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

131–140 of 158 posts

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#131

Post by sudosysgen »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #128
sudosysgen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm sure there are positives, but the UK's history is clearly not about freedom. The UK's history is subjugating a massive amount of people. So claiming that the UK has its historic achievements because of freedom is just blatant revisionism. You could definitely find some good things though.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#132

Post by zimpenfish »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #129
zimpenfish wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

> (just because you interview a right/left winger doesn't make you that thing)

Indeed not but your reaction to what they're saying does - if you sit there and don't push back against X-wing views, that does tend to paint you as X-wing-leaning yourself (regardless of where you were born and where you claim to be politically.)

In the linked video from above, for example, there's no pushback to Zuby's strongly conservative views about trans people, wokeness, abortion, etc.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#133

Post by ClumsyPilot »

mojzu wrote: post #78
hliyan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the quantity of video uploaded to youtube I'm not sure human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore. Humans are definitely better at handling many situations but are also prone to their own biases (e.g. there were facebook moderators a while back who would take down reported content they disagreed with for religious reasons), they are often not given enough time to reasonably review…

"human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore."

Then maybe free video hosting is not a viable business, why should youtube destroy all competition and then complain that checking their uploads is not possoble?

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#134

Post by CodeGlitch »

zimpenfish wrote: post #132
CodeGlitch wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> (just because you interview a right/left winger doesn't make you that thing) Indeed not but your reaction to what they're saying does - if you sit there and don't push back against X-wing views, that does tend to paint you as X-wing-leaning yourself (regardless of where you were born and where you claim to be politically.) In the linked video from above, for example, there's no pushback to Zuby's strongly conservat…

I think their style is just to ask questions and get the guest to open up about whatever topic they're discussing, and they do push back if the guest says something outlandish. They usually just want the discussion "out there" for other's to make their own minds up.

> strongly conservative views about trans people, wokeness, abortion, etc.

Don't forget that outside of Twitter, Academia and Silicon Valley (i.e. most of the world), these are not "conservative" views but pretty mainstream.

(I'll caveat that with abortion that one is probably too big a topic to discuss here.)

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#135

Post by lentil_soup »

postingawayonhn wrote: post #114
lentil_soup wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this a new revisionist rhetoric being pushed all of a sudden? I keep hearing the same arguments in Spain about how they brought freedom to the Americas I understand being unconformable with one's country's past, but the mental hoops to try to get some justification to colonization is so strange. Even if (and that's a BIG if) those societies ended up "freer" let's not fool ourselves, not a single country went to co…

> not a single country went to colonise another for hundreds of years to make it freer, they went there to exploit it. Generally speaking the colonisers established their colonies to access natural resources, being new agricultural techniques to undeveloped lands, and engage in trade. The culture of the coloniser naturally came along with them. Even if there were no specific goal of bringing freedom that may still ha…

yeah, but that's what I mean, if it's just a side effect then how is it relevant to the whole "illustrious history" of the UK comment which was defended by saying that the colonies are now "freer".

How is that an argument? If I enslave a group of people, force on them my language so they can follow orders and 500 years later that language opens doors for them, how am I "illustrious"? it's a side effect of an inhumane act.

Trying to twist this so my history doesn't make me uncomfortable is historical immaturity.

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#136

Post by jf22 »

ghoward wrote: post #130
jf22 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, has any group been persecuted?

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#137

Post by true_religion »

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…

Okay. So it wasn’t a mistake. Google like any other media company decided to exercise editorial control and let part A speak while muzzling party B.

Now what?

There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media.

In some counties only the ruling government gets access. In some counties, only the leading parties have access and all must share time equally. In others, you only get the access that you can buy. In still others, no one gets access except under regulated conditions like a debate.

If Google takes a step back from the label of Big Tech and admits that YouTube is just another multinational media company… then what do they lose?

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#138

Post by TrispusAttucks »

sudosysgen wrote: post #131
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there is literally no positives from UK's history? Any positives are negated by past malevolent actions?

I'm sure there are positives, but the UK's history is clearly not about freedom. The UK's history is subjugating a massive amount of people. So claiming that the UK has its historic achievements because of freedom is just blatant revisionism. You could definitely find some good things though.

That's fair. I need to brush up on it's history.

Thanks for your comments!

--

EDIT: Upon some cursory research I still am not sure I can agree with your assessment.

--

[1] Bill of Rights : 1689

[2] United Kingdom : 1707

[3] Civil Liberties in UK : (various dates)

[4] Magna Carta : 1215

[5] Parliamentary Privilege

--

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Kingdom_of_Grea...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties_in_the_United_...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#139

Post by anamax »

WRT "political speech on private property" (Yes, US-specific.)

From https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-s...

"In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that California could interpret its state constitution to protect political protesters from being evicted from private property, held open to the public, without running afoul of the Fifth Amendment. In this case, the California court went beyond the federal rule and held that, under the California constitution, a shopping mall owner could not exclude a group of high school students who were engaged in political advocacy. The state court decision has been adopted in one form or another by a substantial minority of states."

Re: UK MP speech about freedoms censored by YouTube

#140

Post by ghoward »

jf22 wrote: post #136
ghoward wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ok, has any group been persecuted?

There's plenty of evidence from history that if a group is censored, it is persecuted thereafter.

The evidence does not need to be from now.

Post reply on HN