Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#611

Post by rajup »

nicetryguy wrote: post #592
quantumBerry wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither. You should consider other people for a change. And your hypocritical argument is on the selfish belief that you believe society owes you something (supporting your healthcare) when you make a mistake. That is your argument not mine. I believe liberty means you can choose not to wear a seatbelt, and society can choose not to support your mistake. Personally I do not wear a seatbelt while riding a motorcycle…

> if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? > You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life. You can sure as hell hedge against it. Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from…

It is quite evident who is narrow headed and wrong in this discussion.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#612

Post by robbrown451 »

godshatter wrote: post #529
robbrown451 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any "real free speech" that you think YouTube should be allowed to block? People advocating for shooting the president? People describing how to make a nuclear bomb? People advocating for killing cops? People sharing people's social security numbers? People explaining the best suicide methods? People trying to organize terrorist attacks? People threatening violence on other people? Anything?

In my opinion, they should be allowing anything they are not required by law to remove.

Which will result in them getting regulated. After being dragged before Congress over and over and being asked "why aren't you doing something about this?"

And by the way, not sure what you mean by "required by law." Does that include when corporate lawyers say "if we leave this up, we are at risk of a judge fining us (or awarding someone suing us) a billion dollars."

The law isn't crystal clear and black and white, until you end up in front of a judge or jury. The legal system in the US isn't all statutory, it is left for courts to decide based on precedent and, when there is none to draw from, higher and higher courts.

It all seems simple until you actually think about these things.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#613

Post by meragrin_ »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #229
corndoge wrote: post #3

> YouTube indicated that examples of the offending content in the video included the line: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” > It also included the quote: “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Regardless of what you think about YouTube's misinformation policy, I don't think this i…

It is misinformation. Masks (cloth or otherwise) were meant to reduce infectiousness, not completely prevent the possibility of infection. Masks (cloth or otherwise) do in fact reduce infectiousness. The misinformation is the implication that masks are pointless because you can still get infected. The point of masks is to get the probability of spreading it down by some multiple, not to be a personal not-my-problem-a…

SOME masks (cloth or otherwise) reduce infectiousness. Many masks people buy so they do not feel like they are suffocating are not the type which reduce infectiousness.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#614

Post by robbrown451 »

nomel wrote: post #500
robbrown451 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any "real free speech" that you think YouTube should be allowed to block? People advocating for shooting the president? People describing how to make a nuclear bomb? People advocating for killing cops? People sharing people's social security numbers? People explaining the best suicide methods? People trying to organize terrorist attacks? People threatening violence on other people? Anything?

In the end, the revenue stream dictates the content. The revenue stream is ads. Advertisers don't want to be involved in some Wild West of content, as has been proven several times now. I don't think Youtube would survive as an ad free paid service.

If advertisers don't want to be involved (presumably because they think it would be bad for the brand), YouTube themselves might not want to be involved for the same reasons.

You seem to be implying that YouTube themselves -- shareholders, executives, employees -- has no moral compass, but the advertisers do. And (I guess) the advertisers only do because their potential customers do.

I'd say a more likely case is that morality (or "aversion to Wild West content" or "aversion to unnecessary deaths" or whatever) is something spread fairly evenly among humans, whatever role they have.

Seems rather simplistically cynical to assume that YouTube is the only entity that doesn't actually care about anything but money.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#615

Post by MisterBastahrd »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #573
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An MD is a generalist's degree. It doesn't confer anything but that he graduated from med school and knows a bit about human physiology. Infectious diseases are AT LEAST as far out of his wheelhouse as Windows domain servers are to computer science graduates, aka, anything that he even pretends to know about the subject is something he read online.

Do you think a computer science graduate cannot be an expert at Windows domain management as well?

Do YOU think that a CS grad can call upon his CS background and magically be an expert on Windows domain management on par with people who do it for a living? Because THAT is what we are talking about here.

Rand Paul is an eye doctor, not an infectious disease specialist, and not an epidemiologist. The experts on this topic have spoken AND written AND researched the subject. Any credible information about it would have come FROM them, and THEY say that masks are something that we should do to stop the spread of an infectious disease.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#616

Post by [deleted] »

rajup wrote: post #611
nicetryguy wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? > You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life. You can sure as hell hedge against it. Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from…

It is quite evident who is narrow headed and wrong in this discussion.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#617

Post by matz1 »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #464
matz1 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it's no big deal. It's no big deal for you, fine. I acknowledge that but It is a big deal for me. >I'm a grown up and I deal with it because it's a good thing to do for other people. well not to me, when you wearing mask when interacting with me you are not doing a good thing for me. I'm much prefer for you to not wear mask when you interact with me but still I wouldn't force you. Its also one of the reason for…

> Its also one of the reason for me to not wear mask when interacting with other people, its a good thing to do for other people. How is increasing the odds of my infecting my immunocompromised mother doing me a favour?

Of course it's going to be not the same for everyone.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#618

Post by nicetryguy »

quantumBerry wrote: post #610
nicetryguy wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? > You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life. You can sure as hell hedge against it. Does waiting at red lights and following traffic signals infringe your freedom to get from…

>What about her misery? That will be permanent. Did that ever occur to you? I guess she didn't think of my misery every time she gets in her car and drives somewhere unnecessary like a restaurant or gym to enjoy her life. Why would she engage in such risky behavior? Should I report her to CPS for child endangerment every time the child is taken somewhere in a vehicle for enjoyment (such as the park), exposing them to…

It is clear to me that the people closest to you will pay dearly for your immature selfish lack of awareness and consideration for anyone else but yourself on planet earth. You are a time bomb and i pity those caught in the inevitable explosion. Good day sir.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#619

Post by mindslight »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #526
lupire wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Eric Raymond (who is more famous for his mouth than for his technical achievements) is a libertarian, and billionaires are libertarian, doesn't mean techies are in general.

There's libertarian as a religion, and practical libertarian. I'm the latter type: free markets are generally good, and people should generally be left alone to live their lives. But public health is a real thing that matters, and governments should step in to make sure externalities are charged to the people who caused them. I still think I'm a libertarian, but the religious type might disagree.

There is nothing libertarian about mass media convincing a herd of people to reject common sense mitigations for a respiratory pandemic. The FUD on this topic is as top-down as you can get, starting with an authoritarian conman whose most intelligent moment was brainstorming about injecting bleach.

As a libertarian I wholeheartedly reject this fig leaf of "freedom" touted by anti-maskers. Freedom is an ability to choose the right thing, not simply being a contrarian for contrarianism's sake. I think hard drugs should be legal, but I similarly wouldn't support people becoming junkies to spite society.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#620

Post by rubyist5eva »

goatherders wrote: post #599
rubyist5eva wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you are, cope.

You the one who emailed me telling me to kill myself? Lol. You first, virgin.

nah - but I think it's funny that someone else would lmao. Wouldn't be suprised if you're just saying this hoping it gets my account banned.

Virgin? Got a wife and kids...not sure how I could do that being a virgin, but nice attempt - probably projection. Keep seething.

Post reply on HN