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

UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 158 posts

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#31

Post by zpeti »

jikbd wrote: post #10
basisword wrote: post #9

"Freedom is the reason the UK has had such a long an illustrious history." I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree. The Online Safety Bill he mentions in his outrage at YouTube taking down his speech is itself an attack on freedoms. He's also part of a political party working to criminalise protests they disagree with.

> I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree. The political systems of every one of those countries are freer today than they were before the British “visited”.

Based on many HN comments about Modi and his anti democracy moves, I'm not quite sure India agrees.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#32

Post by basisword »

PontifexMinimus wrote: post #17
basisword wrote: post #9

"Freedom is the reason the UK has had such a long an illustrious history." I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree. The Online Safety Bill he mentions in his outrage at YouTube taking down his speech is itself an attack on freedoms. He's also part of a political party working to criminalise protests they disagree with.

> British invaded and continue to hang on to The only places I can think of that Britain currently "hangs on to" against the will of the inhabitants are arguably Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in both those places about half the population want to continue to belong to the UK. So it's not obvious to me who you're referring to here.

Badly phrased. I meant inhabitants of all current and ex-colonies. Not just the remaining ones.

Although, the talk of blocking another Scottish independence referendum could certainly be used as evidence of holding on to a country against the inhabitants will. You can't know their will if you prevent them from expressing it. Yes, they expressed it 7 years ago but a lot has changed since then, most notably leaving the EU.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#33

Post by hliyan »

mojzu wrote: post #4
ColinHayhurst wrote: post #2

The video has now been restored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VidUXZjzNVk Worth a watch. Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? MP says: “This is an outrageous attack on free speech. Throughout the pandemic we've seen blatant attempts by Big Tech to silence opposition voices challenging the conventional wisdom. This episode serves as a further example of the wor…

Yeah it seems likely to me to be an overzealous AI decision, given the background noise of anti-vaccine disinformation on youtube these days I wouldn't be surprised if they've turned up their algorithms at the cost of more false and marginal positives What's strange however is them seeming to use this to try and 'strengthen' the online safety bill which in it's current form would already be damaging to free speech on…

Should we be more forgiving of harm done by faulty algorithms than by negligent human beings? It was the company's choice to save money by automating a process that normally only human beings can do reliably. The consequences to the victim are the same regardless of the instrument used in the commission of the wrongdoing.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#34

Post by [deleted] »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #26

Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the government". Of course it only applies to the speech the former do not like: expediency. Here is a thing: social media grew that big because governments created a legal environment in which social media could grow that big. DMCA, safe harbor, the fact that social m…

[deleted]

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#35

Post by thrwyoilarticle »

ColinHayhurst wrote: post #2

The video has now been restored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VidUXZjzNVk Worth a watch. Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? MP says: “This is an outrageous attack on free speech. Throughout the pandemic we've seen blatant attempts by Big Tech to silence opposition voices challenging the conventional wisdom. This episode serves as a further example of the wor…

>Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check?

Isn't that exactly the problem?

Social media platforms' business models depend on not being able to moderate all content. Examples like this are an inevitability of the concept.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#36

Post by vfred »

I'm not surprised. Google cancelled a Ukrainian engineer who had objections to the CRT "fact" that all white people enjoy privilege. Remember that Ukrainians had to suffer Hitler, the Great Famine, Stalin and the Soviet Union.

The insidious mind games that the Google nomenklatura plays are described here, by an honest and harmless person. Highly recommended, also the comment section under the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs27FtYKEos

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#37

Post by reallydontask »

funshed wrote: post #25
my123 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PeerTube doesn't scale when most of the user base nowadays is on mobile, with asymmetric connections that have data caps. (which happens to be the real world)

UK Mobile Data for most is unlimited. A few will have a data cap but those will be unlikely to watch videos on mobile.

>UK Mobile Data for most is unlimited

I very much doubt this is the case given the number of tariffs with data caps

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#38

Post by jasode »

andrekandre wrote: post #7
ColinHayhurst wrote: post #2

The video has now been restored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VidUXZjzNVk Worth a watch. Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? MP says: “This is an outrageous attack on free speech. Throughout the pandemic we've seen blatant attempts by Big Tech to silence opposition voices challenging the conventional wisdom. This episode serves as a further example of the wor…

> "Govnt must stop the erosion of free speech online. That starts with looking again at the wholly inadequate proposals in the Online Safety Bill” why don't they (govt) open a public video site for anyone to upload to, so they don't have to mess with private sites? forcing private entities to host things they dont want to sounds like a huge can of worms

>why don't they (govt) open a public video site for anyone to upload to,

If governments tried to create publicly funded video website for anyone to upload to, it still won't accomplish what we'd hope for because governments always exercise their power censor. (See examples of UK BBC censorship.[1])

Look at the cognitive dissonance in the platitude: "Govnt must stop the erosion of free speech online."

The government-that-censors wants to force private businesses to not-censor?!? Inevitably, the government will force the business to censor something the government doesn't like which creates a contradiction!

[To downvoters: Does a government funded website that has uncensored "free speech" exist now? If not, why would it be realistic that it won't suffer the same pressures to censor that all previous government-controlled communication channels had? Let's not repeat platitudes about "free speech" but really dissect the mechanisms to enable censorship-resistant mass media. The mechanisms of implementation are the more difficult topic!]

EDIT reply to : >"I think op meant, that te government should make video.gov.tld webpage to post government videos there"

But the gp's phrase of "for _anyone_ to upload to" strongly implies user-generated content like Youtube uploaders instead of only the government employees uploading government videos.

Does the UK's BBC count as a government-sponsored website? They already have examples of hosting videos of parliament speeches. E.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-58259509

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

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#39

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

dua2020 wrote: post #5

This is a government which is in the process of criminalising protest under a deliberately vague 'public nuisance' clause. They only want freedom of expression for their views and not for those that oppose them.

David Davis is a backbench MP, he isn't a Government minister. I would sooner eat my own eyeballs than vote Conservative, no matter who the candidate, but Davis does have a principled track-record in voting for civil liberties.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#40

Post by [deleted] »

zpeti wrote: post #27
dua2020 wrote: post #5

This is a government which is in the process of criminalising protest under a deliberately vague 'public nuisance' clause. They only want freedom of expression for their views and not for those that oppose them.

Can someone explain to me how this makes sense when they are letting insulate britain block motorways? Like which protests are they trying to stop? I assume blocking motorways is illegal already, yet the police are doing nothing, which is leading dangerously to vigilante justice as per some videos, which is only a question of time before it turns really violent. Wtf is the UK government doing? Why do they need more p…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN