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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#741

Post by koheripbal »

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

There is likely some significant sample bias if you're receiving clips from social media.

If you go to conservative forums, you'll find the same biased clips of CNN/MSNBC that portray those networks as heavily propagandized.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#742

Post by MrMan »

laretluval wrote: post #32
scsilver wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no ministry being erected, just a bunch of private parties not willing to get dragged into the mud.

No official ministry, but the private parties appear to be acting with a great deal of coordination.

I really do think they have been visited by the FBI, who has warned them not to implicate themselves in ongoing plots to kill more people.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#743

Post by koheripbal »

TheGRS wrote: post #435
kumarvvr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would argue that reasonable people be reasonable. Of course, 1% of trump voters may be giving the 99% a bad name.

Then the 99% are doing an awfully bad job at telling their peers they are wrong.

> Then the 99% are doing an awfully bad job at telling their peers they are wrong.

That's actually very common these days. The mainstream has no control over the fringe. In a similar vein, when anarchists in Portland tried to burn down the Federal courthouse, there was silence from much of the Democrat political establishment.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#744

Post by casefields »

gameswithgo wrote: post #167
sn41 wrote: post #158

As a liberal and a person who believes in the milk of human kindness against all contrary evidence, I do have a problem with this overenthusiasm. When the trifecta becomes republican, will liberal podcasts be banned? There must be some arbitration. I believe flagging and moderation and proscribing individual videos is better than banning channels outright and deplatforming.

>When the trifecta becomes republican, will liberal podcasts be banned? If they incite violence perhaps they will >I believe flagging and moderation and proscribing individual videos is better than banning channels outright and deplatforming. That may indeed be a better course of action, though when you have habitual offenders, in this case bannons channel got 4 warnings, its a huge burden on you to keep checking eac…

If they've been convicted in a court of law for incitement, then many of us wouldn't have much of a problem.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#745

Post by OJFord »

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, I've seen it too, and it's just wrong.

If you suspended someone and then said 'we're making your suspension permanent', it sounds like a 'cute'/think-you're-on-a-soap-opera way of saying 'you're now fired/expelled(/as applicable)'. Suspensions end. Even a suspension bridge for example is alluding to some temporal aspect, the natural outcome (gravity having its way) would be different.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#746

Post by sneak »

sdwa wrote: post #718
sneak wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do the lies need to stop? Who needs to stop them? By which authority? Who decides what is a lie and what is truth? Who cross-checks them when they're inevitably wrong? By which authority? Simple dismissals like this miss the point. Until there are some good answers to these questions, kneejerk censorship is no solution at all. Stating falsehoods should absolutely not be grounds for censorship, even the private ki…

I understand and broadly sympathise with the sort of ~absolute freedom of speech outlined in the US constitution, but I am completely baffled by this recent push seen here on Hacker News and elsewhere that this freedom should be extended to in effect compel others to publish your speech. This is not in the US constitution, and is in fact completely unconstitutional (1st amendment protects against compelled speech). T…

You seem to be replying to a different comment than the one I wrote. I am not addressing any legal or constitutional issue.

I am also not advocating for compelled speech.

Very soon, it will be impossible to buy webscale hosting from anywhere but a half-dozen providers. Should those providers be the sole and exclusive authority of what is or is not allowed on the web?

Airlines aren't permitted the authority to decide who flies and who doesn't. Why is AWS?

This isn't a constitutional issue, or even an American one. It's one about the place that censorship has in our civilization.

A tiny number of infrastructure providers should not have a unilateral ability to veto unpopular speech, especially considering, as we just witnessed, the definition of unpopular can change on a dime with the wind.

Today, it's Parler and Stormfront. What will become the target of censorship in five years? Ten?

Increasingly services are linked to our identities, and bans are lifetime. Will creating new accounts after political wind direction changes endanger one's data storage, email, contact lists, or hosting/publishing ability one day? How many individual people or organizations are really provider-independent and could survive losing all of their data at a host because they once belonged to the wrong faction?

Don't underestimate this risk.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#747

Post by MrMan »

Grustaf wrote: post #652
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.

Yeah the lying needs to stop. I'm not sure this piecemeal approach will work though, what if some right-winger starts a new social network and we're not able to stop it? I mean sure with Parler it worked because of the coordinated effort of Apple, Google and Amazon, but can we always count on that? Wouldn't it be better to have a centralised authority that regulates these things, with the legal authority to shut down…

My account is too new to downvote but consider this a down vote

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#748

Post by enkid »

OJFord wrote: post #745
bitcharmer wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, I've seen it too, and it's just wrong. If you suspended someone and then said 'we're making your suspension permanent', it sounds like a 'cute'/think-you're-on-a-soap-opera way of saying 'you're now fired/expelled(/as applicable)'. Suspensions end. Even a suspension bridge for example is alluding to some temporal aspect, the natural outcome (gravity having its way) would be different.

Suspend means to literally hold up above the ground. A suspension bridge is called that because something is "above" it holding it up.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#749

Post by simonh »

koheripbal wrote: post #731
AniseAbyss wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deplatforming works. That's why they are upset. Now when normal people scroll through YT they won't see 4chan content.

It works for the moment, but regardless of how you feel about the ethical debate here, the reality is that censorship resistant platforms will emerge to cater to the growing population of deplatformed/censored/banned/cancelled content creators and participants. Whatever form that innovation takes, I wonder if it will ultimately be the new standard and we'll all ultimately be on it and be facing the same problem again…

All these communications platforms with any significant user base editorialise, even *chan, Parler, darknet sites, etc ven the ones that say they don't. Otherwise they'd be flooded with spam, griefing, child porn, moderate or left wing opinions, etc. That's why spammers have always been advocating for maximalist 'free speech' rights for access to platforms. Given this, it's simply up to each platform owner to determine their editorial policy.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#750

Post by thetanil »

koheripbal wrote: post #731
AniseAbyss wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deplatforming works. That's why they are upset. Now when normal people scroll through YT they won't see 4chan content.

It works for the moment, but regardless of how you feel about the ethical debate here, the reality is that censorship resistant platforms will emerge to cater to the growing population of deplatformed/censored/banned/cancelled content creators and participants. Whatever form that innovation takes, I wonder if it will ultimately be the new standard and we'll all ultimately be on it and be facing the same problem again…

It won't. Look at 4chan. It's one of the "free-est" platforms around and it's absolutely full to the brim of garbage that most people do not want to see. Let them build a cesspool for themselves, it's not going to draw a huge crowd as long as well moderated alternatives exist.
Post reply on HN