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

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#791

Post by UncleMeat »

hellgas00 wrote: post #675
yalogin wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity what do you agree on with Bannon and Guiliqni? Can you elaborate please?

Watch speech Bannon gave at The Oxford Union Society if you want to genuinely understand the arguments he makes. I think you'd be hard pressed not to find some of the points he makes compelling.

Bannon’s system of beliefs is well published. And it is nightmarish and frightening. Not compelling in any form. He is pushing a modern Helter Skelter and is the worst kind of accelerationist.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#792

Post by MrMan »

casefields wrote: post #738
notadev wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all of their workers are coordinating these actions with one another. That also explains why most of the comments around these political issues have tons of absurd pro-censorship stances on places like HN. They're the same people.

It's also because the old guard is no longer in control influential. The early internet was very libertarian, which included you're ACLU-left wing and right wing versions. Both of which hold free speech as one of our greatest strengths.

Libertarianism as I see it practiced by my rich friends and acquaintances is very much the corporate kind, and never the anarchic kind.

This forum has been a place for corporate Libertarianism to flourish, and I have been here for a few years even though I am not the kind of user who gets alot of karma. I have never seen any very popular anarcho-libertarianism here, because it is not very profitable.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#793

Post by avs733 »

wtfiswiththis wrote: post #625
S_A_P wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just it. A lot of people of all political persuasions are reasonable and rational. I don’t think the current administration is at all. I’m a generally middle of the road guy that has a general viewpoint of live and let live. The problem is we are letting fringe opinions dictate the narrative.

Can't help but notice you didn't answer this: >Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?

It’s funny how that never gets answered...

I really am befuddled at the inability of people to avoid beng taken in by bad faith arguments like this.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#794

Post by zanellato19 »

roenxi wrote: post #541
txru wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". Politics is going to be messy. There's a lot of fait-accompli-as-fiat. But while there are two parties, there is no inherent need for the parties to be symmetrical. There is no equivalent person on the left to Giuliani, because he's meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition, while in power. I hear things like this, and I think i…

> To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". When one side is being banned for not meeting a standard, "both sides, both sides" is an extremely valid argument.

Not it isn't. Not when that standard is not inciting violence and white supremacy.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#795

Post by zanellato19 »

henry_bone wrote: post #381
renewiltord wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I, too, wonder why we didn't just compromise with Hirohito. Was it necessary to fight them? Maybe we could have just talked to Unit 731 and just reached some consensus.

Are you seriously suggesting that Trump & co are in that league?? If so, can you lay out the case for me? Even just a few links for me to check out would be good. Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it.

> Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it.

He just incited followers to do a coup. How come don't you see that as him being the most dangerous leader of the modern era?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#796

Post by M2Ys4U »

pmyteh wrote: post #703
ChrisRR wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We're about to get our own: News UK News (from Murdoch) and GB News (fronted by Andrew Neil) are starting, expressly on the Fox News model. It was thought until quite recently that the requirements for 'due impartiality' and 'due accuracy' in the Broadcast Code precluded expressly partisan TV news (unlike newspapers). But these two have been licenced anyway, so clearly not.

Ofcom explicitly can't take pre-emptive action around content issues - the offending content must be actually broadcast before they can do anything.

They can decide that a person is not "fit and proper" to hold a broadcast license, but that's a fairly large hurdle to overcome (and it is, of course, judicially reviewable).

To be honest, this is how it should be. A presumption in favour of broadcasting, but with the ability to shut a broadcast down for repeated and/or egregious violations.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#797

Post by LarvaFX »

marcusverus wrote: post #376
sumedh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

How about Adam Schiff, whose lie that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion was the cornerstone of the case for a Special Council?[0] We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired…

In his release Barr misrepresented the contents of the report and you are spreading their lies further and further.

I encourage you to actually read the report.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#798

Post by ccsnags »

jariel wrote: post #691
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…

If someone believes a lie, is it a lie?

We are in a situation where all sides of the argument are essentially lies (to someone) because of how we have had events framed for us. Is the media responsible? Depends on who you don’t like. Is Pizzagate or Russiagate real? Conspiracies have flown in all directions.

Lie itself is a term that is more persuasive than falsehood. When i hear someone call something a lie i tend to ignore everything that person says.

Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Lie or falsehood? If you don’t give them the benefit of the doubt, call it a lie. I think using the term lie itself is a self-contained conspiracy theory. One is assuming that what they are hearing is not just wrong, but not worth investigating because the person saying it doesn’t actual believe it.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#799

Post by nicky0 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #789
S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

When you dance with Trump, Trump doesn't change, Trump changes you. That is certainly true for the "left". In quotes because I am not from the US, but the effect he had is very obvious. I am curious how the next term plays out. What would they even complain about?

It's good point. Now that the dems have the exec, house and senate, who are they going to blame for everything?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#800

Post by sholdery »

snarfy wrote: post #350
S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

Steve Bannon called for the beheading of Dr Fauci. I'm not sure where you find consensus and compromise there.

Just like Kathy Griffin posed for a photo with a beheaded Trump mask?
Post reply on HN