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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#861

Post by high_density »

sneak wrote: post #849
TameAntelope wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This implies there's better logic than sheep logic, and that some subset of humanity is privy to it, which feels like the source of the problem in the first place; people thinking that they're better than other people and reacting to that feeling. Wouldn't another definition of "sheep logic" just be "society", and don't we kind of all agree that society (though not without drawbacks) is vastly superior to no society?…

Perhaps we should stick to what we in society generally agree on: the rule of law and equal application of it. Having non-mainstream beliefs or opinions isn't illegal, and I don't think people should be losing their accounts and data for things that aren't illegal. We already take that approach for public utilities; your water can't be shut off because of your political affiliation or membership in some unprotected c…

this. Current outright banning and gagging will surely backfire.

The pro-trumps will raise the question: "what are the other-side so afraid of, that they are trying to shut us off?" So instead of calming them down, it'll actually have the opposite effect - the feeling that the other side is much more evil than imaginable.

And the questions for bystanders will be "If the powers-that-be can snuff that side, what guarantees that I/we won't be snuffed?"

If you see the foundations of democracy, 'Freedom-of-speech' is actually a device to ensure no political party can have dictatorial powers over what the public can know. Moreover, democratic societies are actually more resilient due to these 'room-to-wiggle' - the other option will be much more violent 'revolution' experienced by dictator-states at their end.

Anyway, the other side is producing gibberish, then so be it. Just refute them properly inside a shared platform.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#862

Post by greesil »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #589
greesil wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely can't tell which side you're taking about, one, or the other, or both. I feel like there are crazy people everywhere, ranging from the hyper woke to honest to god nazis. But one group decided to storm congress (which I still haven't wrapped my head around, I'm mentally living in the beforefor times) and by supporting the rule of law I must now be on the side that's not that, even if I have to share the bu…

> But one group decided to storm congress (which I still haven't wrapped my head around, I'm mentally living in the beforefor times) Before 2018? https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1047935416182235136

Protests inside the Capitol building are actually surprisingly frequent. But why did the events of January 6th result in Congress evacuating their chambers, and moved to defensible positions? Something was different this time?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/35-times-capito...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#863

Post by whatshisface »

asdff wrote: post #440
whatshisface wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the people who were looting commercial districts would have looted the Capitol if they were put in the same situation. Perhaps the people who looted the Capitol would have looted storefronts if they had been mad at what they represented. There's one way to look at it where you have a generalized trait of not caring about following the law when you're surrounded by a large group, a trait that some people have,…

It's one thing to make a run at a pair of jeans when police are distracted to sell on ebay later. That's common petty theft. It's another to force entry into the Capitol when both chambers were in session along with the Vice President to certify election results. That's terrorism.

They're different, literally. But would they take different people? Maybe there's a similarity.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#864

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Mashimo wrote: post #781
dang wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What does it mean if a username is green? I thought he was some kind of mod / admin, because it stands out.

It's actually somewhat the opposite—green indicates a new user, iirc the threshold is less than two weeks old. I don't quite get the purpose either.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#865

Post by malwrar »

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.

> The reason they're upset is because they are not in control.

Do you notice how that starts me, as someone who is firmly anti-censorship, off on the defensive as you seem to view me as an insincere or stupid bad guy?

> I think in some ways they are like the people scared of change, and the once change has taken place they are scared of not being in control.

As a general principle I’m for the idea that we aught to allow free expression of ideas, especially online since that is the way to share ideas. Life happens very differently for people even just domestically in the US, and when our viewpoints come into conflict I’d rather understand what they have to say and talk about it. How is that possible to do when there’s a party in the middle that is able to determine what you’re not allowed to read? I'm scared of not being in control of that and thus censorship in general, not about having my version of truth be published.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#866

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

lovelearning wrote: post #830
djeiasbsbo wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider, I've always understood it like this. The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. For example, they are against something like mandatory healthcare, because they might be perfectly healthy yet would have to pay to carry those who are not. Democrats and left leaning people on the other hand value a more general sense of freedom and health. They want to carry the weake…

> The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. As another outsider, I get the impression US conservatives are selective about the groups they consider worthy of those rights and freedoms. They oppose women's choice to abort. They oppose rights and freedoms for immigrants. They came out in support of cops who had violated rights of their own african-american citizens.

