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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#831

Post by Grustaf »

MrMan wrote: post #747
Grustaf wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you don't want a Ministry of Truth? You want to leave something as important as censorship in the hands of Big Tech? What if a conservative starts a tech company? It could happen.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#832

Post by sneak »

TameAntelope wrote: post #817
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 fi…

I don't agree. I think that the harm caused by these loud demagogues (is that redundant?) is massively overblown.

The US president, perhaps the one with the most platform and audience and reach, couldn't even summon a properly armed militia, it was only a small group of mostly unarmed rioters. Their best efforts achieved precisely nothing: they did not seize any power, they did not hold any territory. It wasn't even a battle. Far from an insurrection, it was just some smashed windows and an instagram moment and now they're all in jail. Calling what happened an armed insurrection is factually inaccurate, even if a few of the rioters brought weapons.

If platform and reach are proportional to messaging effectiveness (the presumption that this sort of censorship makes) then everyone else's efforts along these lines (who isn't the president of the United States) will be substantially less effective than even this massively ineffective display in DC.

Let them squawk. Misinformation and lies simply aren't that dangerous, otherwise we would have had to ban the church centuries ago.

Americans are inundated constantly with bullshit messaging from large, powerful organizations. They aren't nearly as malleable as the pro-censorship people seem to think they are.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#833

Post by marcusverus »

LarvaFX wrote: post #825
raxxorrax wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No it's not. Read the report.

Found one!

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#834

Post by TameAntelope »

sneak wrote: post #832
TameAntelope wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fi…

I don't agree. I think that the harm caused by these loud demagogues (is that redundant?) is massively overblown. The US president, perhaps the one with the most platform and audience and reach, couldn't even summon a properly armed militia, it was only a small group of mostly unarmed rioters. Their best efforts achieved precisely nothing: they did not seize any power, they did not hold any territory. It wasn't even…

To take it away from this political moment for a second, do you believe it's acceptable to allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or do you think these people aren't actually yelling, "Fire!", and when we determine someone is yelling, "Fire!", those private institutions should still stop them?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#835

Post by sneak »

TameAntelope wrote: post #834
sneak wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. I think that the harm caused by these loud demagogues (is that redundant?) is massively overblown. The US president, perhaps the one with the most platform and audience and reach, couldn't even summon a properly armed militia, it was only a small group of mostly unarmed rioters. Their best efforts achieved precisely nothing: they did not seize any power, they did not hold any territory. It wasn't even…

To take it away from this political moment for a second, do you believe it's acceptable to allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or do you think these people aren't actually yelling, "Fire!", and when we determine someone is yelling, "Fire!", those private institutions should still stop them?

I don't think private institutions, especially when there are a small number of extremely powerful ones that exert control over publishing, should be applying or enforcing subjective standards on publishing.

This isn't a legal opinion but a personal one: people who decide unilaterally for other adults what they should be allowed to read or see are assholes.

My web host is in many senses like my ISP: I don't pay them to editorialize.

In the US there is already a huge and well- (and perhaps over-)funded machinery for investigating and enforcing the law. If the laws are being broken, why not let them handle it? (This has the added benefit of applying the existing body of legal wisdom regarding state censorship.)

If the laws aren't being broken, what's the problem?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#836

Post by marcusverus »

LarvaFX wrote: post #797
marcusverus wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Found another!

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#837

Post by abacadaba »

m8s wrote: post #576
tenpies wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point the lies need to stop. Imagine that all the news agencies actually spread the lie. Imagine that for the next 4 years of Biden's presidency, they would talk non-stop about election fraud, how he's illegitimate, and how there needs to be an investigation. Imagine that the opposition party appointed a special investigator who's sole mission was to take down Biden by uncovering fraud. Now imagine that aft…

This is the first line of the first paragraph of the Mueller Report: > The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. What part of this was a lie? https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/708850903/read-the-full-muell...

It was always clear that Putin was/is trying to interfere. Putin hating Hillary does not necessarily implicate Trump.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#838

Post by TameAntelope »

sneak wrote: post #835
TameAntelope wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To take it away from this political moment for a second, do you believe it's acceptable to allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or do you think these people aren't actually yelling, "Fire!", and when we determine someone is yelling, "Fire!", those private institutions should still stop them?

I don't think private institutions, especially when there are a small number of extremely powerful ones that exert control over publishing, should be applying or enforcing subjective standards on publishing. This isn't a legal opinion but a personal one: people who decide unilaterally for other adults what they should be allowed to read or see are assholes. My web host is in many senses like my ISP: I don't pay them…

Does, "This won't make us any money, and could further result in the company going under or otherwise severely being hindered in the market due to the negative backlash and resulting decline in business." count as a subjective standard that you believe a private institution should not be applying?

What are corporations allowed to do then, in your mind?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#839

Post by sneak »

TameAntelope wrote: post #838
sneak wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think private institutions, especially when there are a small number of extremely powerful ones that exert control over publishing, should be applying or enforcing subjective standards on publishing. This isn't a legal opinion but a personal one: people who decide unilaterally for other adults what they should be allowed to read or see are assholes. My web host is in many senses like my ISP: I don't pay them…

Does, "This won't make us any money, and could further result in the company going under or otherwise severely being hindered in the market due to the negative backlash and resulting decline in business." count as a subjective standard that you believe a private institution should not be applying? What are corporations allowed to do then, in your mind?

Allow me to dodge answering directly:

If gigantic multinationals and infrastructure providers stop hosting anything that might be unpopular or generate bad PR, then we quickly approach a world where the tyranny of sheep logic[1] (not what people think, but what people think other people think) will dictate the very narrow range of what products, services, media, literature, and art are available.

That world sucks and we should avoid it.

This has already mostly happened for concert venues in the US, as well as video hosting.

Already we've made a world where the basic human unclothed form is all but outlawed except in clinical (or apparently yoga) settings online. I don't think there's any upper bound to what a culture can contort into believing is unacceptable.

[1]: https://www.epsilontheory.com/sheep-logic/

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#840

Post by trident5000 »

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.

In a literal or figurative sense? Asking because pretty much everything is blown out of proportion today.
Post reply on HN