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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#901

Post by sneak »

TameAntelope wrote: post #868
sneak wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agreemen…

Terms of use are not legally binding, they are simply a courtesy.

A service can today kick you off without your having ever violated the terms of use they publish.

To answer your question, our society presently restricts several types of businesses from either offering or not offering service to certain groups in various circumstances. This wouldn't really be any more of a stretch than preventing the electric company from denying you service.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#902

Post by awb »

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"?

> Are you asserting that Republicans controlled the cities and police forces in which "blacks are disproportionately targeted and harmed by police without consequence"?

No, not all cities, but certainly _some_ cities. Wether that is by design or by pure luck is incidental to the point that the Young Turks can blame the BLM protests on Republicans with at least some shred of plausibility and evidence. Sure, maybe it’s a cheap generalization that lets Democrats off the hook, but in some areas of the country the blatant segregationist racism of the 60s never died, and in some of those areas Republicans (and Democrats) have made direct or indirect attempts to continue that suppression:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-civil-rights-ex...

So wether you agree or not, there’s a logical path that can be drawn from oppressor to oppressed.

But claiming the 2020 election was rigged or stolen or had massive fraud to a degree that would have changed the election outcome was never demonstrated in any plausible way in any public venue. There are no dots connecting the oppressor and the oppressed. The “kraken” was never released. It’s simply a lie started by Trump that’s led to violent consequences and unnecessary death.

If the Young Turks don’t blame BLM on the Republicans, the riots still happen. If Trump conceded he lost a fair election, no one dies. That’s the difference.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#903

Post by TameAntelope »

sneak wrote: post #901
TameAntelope wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agreemen…

Terms of use are not legally binding, they are simply a courtesy. A service can today kick you off without your having ever violated the terms of use they publish. To answer your question, our society presently restricts several types of businesses from either offering or not offering service to certain groups in various circumstances. This wouldn't really be any more of a stretch than preventing the electric company…

I don't think anything I said was related to legality, but I apologize if I wasn't clear about that. Agreements between people are definitely enforced by legal means, but agreements between people are also a moral question about honesty -- will you do what you said you'd do?

But what I hear you saying is that society should not allow people to enter into agreements that would be conditional on what they use that service for, is that right?

If so, I strongly disagree.

I should be allowed to enter into agreements based on how I behave, and I expect people I enter into agreements with to abide by what they claimed they'd do, including if they agreed ahead of time that it was up to me to evaluate their behavior and judge for myself when to stop allowing them access to my service.

To deny me this right would be a violation of the concept of ownership, which I believe is a critical aspect of modern society.

This is a different discussion if you don't think people can own things (which is a fair argument, though I would have disagreements as well).

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#904

Post by txru »

berneezy3 wrote: post #533
txru wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"? I think it takes a particularly steelman interpretation to see the content of Giuliani's "trial by combat" speech as not insurrectionist. “So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.” > last summer Sure…

First off, thank you for providing your sources. I wasn't aware of Giuliani's speech before you posted. Now, on to your points. > But I find it fallacious in the extreme to equate reducing a police budget with insurrection. It's not just the reduction of the NYC police budget that I am referring to as insurrection. It's the post-George-Floyd rioting, and the extreme comments made by certain leaders of these movements…

> wasn't aware of Giuliani's speech

Shouldn't you be? It's kind of important to defending him...

> In fact, from your quote alone, it seems like the NYPD bore the entire brunt of the NYC budget shortfall.

That isn't how percentages work. Say NYPD is 20% of the NYC budget, a 10% cut to NYPD would be 2% of a cut to the entire budget.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#905

Post by PenguinCoder »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #564
rodgerd wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?

> Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"? Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.

How in the hell do you get "someone more scientific" than Dr. Fauci, "an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984"[0] . Seriously, do you even pay attention to what you regurgitate?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#906

Post by cptskippy »

1123581321 wrote: post #428
cptskippy wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law firms are expected to represent people accused of the very worst crimes in order to promote a just outcome. We're entitled to an attorney when defending ourselves from criminal prosecution, but where does it say we're entitled to legal counsel at any other time? At the end of the day Law Firms are businesses, and again these are just businesses protecting their own self interests. If they end up needing legal c…

There is some advocacy to provide public defenders in civil matters. The reasoning is that financial damages can effectively deny liberty, even though the method differs from criminal. That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service.

> That of course would not mean pressing private firms into public service.

Even so that wouldn't apply here. Parler lost their private counsel, not their legal counsel.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#907

Post by rorykoehler »

Noos wrote: post #670
rorykoehler wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I want real accountability.

no, people here want to censor the right out of existence. I mean come on, Fox News? Really? The bar suddenly lowers to a point that is indefensible. It's really obvious these days that its one-sided, to the point where I throw up my hands and not expect any fairness.

What fairness? The far right want people dead for things they can’t change and you want to talk about fairness?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#908

Post by busterarm »

8note wrote: post #884
busterarm wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As they say: "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" Otherwise, you have to take this "are you daft" comment as assault

This isn't about calling people names. It's about inciting a mob.

It's extremely dangerous, usually deadly, and that's why it's a crime.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#909

Post by uniqueid »

sgregnt wrote: post #871
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…

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.

It's harder to characterize voters. For example, Democratic leadership is full of corporatocrats. So, strictly speaking, Democratic voters support corporatocracy. But it's more accurate to say that most Democratic voters support corporatocracy unwittingly, or collaterally. That is what I would say about Republican voters and fascism, also.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#910

Post by dragonwriter »

uniqueid wrote: post #909
sgregnt wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's harder to characterize voters. For example, Democratic leadership is full of corporatocrats. So, strictly speaking, Democratic voters support corporatocracy. But it's more accurate to say that most Democratic voters support corporatocracy unwittingly, or collaterally. That is what I would say about Republican voters and fascism, also.

> Democratic leadership is full of corporatists.

No, its full of corporatocrats [0]. Corporatism [1] is a political position (Wikipedia calls it an “ideology”, but it may be better to be viewed as a facet of ideology found in lots of very different ideologies; e.g., fascism includes corporatism as a component), but its not one that is particularly popular among Democrats, either in leadership or the base, neoliberal or progressive (though there definitely is a progressive corporatism that has some support.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Post reply on HN