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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#601

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#602

Post by NicoJuicy »

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.

Google should really ban Breitbart News from collecting ad revenue...

The cost of producing lies is way lower than producing real journalism.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#603

Post by DangitBobby »

erulabs wrote: post #542
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe you've misinterpreted Guliani's words. He is not claiming that they were not Trump supporters, he is saying that they did not scale the walls. By which he means that they did not have to sneak or break in because no one really even tried to stop them. That sentiment seems true on its face. Now whether the blame for that can be placed on Democrats is an entirely separate matter.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#604

Post by jacobolus »

perl4ever wrote: post #599
djur wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask though, because it was obvious. Is sedition illegal? Should it be? When did the consensus arise, if it did? The historical laws against sedition are not generally presented in a good light, in school, from what I can tell. I'm not questioning whether the attack on the Capitol was problematic, but why sedition is the go-to term. I feel like there's an echo of the awkward ter…

Sedition and treason are two different but related concepts/offenses. Sedition is plotting to overthrow the government or encouraging other people to do so. Treason is waging war against the country or helping a war-time enemy. Both can be federal crimes. And a seditious conspiracy can potentially lead to an act of treason if the plot is undertaken.

Here is the law against seditious conspiracy https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

> If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#605

Post by laurent92 »

rorykoehler wrote: post #397
Darmody wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can sue for defamation. We need similar laws for politicians (yellow cake WMD claims) and news media (Fox News blatant lies) where the people responsible are legally liable for what they say if they can't prove the veracity of their claims in court and/or if what they say turns out to be fabricated. Jail time is a must in this case. You can't have free speech without honest speech.

Most of my friends and myself who became Trump supporters entered this area after feminist issues, investigating them and finding out they were spreading lies on national TV, in a discourse that easily passed thresholds of direct incitation to hate. In national newspapers and TV.

Is it time for co-de-escalation? Would one be ready to get rid of men-hating on TV as part of getting rid of political lies?

As long as there are pressing, daily hate speech issues that allow mass recruitment of youths by Fox News and the likes, there will be a good share of America who will vehemently not share the Democrat project.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#606

Post by abacadaba »

markdown wrote: post #414
TearsInTheRain wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course your causes are absolutely required and moral and just but those guys over there with their concerns, those we dont need to protect and claiming they are "violent mobs" is totally justified...

Both the rioting by BLM protestors and the rioting by the Trump/GOP supporters would be moral and just if they were in fact based on truth. I mean, if the Presidency was indeed stolen by election fraud, protests and rioting would be justified. But unlike the BLM protests, they were based on lies. Those lies did real damage, and they haven't stopped, so publishers are cutting ties with them to avoid further crime and…

> But unlike the BLM protests, they were based on lies

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/17/393646640/hands-up-dont-shoot...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#607

Post by ttt0 »

threeseed wrote: post #454
antifreeze0 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN ran with the Russia collusion story for almost 4 years straight. However when it was found out that Biden is meeting with Chinese companies or Hunters laptop they are extremely silent.

Hunter Biden is not running for President nor part of the Biden administration. So what he does in his spare time is frankly irrelevant.

If it was truly irrelevant, Twitter wouldn't censor it. They even locked out the New York Post out of their account for posting about it.

Biden is in the politics for decades, there is more then plenty of pretty damning evidence to show that, at the very best, he doesn't believe in anything he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_xXx0yUvSw

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#608

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#609

Post by j8hn »

pmiller2 wrote: post #590
j8hn wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about politeness and courtesy not name calling. Having a discussion and avoiding snarky comments so this forum doesn't devolve into Twitter or Reddit. "I assume you have noticed how the majority of the people in the 1/6 "protests" were white, didn't you? " "You're gonna have to provide more than "could it be," and "perhaps," if you want me to swallow that line." "Are you actually trying to make that claim…

Okay, well, see ya then. None of those are attacks on you in any way. I'd advise you to grow a thicker skin if you want to participate on the internet.

I totally get what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that there are community guidelines here to create civil discourse that is not present on other internet forums.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN