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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#771

Post by etiam »

Joeboy wrote: post #712
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"?

To me, "suspending" sounds like something you do to accounts, and "banning" sounds more like something you do to people. In practice they're often interchangeable.

I agree. Also note that for something like a Youtube account there are records associated (e.g. media files, logs, followers) which "suspending" could imply the operator has not deleted, whereas "banning" seems more narrowly focused on taking away the communication privileges from user in question.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#772

Post by chinathrow »

teekert wrote: post #681
chinathrow wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point the lies need to stop. At some point the lies need to be brought to court.

At some point we need to understand that currently it is too easy to delude people and we need our educational system to address this.

I fully agree. However, both things can go in parallel, no?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#773

Post by nathias »

jeltz wrote: post #727
nathias wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but its the same with the left media, the news are so highly politicized and opinionated that when comparing two news stories wouldn't be able to tell they are talking about the same event. One calls the other conspiracy theorists, the other is fake news, and everyone is applauding when their team is censoring the other.

There is left wing media like that but none of it is close to as big as Fox News. Yes, both sides do it but quantity matters.

The left uses a different style, so if you are more left leaning you are less likely to recognize it as propaganda, but you can analyze a few articles where you have some more immediate source (whole video, images etc), and both receptions. Propaganda isn't just lies, its omissions, shifting importance and focus, framing, use of statistics etc.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#775

Post by Miner49er »

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #31
brighton36 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are opinions though. It may be untrue, but you're going to find yourself with a ministry of truth. "Who decides" who gets charged with the crime. These opinions can be entertained. After all, most trump supporters are clearly enraged by democrats.

> These are opinions though Help me out here, Hacker News. This guy thinks: "Democrats attacked the capital", is an opinion. How do we even talk to this person?

You are just lying. Guillani did not say "Democrats attacked the capital" he said, "Also, there's equal if not more responsibility on the fascists who now running the Democrat Party, who have imposed censorship on these people, who have been singling them out for unfair treatment since the IRS started going after conservative groups."

That is an opinion.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#776

Post by MrMan »

mech422 wrote: post #147
throwaway3699 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it. I can't clobber you over the head with a product I bought just like how many countries have laws to say I can't kick you out of private property that's also a public square.

>>I don't agree that it's 'just capitalism'. Just because I acquire a piece of private property does not necessarily give me the right to do anything I want with it. However, you can evict me from the property and charge me with trespassing, which is closer to whats happening here.. edit: Hell, you can even infringe my 2nd amendment rights and ban me from having a gun on your property! Also, I'm not sure 'private' pr…

In New England they also practiced banishment and put people in stocks for moral infractions.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#777

Post by sumedh »

LunaSea wrote: post #679
sumedh wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just that both sides tell blatant lies. This is the old both sides are equal argument which is wrong. Can you please give a source where a democrat President wanted to "find the votes by putting pressure on election officials or when he told violent protestors that they are good people and the President loves them?

Didn't Biden campaign on the BLM sympathy vote and later refused to meet with their representatives once elected?

Is that equivalent to Trump trying to steal an election and then sending rioters to terrorize Congress?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#778

Post by Fnoord »

endymi0n wrote: post #502
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.

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.

> he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded

How come this person has not been prosecuted yet?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#779

Post by gwright »

awb wrote: post #651
antifreeze0 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do you have a quote from the Young Turks? With BLM there’s an argument to be made that public policy backed by Republicans (and Democrats) created an environment where blacks are disproportionately targeted and harmed by police without consequence, resulting in the inevitable death of yet another unarmed black man. With the capital riots, all Democrats did was win an election and every single resulting court case. Pl…

> public policy backed by Republicans

Are you asserting that Republicans controlled the cities and police forces in which "blacks are disproportionately targeted and harmed by police without consequence"?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#780

Post by MrMan »

fphhotchips wrote: post #213
hombre_fatal wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all of us think these events are unimportant minutiae to be glossed over by rendering a sphere on a quad.

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…

I think the enforced "wide-eyed curiosity" stance on HN is false and reflects the need on the part of the owners to preserve HN as a hub to market their self-improvement through making money ideology.

But they recognize that reality sometimes intrudes into our money-making daydream, and it would be low IQ to ban political discussions. I am critical of the overall thrust behind HN, but they have cleverly convinced a lot of people that they are above average and I wouldn't expect them to do anything heavy-handed. So some politics will remain on HN.

Post reply on HN