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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#571

Post by nobodyandproud »

runawaybottle wrote: post #500
FFRefresh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Do you have any evidence that this madness can’t happen to “our side?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#572

Post by KMag »

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"?

As a native speaker, it's probably a distinction without a difference. Both sound more harsh than regular suspension and both sound less harsh than permanently banned. Neither one tells you exactly what they've done in terms of the amount of effort required to re-instate him if they change their mind. Both signal that they're unlikely to change their minds any time soon.

With a physical location, "banned" sometimes implies they've been declared a persona non grata, and the police will be called if they return. Clearly that doesn't apply to an online platform.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#573

Post by runawaybottle »

creato wrote: post #143
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most interesting things cable news networks do is compile clips of their competitors caught in acts of hypocrisy, self-contradiction, breathless hyperbole and blatant lying. They can all do this to each other because they are all guilty of it. Cable news is a tower of partisan propaganda.

Social media has the exact same problem magnified 100 fold, because there is so much more content to cherrypick from. People only see the actions of extremists and attribute that behavior to everyone that doesn't agree with them. Traditional media definitely has flaws, but rejecting them in favor of social media because of it is an absurd and incredibly destructive reaction.

It’s because the masses are trying to partake in serious discourse in a non-serious way.

On any given day, two different perspectives agreeing to intellectually consider why the other side is objectively incorrect (as in, not just agreeing they are simply different) is a serious undertaking. If you casually take any topic, every single day, and allow people to do the thought experiment that one argument is more valid in a casual manner, you will 100% have to cut corners because you did not seriously approach the task. The most obvious way is you paint an enemy, or the notion of the other, an idea of a threat.

The average person in NYC really has no business having a dinner time objective discussion with someone from Missouri about gun ownership. Really the discussion should come down to ‘we have a lot space and gun culture in Missouri and it’s something we enjoy’, followed by ‘Interesting, it’s not the biggest thing here in NYC actually’. That’s about it.

But if there is an institution, I don’t know, let’s call it a fight club (the media), that says ‘you two at dinner, get ready to fight’, the two contestants will fight in an inexperienced way. Hair pulling, throwing rocks, no real jabs, conditioning, submissions, no fight experience.

It is not a casual ordeal to debate, and this is what the media is making people do.

We are not ready amongst ourselves to debate constitutional law and the rights of man, and the compromises needed to maintain society. It’s a serious thing to enter into that discussion.

The only take away I see in all of this is that there is a market for the un-serious, and there are some serious people (media) interested in that market.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#574

Post by pmiller2 »

bitcharmer wrote: post #562
pmiller2 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a link under every headline that says "hide". Use it, and you won't see these stories anymore.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#575

Post by chordalkeyboard »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #315
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think companies would save us from a fascist government; if the government falls, everything falls. So, in the meantime, trust the government more than companies (which gives you a higher stake in seeing it and Constitutional protections don't fall) by tax-funding public platforms/news delivery networks that have to abide by the First Amendment. That seems like the only way to cut this knot. Besides federated…

Can you picture Congress funding any sort of public platform that would be used for porn and spam, and extreme politics of all kinds? That seems very unlikely to ever happen.

>> The core principle of Tor, "onion routing", was developed in the mid-1990s by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees, mathematician Paul Syverson, and computer scientists Michael G. Reed and David Goldschlag, with the purpose of protecting U.S. intelligence communications online. Onion routing was further developed by DARPA in 1997.[18][19][20][21][22][23] The alpha version of Tor, developed by Syverson and computer scientists Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson[16] and then called The Onion Routing project (which later simply became "Tor", as an acronym for the former name), launched on 20 September 2002.[1][24] The first public release occurred a year later.[25] In 2004, the Naval Research Laboratory released the code for Tor under a free license, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) began funding Dingledine and Mathewson to continue its development.[16] In 2006, Dingledine, Mathewson, and five others founded The Tor Project, a Massachusetts-based 501(c)(3) research-education nonprofit organization responsible for maintaining Tor.[26] The EFF acted as The Tor Project's fiscal sponsor in its early years, and early financial supporters of The Tor Project included the U.S. International Broadcasting Bureau, Internews, Human Rights Watch, the University of Cambridge, Google, and Netherlands-based Stichting NLnet.[27][28][29][30][31] Prior to 2014, the majority of funding sources came from the U.S. government.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#576

Post by m8s »

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…

This is the first line of the first paragraph of the Mueller Report:

> The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016.

What part of this was a lie?

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/708850903/read-the-full-muell...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#577

Post by djur »

lovecg wrote: post #300
dataminer wrote: post #270

Not a comment on to the ban, but trying to gain perspective on the overall heated environment. I wonder, if there are more than 2 political parties representing different view points in Congress will that help in decreasing polarization?

The argument has been beaten to death so I’m probably not saying anything new to most people here, but two parties is the only stable configuration. In a first-past-the-post system, the smaller parties after the first two will be very quickly eliminated or consolidated (this includes the limiting case of no parties, where everyone is a party of one). On the other hand, if you have one large party it will eventually s…

This is called [Duverger's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) in political science. The effect is increased by how relatively small the US legislature is -- there are more members of the UK House of Commons than there are US Representatives and Senators combined! This makes it more difficult for third parties to develop in regional strongholds. (The US also doesn't have the strong regionalism that bolsters third parties in Canada and the UK, for that matter.)

My understanding is that the presidential system also tends to favor two-party politics. The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans formed from pro- and anti-administration factions during Washington's presidency, while the Democrats and Whigs formed in support and opposition to Jackson.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#578

Post by chordalkeyboard »

mech422 wrote: post #172
55555 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my circles, there was huge backlash against the Pornhub decision by Visa and MC. It was a terrible action.

I don't recall seeing much about it? Though, I have to admit I don't do social media much.

Certain topics are stigmatized for various reasons so lots of people don't want to be seen to complain about things because they would then be associated with the topic and get the stigma too.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#579

Post by jimbob45 »

reddog wrote: post #409
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most interesting things cable news networks do is compile clips of their competitors caught in acts of hypocrisy, self-contradiction, breathless hyperbole and blatant lying. They can all do this to each other because they are all guilty of it. Cable news is a tower of partisan propaganda.

The more cable news you watch the stupider you get. You can actually feel your IQ dropping minute by minute as you watch Fox or MSNBC. They aren't there to make you more informed, their sole purpose is to say whatever will keep you engaged long enough to sell you deodorant, prescription pharmaceuticals and pickup trucks. They are a Dunning-Kruger effect generator. Whenever someone mentions something they saw on CNN l…

I wish this wasn’t being downvoted. It’s so tempting to sit back and let the news networks do your thinking for you. In reality, just 10 minutes of news browsing a day will garner 80% of the news you need to know about.

Yes, keeping up with current events is an important part of being a good citizen but there are quickly diminishing returns on that and it’s never worth sacrificing parts of your life and livelihood for.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#580

Post by ben_w »

Pinegulf wrote: post #505
dboreham wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? Yes. Failing that let's do what was done to the cigarette industry -- figure out how to make them legally liable for the death they cause.

No, neither. “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as t…

Politics is the mind-killer. Even those of us who wish to be rational and practice rationalism, suck at applying the methods of rationality to politics by default.

I don’t have a magic-wand solution to this (and I’d be surprised if such a solution exists), but we’ve just witnessed what happens if you let people argue endlessly in bad faith without consequence, and what happened was not good.

Perhaps your way is the least-bad outcome overall? I wouldn’t know, but you do not appear to have made that argument.

Post reply on HN