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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#691

Post by jariel »

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.

This is not a lie though.

If you say "Democrats have ignored certain classes of Americans and pushed them to the brink and this is the result" - it's a heavily editorial opinion

The press overall uses these types of editorial lies daily.

The Guardian today is Blaming the existence of COVID on Boris Johnson, unsurprisingly. To me it's a stretch, and basically a lie, but well within editorial distortions we can expect these days.

I'm not fan of either of those Giuliani/Bannon fools, but this kind of 'lie' I don't think is ban-worthy.

Youtube might be using current political conditions I think to go after those they don't like.

If Giuliani was on the podcast actively calling for further acts of sedition - like he was at the rally a few days ago - then it would be a ban for sure. But he's not, so it's not.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#692

Post by hellgas00 »

Osiris wrote: post #86
throwawaysea wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this standard is being applied, it should be applied to everyone. BLM-affiliated protest groups have suggested violence like this many times. For example, check out https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/us/protest-personal-homes... , where protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny". Neither BLM nor the councilmembers who encouraged the protesters have been banned from big tec…

Yes, the standard should be applied to everyone. In my opinion, no one should ever suggest the murder of any other person regardless of whether they intend it as sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, or anything else.

It should be, but it's not, that is what this discussion is about. The band are political in nature, not moral.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#693

Post by cbozeman »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #584
jojobas wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "reality" thing you're talking about is not singular. Easiest illustration is that Rittenhouse fellow, a brave-ish kid standing for himself in one reality and a cold-blooded murderer in another.

Rittenhouse, an 17 year old, carried a weapon across state lines to engage in militia activities and shot someone. He was not defending his own house or business. He is a bad guy, and what he did was bad. In the modern world, the state has a monopoly on violence, no roving militias are legitimate uses of force.

If the Founding Fathers wanted the state to have the monopoly on violence, there wouldn't have been a Second Amendment.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#694

Post by tempestn »

heavyset_go wrote: post #494
nprz wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not everyone in the crowd had the same motivations, obviously, as with any crowd. I suspect a significant percentage were decent people who for for various reasons (likely rooted in the suffering your parent mentions) had come to inhabit Trump's alternative facts universe, and truly believed they were doing what was necessary to uphold democracy. I also suspect a significant percentage were various white supremacists, authoritarians and anarchists. Most of them were/are deluded too, but that's orthogonal to the human decency dimension.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#695

Post by cortexio »

ChrisRR wrote: post #667
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.

As a brit, Fox news fascinates me. Because every clip of it I watch is so clearly opinion piece propaganda, they don't even pretend like they're reporting the news Even our "equivalent", the Murdoch owned Sky News channel is nowhere near as bad as Fox news

That's naive, it's litterally every big news org in america. CNN, MSBC, NYT, WAPO, HUFPO, FOX, CBS. Their level of propaganda is insane. At this point im convinced they are paid to do so.

Then you have NBC, they are also biased, but not that much

And im not sure about ABC yet, i havent read their news much, but if i read their headlines, it seems they are actually reporting news. As in neutral. But i could be wrong.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#696

Post by LarvaFX »

reddog wrote: post #341
donatj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLK said that violence was the language of the unheard. The silenced will turn to violence. That's not surprising in the least.

It makes you wonder what will happen ofter the tech cartel completes its project of silencing half the country.

The cartel belongs to the right wing guys. Peter Thiel is in part owner of facebook.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#697

Post by pmiller2 »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #688
pmiller2 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's what you want to see here, then, sure.

We shouldn't be like that. Tailoring for the crowd just becomes a game of "who can invite more of their friends". The tone of this place _should_ be curated. We're tech, we're educated, we're start ups. If we lose that, we lose our soul.

Sorry, but, you've got it all wrong. "We" are whoever shows up.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#698

Post by thombat »

apple_innocent wrote: post #498
invisible wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income. The companies that pay big bucks for those signs decline to renew their contracts, because those signs have become best known as the backdrop for sedition rants, tainting their brands. So the owner bans the best known ranters as a way of signalling to the advertisers that the problem is being addressed and they should keep spending,

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#699

Post by garbagetime »

canoebuilder wrote: post #306
garbagetime wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an important question: would it be a good thing or a bad thing if it was very difficult to make plans involving violence on the internet?

> Here's an important question: would it be a good thing or a bad thing if it was very difficult to make plans involving violence on the internet? These sort of simplistic quips reveal that either: not much thought has gone into what your saying, or what your saying is a propagandizing effort to conceal ulterior motives. Does it elude you that this heightened concern in quashing all discussions of violence seems to b…

I made my comment in good faith. I wasn't "trying to say" anything in favour of censorship, or against censorship. According to the guidelines of this site you're meant to assume good faith (not that I really care that much).

My personal view happens to be that it is a good thing if people can plan violence on the internet. The alternative is to move further in the direction of state monopolisation of violence, which I view to be a move further away from democracy (and I view democracy to be a disarable thing).

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#700

Post by tempestn »

arethuza wrote: post #663
adventured wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can explain that one. Stick with me on this dear HN reader, as your gut reaction may be to trigger downvote, but I'm going to actually explain it for real, I'm going to tell you exactly why (I'm not going to filter it for everyone so it feels better or sounds better). Jobs. Opioid deaths. Suicides. Life expectancy. Standards of living. Manufacturing erosion. Lack of a future. Lack of wealth creation. Rural and midd…

As an aside, what you wrote there also sounds an awful like why so many people in the UK supported Brexit and the Remain campaign was so badly handled.

Indeed. Not a coincidence I guess; both were protest/grievance movements with similar root causes, as outlined by the parent.
Post reply on HN