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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#871

Post by sgregnt »

uniqueid wrote: post #847
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…

I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Are there many, if any, equivalent people to Bannon on the left? My theory is that the core of Bannon is neoconfederacy: under all the nonsense he talks is the desire to see the North burn. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. Bannon is not a 'career politician' dunk on the other tribe Yes, the Democrats are corrupt, but to focus on that, at…

I wonder how accurate is your statement and does it contributes to an informed conversation?

Anecdotal.

There are tens of millions of GOP voters, I have many friends that support GOP, non of them is a fasict.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#872

Post by raxxorrax »

_qwfv wrote: post #51
shripadk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't be. These bans and policies have been going on for a really long time. It is just hitting the US now. It has been happening in India for far too long. Big Tech monopoly has gone unchecked all this while. At least I am happy to see my fellow Indians uninstalling WhatsApp and moving to Signal. The more such alternative services the better. This stronghold of Big Tech on what internet should be has to end and i…

Research actually backs up that deplatforming does reduce audience sizes for an outlet. Which makes sense of you believe that some listeners will simply not have the interest in jumping over to a new platform. Repeat several times and with every platform shift the audience reduces.

This isn't independent research and I assure that the "left" has now much more political enemies than, say, 2015. It had an immense backfire effect, you just weren't able to quantify it yet.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#873

Post by woah »

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…

The real insurrection was not the rioters. They were, as you say, very disorganized and barely missed their opportunity to massacre the Senate when they chased a security guard down a hallway, past the open doors to the senate chamber.

President Trump, however, played his role well. He refused to call in the military to end the insurrection, giving the rioters several hours to run rampant though the Capitol of the world’s biggest military power.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#874

Post by ramblerman »

uniqueid wrote: post #847
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…

I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Are there many, if any, equivalent people to Bannon on the left? My theory is that the core of Bannon is neoconfederacy: under all the nonsense he talks is the desire to see the North burn. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. Bannon is not a 'career politician' dunk on the other tribe Yes, the Democrats are corrupt, but to focus on that, at…

> of what the Republican party has become: the 'other tribe' is, really and truly, fascist and seditionist.

All of them?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#875

Post by themaninthedark »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #301
corndoge wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if pedophiles couldn't use encrypted messengers to exchange child pornography on the internet? As always the means need to be weighed against the end.

There are plenty of reasons to use encryption that have nothing to do with kiddie porn. What are the good reasons to allow calls for violence? Or to keep carrying content which supports it? What is YouTube, or society, losing by blocking it?

The problem is of course, who gets to decide what a call for violence is? I have seen people use "Come on down, it will be wild" as an example of a call for violence. On the other hand, you have people on this site arguing that "Defund the Police" does not infact mean remove all funding. Even when there is a NY Times published opinion with the title "Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police" ant eh second to last paragraph starts with "People like me who want to abolish prisons and police"

For a long time "Learn to code" was a statement made by journalist to the working class about how they need to better themselves and adapt to the changing work requirements. Now it is considered harassment because it was being thrown back at the same journalists when they started losing their jobs.

Do you think that the people pushing for these laws and restrictions are doing so because they want to help your side or because they want power? And once they get the power they seek, do you think they will allow for the change you wish to enact to come to fruition, especially if it runs the risk of diminishing their power?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#876

Post by jariel »

ccsnags wrote: post #798
jariel wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

That's a good point, but we are supposed to have systems of credibility for that.

Even Fox news - after the election - was careful not to directly support Trump's false claims. Instead, they 'sympathized' with voters who 'felt disenfranchised' - which is a kind of indirect lie, but not a 'straight up lie'.

Even when facts are contentious we can still get the word out.

We absolutely need integrity in the system at all levels - which is why having a President that completely fabricates stories, it's a problem.

The press has been bending reality more since the election of Trump, which is why his presence adds to the toxicity - it just creeps into everything. It's why, despite however much some might agree with his policies, they come at an addition 'hidden cost' of the erosion of integrity in some of these systems.

We all have to play our part and try to be as objective as we can I guess.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#877

Post by TameAntelope »

raxxorrax wrote: post #850
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…

This is still a violation of free speech. Some people abused that right for their own purposes. You will always have such people. To compromise is the reaction any troll by original definition aims for. And it didn't even work to achieve any goal. So, you have banned some controversial users. What now?

The part this argument is forgetting is what agency a person has over how people use the stuff they've made.

The issue is that if Twitter can't qualify how people use their site, then they're losing agency over a resource they spend a lot of time and effort maintaining. They'd have to operate at a loss for the good of the people who use it.

Should the US government run a public version of Twitter? Maybe the UN, even?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#878

Post by nopzor »

sneak wrote: post #746
sdwa wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand and broadly sympathise with the sort of ~absolute freedom of speech outlined in the US constitution, but I am completely baffled by this recent push seen here on Hacker News and elsewhere that this freedom should be extended to in effect compel others to publish your speech. This is not in the US constitution, and is in fact completely unconstitutional (1st amendment protects against compelled speech). T…

You seem to be replying to a different comment than the one I wrote. I am not addressing any legal or constitutional issue. I am also not advocating for compelled speech. Very soon, it will be impossible to buy webscale hosting from anywhere but a half-dozen providers. Should those providers be the sole and exclusive authority of what is or is not allowed on the web? Airlines aren't permitted the authority to decide…

airlines are indeed permitted the authority to decide who flies and who doesn't.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#879

Post by TameAntelope »

raxxorrax wrote: post #857
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?

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.

So you think I know better and am intentionally mischaracterizing the two as equivalent?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#880

Post by uniqueid »

ramblerman wrote: post #874
uniqueid wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Are there many, if any, equivalent people to Bannon on the left? My theory is that the core of Bannon is neoconfederacy: under all the nonsense he talks is the desire to see the North burn. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. Bannon is not a 'career politician' dunk on the other tribe Yes, the Democrats are corrupt, but to focus on that, at…

> of what the Republican party has become: the 'other tribe' is, really and truly, fascist and seditionist. All of them?

  All of them?
Not all, fair point. But enough that it feels to me like to credit them is like when some people defend the 'boogaloo boys' by arguing 'not all of them are racist'. Okay, but it doesn't inspire much confidence :)
Post reply on HN