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

Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

worldofreel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#31

Post by bardc »

dswt_mq wrote: post #30

a) this is not censorship, yt is a corporation and not government b) it is Russian propaganda (if you dare, watch it and compare facts, one for all: Babn Yar masacre) c) Oliver stone is producer, but definitelly not a journalist; facts are bend to fit needs Overall review: if you love totalitarian systems, it will be your coup of cofee. If you love to study propaganda, this is masterpiece to watch. If you are a perso…

Ok. The thing is that dominant social networks (including HN) have been censoring dissent points of view to Bidden's handling of Ukraine's problem. This video may have several truths in it or may be none, but if you are going to disqualify it. You have to give evidence that what is said is incorrect, incomplete biased, etc...Otherwise the one buying propaganda is you...

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#32

Post by artem247 »

JekLod10 wrote: post #9
NoPie wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's anti-Ukraine propaganda. It is not banned on youtube either. It is just that certain people want to amplify this signal.

Is this too anti-Ukraine propaganda: The U.S. House of Representatives has admitted an ugly truth that the U.S. mainstream media has tried to hide from the American people: that the post-coup regime in Ukraine has relied heavily on Nazi storm troopers to carry out its bloody war against ethnic Russians, reports Robert Parry. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/06/robert-parry-when-us-h...

No post body was provided.

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#33

Post by throwoutway »

rsynnott wrote: post #28
random_upvoter wrote: post #27

So at what point does the level of censorship become comparable to that of the dictatorships that we busily decry? If anything we are doing a better job at it. It's scary how commonly this has become accepted, all for the greater good of the stupid masses apparently.

A private company elected not to carry pro-Russian propaganda during a brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's... very different to state censorship.

Is it pro-Russian? I haven’t watched it.. and now I can’t watch it. I just have to take YouTube’s word for it that I’m not old enough to watch and never will be.

Disregarding this video however, I guess “private company sponsored censorship” is the vogue for capitalist governments

While “state sponsored censorship” is vogue for authoritarian governments

One is outsourced, but the result is much the same. I’m sad that people on HN are constantly cheering one form of censorship when they should recognize the third order effects

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#34

Post by aww_dang »

throwoutway wrote: post #33
rsynnott wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A private company elected not to carry pro-Russian propaganda during a brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's... very different to state censorship.

Is it pro-Russian? I haven’t watched it.. and now I can’t watch it. I just have to take YouTube’s word for it that I’m not old enough to watch and never will be. Disregarding this video however, I guess “private company sponsored censorship” is the vogue for capitalist governments While “state sponsored censorship” is vogue for authoritarian governments One is outsourced, but the result is much the same. I’m sad that…

In many cases the censorship is at the behest of the state institutions. Of course, there isn't a requirement for it to be disclosed as such.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#35

Post by disambiguation »

rsynnott wrote: post #28
random_upvoter wrote: post #27

So at what point does the level of censorship become comparable to that of the dictatorships that we busily decry? If anything we are doing a better job at it. It's scary how commonly this has become accepted, all for the greater good of the stupid masses apparently.

A private company elected not to carry pro-Russian propaganda during a brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's... very different to state censorship.

This is disingenuous, the "state" is still at the center of it.

Consider how Google was happy to censor when it came to doing business in China. Is that just a "private" company making "private" decisions?

It's similar in the US. Consider the 2020 big tech antitrust congressional hearings.

Congress can go after big-tech anytime it wants.

Likewise if big-tech wants to successfully lobby for favorable policies, then they'll want to stay in the governments good graces.

This is the "carrot and the stick" of how our country projects power domestically. Its through soft influence of industry.

We did the same during Covid times. We were never able to federally mandate the vaccine, but we got all our big companies to do so, which is just as good from a policy standpoint.

Google / Youtube would probably piss off a lot of people in washington if they didn't censor these videos.

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#36

Post by Mountain_Skies »

throwoutway wrote: post #33
rsynnott wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A private company elected not to carry pro-Russian propaganda during a brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's... very different to state censorship.

Is it pro-Russian? I haven’t watched it.. and now I can’t watch it. I just have to take YouTube’s word for it that I’m not old enough to watch and never will be. Disregarding this video however, I guess “private company sponsored censorship” is the vogue for capitalist governments While “state sponsored censorship” is vogue for authoritarian governments One is outsourced, but the result is much the same. I’m sad that…

A lot of HN dreams of getting to be the censor and given the makeup of the audience here, many will, if they aren't already. What I don't understand is the arrogance in believing the choices of what to censor will always be their choice or inline with what their ideology drives them to censor. Power has a way of shifting quickly and dramatically. Those helping to lace up the boots on someone else's neck often find that same boot on their neck not long after.

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#37

Post by cyclohexanol »

p_l wrote: post #12
cyclohexanol wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

Consider the list of people interviewed about Revolution of Dignity - Vladimir Putin, Viktor Yanukovych (Putin's stooge, who was supposed to win election through electoral meddling and hacking which failed spectacularly live on stage ), concentrating the idea of Ukrainian nationalism to start with Cossacks instead of Kievan Rus (a "viking" state centered around Kyiv, the other "viking" state being Novgorod of old). A…

[flagged]

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#38

Post by graderjs »

disambiguation wrote: post #35
rsynnott wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A private company elected not to carry pro-Russian propaganda during a brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's... very different to state censorship.

This is disingenuous, the "state" is still at the center of it. Consider how Google was happy to censor when it came to doing business in China. Is that just a "private" company making "private" decisions? It's similar in the US. Consider the 2020 big tech antitrust congressional hearings. Congress can go after big-tech anytime it wants. Likewise if big-tech wants to successfully lobby for favorable policies, then th…

CIA is basically an "economic interests" vector, right? This really meshes, your statement about using the big corporates as state instruments on the sly. (I guess that's not all that different to Chinese 'state owned' enterprises. They're just more overt. West operates more covert and deceptive. A continuation of a trend, heh :))

What's your thinking about the second-order effects, larger ramifications of this?

Re: Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine Documentary Banned on YouTube

#39

Post by disambiguation »

graderjs wrote: post #38
disambiguation wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is disingenuous, the "state" is still at the center of it. Consider how Google was happy to censor when it came to doing business in China. Is that just a "private" company making "private" decisions? It's similar in the US. Consider the 2020 big tech antitrust congressional hearings. Congress can go after big-tech anytime it wants. Likewise if big-tech wants to successfully lobby for favorable policies, then th…

CIA is basically an "economic interests" vector, right? This really meshes, your statement about using the big corporates as state instruments on the sly. (I guess that's not all that different to Chinese 'state owned' enterprises. They're just more overt. West operates more covert and deceptive. A continuation of a trend, heh :)) What's your thinking about the second-order effects, larger ramifications of this?

Hard to say. Probably further erosion of individualism in the west. Foreign interference will be used as a pretext to railroad policies like digital currency, digital ID, etc. This is of course a slippery slope to the China model of mass surveillance and social credit scores.

How this mixes with the constitution and western values is uncertain. You can still have free speech and human rights in such a system, its just that much more fragile.

That, or foreign interference prevails and our enemies trick us into civil war and we destroy ourselves that way.

Post reply on HN