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

YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

tampafp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 872 posts

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#121

Post by jorgesborges »

slg wrote: post #88
jorgesborges wrote: post #22

I’m becoming more convinced that the future I’ve been planning simply won’t be possible in the decades to come. The world is scarcely recognizable. And having experienced nothing but peace and prosperity makes me feel woefully unprepared. The WEIRD world is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. I’m already detached from real conflict and scarcity, knowing nothing but peace and prosperity, and the TikTok generatio…

I always enjoy a well crafted comment like this in which the reader can't tell if the "authoritarianism" you are decrying is the former president trying to circumvent democracy or the censorship of people who are spreading that message. It allows you to collect upvotes from people on both sides thinking you are accusing the other of authoritarianism.

Thank you. The ambiguity really reflects my own feelings though. I feel uncertain and precarious, like many people regardless of where I sit on any issue, and this divisiveness is exacerbating everything which is part of my point.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#122

Post by will4274 »

vkou wrote: post #94
will4274 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the anti Vietnam war movement blew up a bomb in the Senate mail room in the Capitol on two separate occasions (and got a pardon from Bill Clinton 30 years later). Is storming worse than bombing?

I would like to remind you that the anti-Vietnam war movement at Kent State[1] was literally machine-gunned by the army. It was a bit of a different time. But maybe not that different. [1] https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/kent-state-shooti...

No doubt. And perhaps Vietnam was a more just cause.

I do get a bit sick of all this talk of "unprecedented". Of course, if you define an event precisely enough, everything is unprecedented, but a violent riot at the seat of government of a democratic country is hardly that unusual at the end of the day - we see a couple such riots every decade.

I think these folks rioted for a bad reason - I don't believe the election was stolen - but the lack of nuance and historical perspective in the media is certainly frustrating.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#123

Post by guelo »

innocentoldguy wrote: post #98
kemiller wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decision was dodgy. Trump is willing to burn down the institutions if it gives him an edge. The danger from the Trump narrative is not that die-hards are still grumbling, it's that the candidate doesn't seem to care about anything beyond his own interests.

That’s not how I remember it. Gore whined incessantly about “hanging chads” until he was forced to step aside by the Supreme Court.

Right. Once the case was over he stepped aside instead of trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#124

Post by newsclues »

xiphias2 wrote: post #37
jorgesborges wrote: post #22

I’m becoming more convinced that the future I’ve been planning simply won’t be possible in the decades to come. The world is scarcely recognizable. And having experienced nothing but peace and prosperity makes me feel woefully unprepared. The WEIRD world is becoming increasingly more authoritarian. I’m already detached from real conflict and scarcity, knowing nothing but peace and prosperity, and the TikTok generatio…

Meming about and being afraid of WW3 is critical in containing/deescalating it. WW1 happened partly because nobody was afraid of it happenning.

I’d say joining the army or building a factory that can crank out precision guided munitions is better to contain the threat of war than cooking up some spicy memes.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#125

Post by [deleted] »

innocentoldguy wrote: post #98
kemiller wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decision was dodgy. Trump is willing to burn down the institutions if it gives him an edge. The danger from the Trump narrative is not that die-hards are still grumbling, it's that the candidate doesn't seem to care about anything beyond his own interests.

That’s not how I remember it. Gore whined incessantly about “hanging chads” until he was forced to step aside by the Supreme Court.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#126

Post by bckr »

oliveroak wrote: post #13
freedomben wrote: post #7

One of the hosts wrote this about it [1]: particularly appropriate quote: > What casual observers might not understand, however, is just how far the policy goes. Not only does YouTube punish channels that spread misinformation, but in many cases, it also punishes channels that report on the spread of misinformation. The platform makes no distinction between the speaker and the content creator. If a channel produces a…

why don't they build their own platform? youtube can do what they want on their website.

I agree with this sentiment, although I agree it's stupid that The Hill was suspended.

If anyone wants to give a reason why these arguments are always about freedom of speech VS censorship, instead of being about private property + free markets, please I'm open to this.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#128

Post by giaour »

innocentoldguy wrote: post #98
kemiller wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference: in Bush v. Gore, Gore stepped aside for the good of the country, choosing to respect the institution of the courts even if the decision was dodgy. Trump is willing to burn down the institutions if it gives him an edge. The danger from the Trump narrative is not that die-hards are still grumbling, it's that the candidate doesn't seem to care about anything beyond his own interests.

That’s not how I remember it. Gore whined incessantly about “hanging chads” until he was forced to step aside by the Supreme Court.

That's funny, I remember Roger Stone staging fake protests to stop court-ordered recounts until the Bush team ran out the clock. Guess memory is a fickle thing!

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#129

Post by weaksauce »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #95
hobs wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that with Bush you have hanging chads and a court decision that after the votes were counted would have probably come out differently, and a concerted political effort to turn that to their advantage. The republican party just literally spent months on questioning the election in places like Arizona with no evidence of any fraud, and there's plenty of documentation on how (almost always republican)…

Nope. They finished the recounts. Three times. None of them came out in Gore's favor.

The state in which they recounted was the state where his brother was the governor.
Post reply on HN