If I can play devil's advocate for a moment:

1) "Pro-life" conservatives believe that fetuses are human lives (persons) worthy of protection and prioritize that over the right of the mother to control her own body. That might sound bad, but there is a logic to it.

"Pro-choice" advocates would argue that the fetus is not a person and that ultimately the mother should have full rights to her own body. Leaving aside the argument about the definition of personhood, outside of cases of rape (even among pro-lifers opinions differ on whether or not that changes anything), the mother had engaged in activity fully cognizant that creating a human life was a possible outcome. By engaging in the activity anyway she can be said to have accepted the risk and that acceptance further diminishes her right to avoid the consequences. Pro-lifers would argue the right to life of the person (fetus) outweighs the mother's right to control her own body in this circumstance. There are of course many other arguments to be had either way because this issue is an enormous one and is ultimately about many fundamental philosophical issues.

2) Anti-immigrant conservatives would argue that immigrants (specifically illegal immigrants, mind you) are not citizens of the United States and therefore do not have many of the same rights as citizens of the United States. The argument is largely over which rights are inalienable human rights and which are rights exclusive to US Citizens. They would further argue that illegal immigrants are actually criminals by virtue of being here illegally and restricting the rights of criminals is not exactly unprecedented or unreasonable.

3) Conservatives would argue that many[0] of those cases are not being reported factually, and that the officers involved were not actually violating the rights of those citizens unduly.

What I'm trying to say is, the selection is not arbitrary.

[0] Floyd is not among these. At least I can't find anyone who makes a good-faith argument why that wasn't basically straight-up murder.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#867

Post by corin_ »

MrMan wrote: post #776
mech422 wrote: post #147

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. 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.

Most of the world including New England still locks people up for moral infractions, even if no longer using stocks.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#868

Post by TameAntelope »

sneak wrote: post #849
TameAntelope wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This implies there's better logic than sheep logic, and that some subset of humanity is privy to it, which feels like the source of the problem in the first place; people thinking that they're better than other people and reacting to that feeling. Wouldn't another definition of "sheep logic" just be "society", and don't we kind of all agree that society (though not without drawbacks) is vastly superior to no society?…

Perhaps we should stick to what we in society generally agree on: the rule of law and equal application of it. Having non-mainstream beliefs or opinions isn't illegal, and I don't think people should be losing their accounts and data for things that aren't illegal. We already take that approach for public utilities; your water can't be shut off because of your political affiliation or membership in some unprotected c…

The point you're trying to make isn't actually one anyone (rational) is trying to disagree with. Obviously (IMO) differing viewpoints should be allowed to coexist.

The problem is that you're not really addressing the actual issue, which is whether or not I can enter into agreements or not contingent on my own actions.

If I can, then it's fair for the other party of that agreement to exercise that part of the agreement and end our relationship. If I can't, then I'm not allowed agency over my own actions, nor is the other party...

Are you suggesting that groups shouldn't create terms of use that are contingent on how a service is used?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#870

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

throwaway316943 wrote: post #856
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?

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 anyth…

> I would like to see more transparency and sortition applied to government.

I agree.

> It’s probably impossible to do away with the career politicians since they are specialists

Again I must emphasize that it is not the career part of this that is the problem. The only alternative that doesn't involve career politicians is electing amateur ones who have no experience navigating the political landscape.

> 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.

I could envision a system like that that I could support but there'd be a lot of complications to work out. We should probably have something like that for police too.

> Basically solving the problem of politicians being so far removed from the people by bringing a sample of the people to the politician

This I just find kinda funny, since that's already how it works. You can get a meeting with your senator or congressman directly, though it isn't easy. Talking to one of their staff is pretty doable. Letters and phone calls are low-effort, but of course they also count for a lot less. The term "special interest groups" gets bandied about frequently in derogatory fashion, and while it does include corporate lobbyists it also covers hobby clubs, activist groups of various kinds, and trade unions, all of which make their cases to senators and congressmen on behalf of their members (which may include you). And of course your locally elected officials also meet with them about their concerns.

Post reply on HN