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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#811

Post by Artistry121 »

casefields wrote: post #744
gameswithgo wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

No company or individual should have to carry rhetoric inciting violence until a court of law engages. Responsibility is not solely on the courts - corporations and people can make decisions on what is right without courts.

Especially when the person is obviously saying it -“behead Fauci”.

Bannon has a way to get his message out - he has his own media organization.

Many people don’t feel like what Bannon is doing is right and don’t need a court of law to tell them. Courts of law defended slavery - people made decisions prior to the courts interference to change that.

Small government requires the ability of private groups to choose their own moral stances.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#812

Post by LarvaFX »

osgovernment wrote: post #161
tpmx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AWS banning is what really concerns me. It's a clear escalation. First it's the app level (breached by Apple and Google), then the infrastructure level (breached by AWS - although there are alternatives here. Next up is DNS, I guess? And after that, routing. The ultimate Internet Death Penalty.

That is precisely what IPFS and ETH domains are for: https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/websites-on-ipfs/link-a-domain/#... I don't want this to sound wrong, but I perceive most of the people complaining about censorship to be hypocrites. They'd be the first to censor if they were in charge of these platforms. They are some of the first to ban in moderated communities like reddit. The reason they're upset is because they ar…

Well said. Thank you.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#813

Post by ttt0 »

sjwright wrote: post #734
thrwawy12345 wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea. I haven't followed the "election theft" narrative too closely, but the active, seemingly-coordinated censorship of this story is probably the best case for it.

That's ridiculous circular logic. The story is valid because it's not being covered? Millions of stories are not covered by the news every day. A functionally infinite number of non-stories are not covered by the news every day. The non-coverage of a story has no bearing on its validity. Your claim is also invalid on its face—the election theft narrative is being spoken about endlessly. Trump's claims are headline ne…

First of all, it was not "not covered", but censored. The Hunter story is valid, simply because it's valid. The same media that decided not to cover the story before the election, confirmed its validity since then and decided that it was in fact news-worthy. Also the FBI launched the investigation into this.

Hate to be the person to point that out, but let's be honest with ourselves, if it was Trump Jr. who was taking pictures of him putting his dick into a pizza while smoking crack with random hookers, it would be probably retweeted by @jack himself lol.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#814

Post by busterarm »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #689
busterarm wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organizing an unruly mob to target people in every aspect of their life will inevitably result in death just as much as cutting off their head will.

one of the two is still an explicit call to murder tho.

And the other is an implicit call for murder. Are you daft?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#815

Post by nicky0 »

S_A_P wrote: post #302
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…

Let me say for the record that I dont have compassion for the current administration. My 'sadness' is for the people we all live with and interact with. I am not a right wing person, but I dont have any problem with them. I actually would be interested in why they feel that way. Im also not a left wing guy. Same interest in their perspective. I am curious in general about people but Im also very introverted. I have a…

Unfortunately you don't get upvotes for being thoughtful and sensitive. You're being a "both sideser", you see. Apparently, this is bad. Pick your tribe then agree and attack, hate and defend. These are the only options that will win you attention and approval. Seeking to understand more deeply, and take a broader view? You're part of the problem!

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#816

Post by grep_name »

osgovernment wrote: post #161
tpmx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AWS banning is what really concerns me. It's a clear escalation. First it's the app level (breached by Apple and Google), then the infrastructure level (breached by AWS - although there are alternatives here. Next up is DNS, I guess? And after that, routing. The ultimate Internet Death Penalty.

That is precisely what IPFS and ETH domains are for: https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/websites-on-ipfs/link-a-domain/#... I don't want this to sound wrong, but I perceive most of the people complaining about censorship to be hypocrites. They'd be the first to censor if they were in charge of these platforms. They are some of the first to ban in moderated communities like reddit. The reason they're upset is because they ar…

> I don't want this to sound wrong, but I perceive most of the people complaining about censorship to be hypocrites. They'd be the first to censor if they were in charge of these platforms. They are some of the first to ban in moderated communities like reddit.

Based on what? I and many people I'm close to in real life are constantly concerned about these escalating erosions of expression and all prefer the less-moderated corners of the internet. None of us have ever sought out control and grew up consistently annoyed at one-sided media outlets, even if they represented the perspective we happened to agree with at the time. If we still use reddit (most of us are falling off), it tends to be a small subset of niche communities that don't focus on meta-politics or have auto-banning protocols. These are the people I see complaining about this around me. Is it just because I'm not on twitter?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#817

Post by TameAntelope »

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…

It's totally reasonable to be sad about this. It pattern matches to a loss of free speech, and when society sees free speech being violated, it should evoke strong emotions (hopefully even more severe than sadness).

This is not, however, a violation of free speech, even if you believe in the general concept that a private company should allow dissenting opinions on its platform. This user has violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" exception to free speech, which even the most ardent supporters of the concept admit is important to protect.

These private institutions aren't perfect, and judging if speech breaks the one exception to the moral concept of "free speech" is hard. We'll get it wrong. The alternative, however, is to let the panic incited to occur unabated, which seems substantially worse.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#818

Post by Artistry121 »

gwright wrote: post #779
awb wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

No...

* defunding schools in minority areas via how school funding is created * war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing * selling military grade equipment to local police forces * supporting private prison infrastructure * preventing open discussion of criminal justice reform despite having the largest prison population in the developed world * sending drugs into minority communities via the CIA * supporting police unequivocally despite evidence of wrongdoing going unpunished

... are all public policies and social policies that can lead to that outcome.

It’s not like cities “control their police departments”. Police are all autonomous with their own cultures and political beliefs influenced by a lot of rhetoric and policy and experience.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#819

Post by bavell »

zanellato19 wrote: post #795
henry_bone wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I guess you forgot about North Korea? Or Iran? Russia? China? Trump only had 4 years in office, these others are dictators for life and have far more influence to spread evil throughout the world.

The "coup" was a joke by any standard, the only reason it became such a big deal is because DC cops allowed the rioters into the Capitol instead of doing their job. I for one would've liked to see tear gas and rubber bullets but those were worryingly absent.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#820

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

You are downvoted, but I think you are correct on the Russian story. It was made up or at least severely exaggerated to save face in an embarrassing election defeat. I cannot understand how people can still believe this.

I asked what kind of messages the Russians used to influence people on large scale for the election - silence ensued. This is ridiculous, like in a cult.

This is plainly US propaganda at its finest.

Post reply on HN