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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#851

Post by kombucha111 »

bavell wrote: post #819
zanellato19 wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bullet…

Incompetent criminals are still criminals? Botched crimes don't lead to lenient punishments.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#852

Post by invisible »

apple_innocent wrote: post #498
invisible wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Times Square sold advertising that incited violence against the government, I think they would be involved in any charges.

Wrong analogy. If someone got up to speak in Times Square, incited violence, and was charged with sedition, then the owner of Times Square is not going to be named in any charges.

I don’t think there is a perfect analogy. They are being given a venue (their profile) a distribution (users; eyes of consumers) in the millions. Maybe if Times Square allowed and played seditious content with advertising in it that would be apt?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#853

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

trident5000 wrote: post #844
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, this whole not liking career politicians thing... isn't it kinda like not liking career doctors or lawyers? Why would we not want people who have spent their careers learning the ins and outs of the political landscape to represent us? Would we really rather have an amateur? How well did that work out when we elected one president?

Because they do anything to cling to power and make sure their side of the isle wins and therefore their own seat. Career politicians are why Washington is so dirty.

While it is difficult to believe that power-seeking is entirely orthogonal to choosing a career in politics, just how do you envision things will go with politicians who are not experienced at actual politics?

Again, wanting a representative who is not experienced at politics to represent you is kinda like wanting a lawyer who isn't experienced at practicing law to represent you. Or a doctor who isn't experienced at medicine to treat you.

What I'm saying is, I think you've latched on to the wrong quality as a focus of your ire. People being career politicians is not the problem, it's people being corrupt power-seeking assholes. That's a difficult problem to solve, I know, which is why it is so tempting to blame the problem on something easier to solve, but I think that sentiment is one pushed largely by career pundits to manipulate people.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#854

Post by LunaSea »

sumedh wrote: post #777
LunaSea wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Where did you read that I wrote that both were equivalent?

I'm just showing an example where a Presidential candidate pretended to support a movement that had violent elements in it.

Said candidate repudiated their support after being elected, lying to his voters in the process.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#855

Post by daemoens »

trident5000 wrote: post #840
snarfy wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the literal sense.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#856

Post by throwaway316943 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #342
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…

You know, this whole not liking career politicians thing... isn't it kinda like not liking career doctors or lawyers? Why would we not want people who have spent their careers learning the ins and outs of the political landscape to represent us? Would we really rather have an amateur? How well did that work out when we elected one president?

I don’t think that’s a good comparison. You’re comparing professions that people interact directly with and which compete in an open market. Except for local politicians, most people will never have the chance to directly speak with career politicians and their choice is very limited when it comes time to choose one after which you are locked in to their services. It’s hard to think of a good comparison because anything comparable is usually political in some way. I would like to see more transparency and sortition applied to government. It’s probably impossible to do away with the career politicians since they are specialists but I think we should do more to keep them accountable like selecting a group of people whose task is to both directly observe and petition elected officials. Basically solving the problem of politicians being so far removed from the people by bringing a sample of the people to the politician. Sort of like a jury during a trial.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#857

Post by raxxorrax »

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?

This is not comparable because screaming fire in a theatre isn't an opinion, which free speech set out to protect. It is a dishonest argument to justify cracking down on dissent from my perspective.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#858

Post by osgovernment »

grep_name wrote: post #816
osgovernment wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-mode…

r/conservative r/conspiracy r/donaldtrump all come to mind as communities that (up until one was recently banned) complained about censorship while constantly banning users for providing debate.

Heck, I signed up for Gab and was almost immediately banned from the entire site after sharing my liberal opinion.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#860

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

fogihujy wrote: post #339
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…

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? I know that I personally don’t have enough knowledge and experience to know what’s right for all people at all times. Life can be complicated. Let’s have some compassion folks. As an EU citizen, I feel this is pretty much a no-brainer. Politics based on compromises between parties, rather than single-party majorities, slows the political process down and it definit…

The US is also the global hegemon right now so any and all problems it has are at the forefront of most news. What an outsider may see as troubling, the average american isn't really batting an eyelash.
Post reply on HN