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

121–130 of 158 posts

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#121

Post by revolvingocelot »

ralfn wrote: post #87
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? How is that 'the best'. Only Silicon Valley thinks that is a valid legal excuse for anything. If you can't operate within the law you can't operate. The US better start regulating their companies or you end up with a trade war due to the whole world including Europe just kicking these vendors out of the market entirely and pe…

>If you can't operate within the law you can't operate

That's demonstrably untrue. Look at the rise of Uber. If I started running an unlicensed taxi, they'd come down on me very hard and very quickly, but Uber had the resources to tie up enforcement until public opinion about their VC-subsidized "taxis" prevented any action.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#122

Post by jameshart »

torstenvl wrote: post #118
jameshart wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that a member of parliament should enjoy at least a a much freedom of speech over private media as the broader public actually deserves some challenge. In the UK tradition, political speech in the private sphere is somewhat tightly regulated. As an MP he can’t buy advertising space on terrestrial TV; during election cycles if he is featured on TV the broadcasters are obliged to give equal time to his opponen…

> the broadcasters are obliged to give equal time to his opponents Um. This is not the rebuttal to the MP's position that you think it is.

It might not be intended to be the rebuttal you are assuming it is. I’m not saying that British law broadly sets a precedent of requiring equal treatment of contrasting political views. It absolutely does not - look at the UK newspaper opinion pages.

I am mainly responding to the ‘if they’ll do this to an MP they will do it to you’ syllogism, which seems to rest on the underlying assumption that an MP has at least the same speech rights (on a private website) as a member of the public - when in fact the ability of an MP to oblige a private company to carry their speech is expressly limited.

I am arguing that the fact he is an MP does not entitle him to special treatment and indeed historically brings his speech rights under greater scrutiny.

My point is mostly that MPs are not broadly entitled to use private platforms to speak unopposed, and in fact are more restricted by current law in that respect than people who are not MPs or parliamentary candidates.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#123

Post by Traster »

It is worth noting, for those outside of the UK that David Davis has an absolutely brilliant track record of saying absolutely asinine nonsense. There's just no substance to what he says. No, I'm not talking about this video (although I have watched it and it's absolutely par for the course). He never talks with substance on any issue, and his main claim to fame was violating a binding vote of the house of commons to provide accurate sector by sector guidance to the house on the impact of Brexit. He was famously quoted as saying "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside" and equally famous for... editting the reports to remove any references to the downsides of brexit. Needless to say he went on to resign in protest at the deal he himself had negotiated. He's just a hilariously inadequate man.

Having said all this, it sounds like the video was taken down by an over-aggressive automated system rather than some grand conspiracy to censor this incredibly inconsequential (and ahistorical) speech and it was back up within 6 hours.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#124

Post by torstenvl »

jameshart wrote: post #122
torstenvl wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the broadcasters are obliged to give equal time to his opponents Um. This is not the rebuttal to the MP's position that you think it is.

It might not be intended to be the rebuttal you are assuming it is. I’m not saying that British law broadly sets a precedent of requiring equal treatment of contrasting political views. It absolutely does not - look at the UK newspaper opinion pages. I am mainly responding to the ‘if they’ll do this to an MP they will do it to you’ syllogism, which seems to rest on the underlying assumption that an MP has at least th…

> My point is mostly that MPs are not broadly entitled to use private platforms to speak unopposed

I don't read the MP's objection to YouTube as expressing the position that he has the right to speak unopposed.

I read the MP's position as objecting to the idea that his opponents have the right to speak unopposed.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#125

Post by TrispusAttucks »

sudosysgen wrote: post #86
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding ex-colonies: Don't we have to eventually "let bygones be bygones"? Otherwise, where do we draw the line? How far do we go back? Those original human perpetrators are long dead. "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." ~ Deuteronomy 24:16

If by letting bygones be bygones you mean accepting people brazenly lying about their history, then no.

What span of time must pass before achievements are permitted to no longer be stained by transgressions of the past?

It is either:

A. Never

B. Sometime

If you feel it's A then there's nothing to debate.

If you feel it's B then let's haggle over the definition of sometime?

It appears my definition is that that "sometime" is now.

Your definition is sometime in the future.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#126

Post by TrispusAttucks »

boffinism wrote: post #73
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding ex-colonies: Don't we have to eventually "let bygones be bygones"? Otherwise, where do we draw the line? How far do we go back? Those original human perpetrators are long dead. "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." ~ Deuteronomy 24:16

"The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation." ~ Numbers 14:18

Yes.

;)

A phrase for ever situation. So versatile.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#127

Post by sudosysgen »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #125
sudosysgen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by letting bygones be bygones you mean accepting people brazenly lying about their history, then no.

What span of time must pass before achievements are permitted to no longer be stained by transgressions of the past? It is either: A. Never B. Sometime If you feel it's A then there's nothing to debate. If you feel it's B then let's haggle over the definition of sometime? It appears my definition is that that "sometime" is now. Your definition is sometime in the future.

What do you mean? The MP was talking about past achievements, saying that the history of the UK was enlightened by freedom. There is not even an argument about what you're talking about, because they actually are referring to historic achievements.

It's not as interesting to talk about present achievements because the UK is clearly in decline. That's why this politician was identifying their ideology with the glorious past and romanticizing it.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#128

Post by TrispusAttucks »

sudosysgen wrote: post #127
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What span of time must pass before achievements are permitted to no longer be stained by transgressions of the past? It is either: A. Never B. Sometime If you feel it's A then there's nothing to debate. If you feel it's B then let's haggle over the definition of sometime? It appears my definition is that that "sometime" is now. Your definition is sometime in the future.

What do you mean? The MP was talking about past achievements, saying that the history of the UK was enlightened by freedom. There is not even an argument about what you're talking about, because they actually are referring to historic achievements. It's not as interesting to talk about present achievements because the UK is clearly in decline. That's why this politician was identifying their ideology with the gloriou…

So there is literally no positives from UK's history?

Any positives are negated by past malevolent actions?

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#129

Post by CodeGlitch »

zimpenfish wrote: post #120
lamppost123 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there are many schools of CRT, so nitpicking is always possible. Di Angelo, whose views are being taught at Google, seems to believe that white privilege and white unconscious racism are prevalent. I'm not sure that this is a "right wing" talking point. Here is a Black man, who studied CS at Oxford, talking about white privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAo3t_KWHhI

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAo3t_KWHhI I mean, looking at the content, that's a heavily conservative, definitely alt-right, if not outright right-wing, channel. And the segment immediately prior to him proclaiming the white privilege is "a garbage concept" is him proudly relating the story about how he triggered and trolled people by "identifying as a female powerlifter" and all the alt-right people who covere…

So I've watched pretty much of all Triggernometry output, the 2 presenters have interesting backgrounds. Konstantin grew up in Soviet Russia and has been pretty left-wing his whole life (now identifies more centre-left), and Francis is a former teacher who spent time in Venezuela (I think his mother is from there?). As you can assume, they are pretty critical of communism.

However it's interesting you've described the content as right-wing, as it's far from that. They are very pro-freespeech, and have interviewed some pretty old-school left-wing people such as George Galloway.

Of course people just see that they interviewed people like Nigel Farage and assume they are right-wing (just because you interview a right/left winger doesn't make you that thing).

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#130

Post by ghoward »

jf22 wrote: post #115
valdiorn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this apt for the situation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ...

The slippery slope argument, which is already a logical fallacy, that digital censorship will lead to persecution is ridiculous.

The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy if there's evidence for it, and in the case of censorship, there is.
Post reply on HN