perhaps."

If you can't deal with that, I'd suggest you avoid internet discussions entirely.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#566

Post by httpsterio »

Darmody wrote: post #72
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.

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

Is it censorship of you u add consequences to lying?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#567

Post by chordalkeyboard »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #416
fphhotchips wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this gratify anyone's intellectual curiosity though? Ie. Is it on-topic for HN? I don't get to make that decision, but I do think the bar for US Politics Article #5046 should be higher than "rendering a square on a quad". A good analysis article around _why_ technology companies are moving in one direction on moderation policy at once? Yes. Excellent. As-it-happens news articles? Ehhh. Not as much. There are oth…

Bedrock cultural events (or signs of them) should gratify anyone's intellectual curiosity. IMO we downplay them only because of fatigue and denial and even helplessness. "Surely this is a one-off thing over one dumb podcast, not symptoms of a larger problem that I can avoid thinking about" or maybe "It's fine cuz I don't like that guy". And that's how we deathmarch into the next, for example, Holocaust. That said, I…

> I will admit that our comments sections sucks ass on these topics

Please tell me where on the internet you can get better discussion on these topics than here? This is one of the few places where these things can even be discussed by people with opposing viewpoints without instantaneous flamewar apocalypse.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#568

Post by daemoens »

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?

Can you bring up a more recent example? More specifically in the last 4-8 years. A figure comparable in influence to Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon. 9/11 will be 20 years ago in 8 months.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#569

Post by remus »

bitcharmer wrote: post #553
endymi0n wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from the original article: "On November 5, 2020, Twitter permanently suspended Bannon after he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded in an episode." It's good they finally pulled the trigger, but considering that Steven Bannon has been constantly putting oil to the fire on every single channel available, that point was very certainly much earlier.

I've seen the term "permanently suspended" several times already. Not a native speaker, could someone please explain to me the difference between that and "banned"?

In practice they effectively mean the same thing. I suspect they're going with "permanently suspended" now because they want to avoid people using phrases like they "banned free speech" or something similar to that.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#570

Post by dragonwriter »

gabereiser wrote: post #549
refulgentis wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The parent post violates the guidelot in two ways, violating both the rule against commenting on downvotes and the rule about assuming good faith.
Post reply on HN