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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#931

Post by chordalkeyboard »

greesil wrote: post #862
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

The US Capitol Police handled the situation weirdly and it got out of hand. I'm not sure why they let protestors across barriers and declined assistance from neighboring agencies. Some people read a conspiracy into these events. I just know this wasn't even close to the first time people were upset at congress and demonstrated inside forbidden areas. Nor was it the first time large peaceful demonstrations were marred by a few acts of violence.

These people are upset because they perceive that different standards are being applied to the same actions because of the politics of the actors involved. I don't think this is going to go away as a result of us clutching our pearls at the horrific violation of our sacred legislative building.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#932

Post by apple_innocent »

thombat wrote: post #698
apple_innocent wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income. The companies that pay big bucks for those signs decline to renew their contracts, because those signs have become best known as the backdrop for sedition rants, tainting their brands. So the owner bans the best known ranters as a way of signalling to the advertisers that the problem is being addressed and they should keep spending,

"The owner of Times Square relies upon the big advertising signs for their income."

Times Square is just the first public place that I thought of. Not every public place is used for advertising. What if it was the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The point is that, generally, necessary permits notwithstanding, people can enter always public places and communicate with the public. That is why they are deemed public places not private ones.

I am not even sure what advertising has to do with this. Maybe I missed something in the story. I was under the impression it was a YouTube "channel" getting banned not some customer's ability to purchase ads from Google to be shown on YouTube.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#933

Post by chordalkeyboard »

rodgerd wrote: post #926
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear, that terrorists get to dictate the makeup of the civil service by threatening to murder anyone they don't like?

> So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear, that terrorists get to dictate the makeup of the civil service by threatening to murder anyone they don't like?

I'm not convinced that its technically correct to call Bannon a terrorist or call his words a threat. So your hyperbole has estopped your criticism of Bannon's hyperbole.

> So your meet in the middle position is, just to be clear,

My meet in the middle position is that a scientist needs to be evidence-based and open to the possibility of his own error. I was disappointed in how Fauci handled the diversity of opinion and the mask issue. He went on the cover of In Style magazine and vainly refused to wear a mask. Masks are important and this magazine cover is seen by millions yet he declined the opportunity to set a proper example.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#934

Post by ccsnags »

jariel wrote: post #876
ccsnags wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think this is the best way forward.

The system needs integrity to work but it needs discipline to maintain it. Now it has neither.

Political pressure creates an us vs them mentality where reality must pass through a filter to get to the public and whoever controls this filter wins. This is the battleground of divide but it is also how we know what’s going on. This is why we have several versions of events and one’s belief in a version is entirely dependent on one’s political views, not evidence. Evidence is tacked on after the fact.

One thing I like to do is give people the benefit of the doubt. This helps me understand where they are coming from in their own words. Most people on any side of any discussion are decent and deserve to be heard.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#935

Post by [deleted] »

cptskippy wrote: post #912
edbob wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal rights are distinct from ideals and principles. "Freedom of speech", for example, is primarily an ideal. It has some encoding in law because it is such a valuable ideal, but no one should conflate the two and think that the ideal of "freedom of speech" doesn't apply unless the law says so. The law is not an ideal. Access to legal representation is similarly an ideal that can't be reduced to its partial encoding…

Do you believe that the idea of legal representation as a basic human right applies in the absence of pending litigation? Does corporate personhood extend to the idea of legal representation? Does the right to legal representation mandate that any legal firm be compelled to provide counsel to any client who demands it?

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#936

Post by camhart »

ModernMech wrote: post #303
camhart wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 100% in favor of criticality examining on a deeper level. I'm confused about how you disagree with me or how my comment is wrong. I'm trying to encourage people to listen to both sides.

I think what the above poster is reacting to is the distribution of news sources on this chart. It makes it seem like MSNBC and OAN are equal and opposite. I consume news from a great many of these sources. The only actual leftist news source I recognize on here is Jacobin. The New Yorker and MSNBC don't have a lot of content espousing the ideals of socialism and communism. Meanwhile, you'll be hard pressed to find a…

They describe how they come to their ratings at https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-method.... They also describe what it means to be "left" vs "lean left" vs "right" vs "lean right", etc. See https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/left and https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/right (there are also ones for lean l/r, and center).

Now I'm sure these ratings aren't perfect, but I believe they're more accurate than most people's hunches.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#937

Post by edbob »

cptskippy wrote: post #912
edbob wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal rights are distinct from ideals and principles. "Freedom of speech", for example, is primarily an ideal. It has some encoding in law because it is such a valuable ideal, but no one should conflate the two and think that the ideal of "freedom of speech" doesn't apply unless the law says so. The law is not an ideal. Access to legal representation is similarly an ideal that can't be reduced to its partial encoding…

Do you believe that the idea of legal representation as a basic human right applies in the absence of pending litigation? Does corporate personhood extend to the idea of legal representation? Does the right to legal representation mandate that any legal firm be compelled to provide counsel to any client who demands it?

If someone assaults me or otherwise violates my rights, but I can't file suit to defend my rights, then in practice I essentially don't actually have those rights. This is elementary.

Read the PRC's constitution some time and see all the rights that it guarantees, yet no one actually enjoys those rights. They exist on paper only.

You continually ask questions that attack positions which no one has suggested. I've had to ignore about 80% of your comments because they are just diversions. No one said a word about "corporate personhood", for example, and no one is even talking about legal representation of corporations. It's not possible to have a meaningful discussion like this.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#938

Post by Osiris »

im3w1l wrote: post #308
Osiris wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very easy to find articles that find that suggestion/engagement algorithms for YouTube, and presumably Facebook and others, pushes people toward more and more radical (extreme) content. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10419/... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/algorithms-take-ov... https://theconversation.com/youtubes-algorithms-might-radica...

Quoting your third link > Does YouTube create extremists? A recent study caused arguments among scientists by arguing that the algorithms that power the site don’t help radicalise people by recommending ever more extreme videos, as has been suggested in recent years. why are you misrepresenting your sources?

> pushes people toward more and more radical (extreme) content.

content was the key word there.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#939

Post by reducesuffering »

ghthor wrote: post #888
sumedh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

Sen Cortez, Sen Warren, Sen Sanders, Rep Pelosi are a good start.

AOC, Cortez, is a house representative, not a senator.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#940

Post by e40 »

Darmody wrote: post #72
e40 wrote: post #21

The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population of people that only hear these lies, day in and day out? They're going to react just like they did on 1/6.

Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.

What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.

Ahh, the "both sides" argument. No, Fox News and CNN are not the same. The fact that you believe this... I'm not going to try to dissuade you. I don't have that much free time.

Post reply on HN