YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#181

Post by 2019-nCoV » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:12 AM UTC

stevebmark wrote: post #171

ryankemper wrote: post #46

I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…

> I believe in shining a light on them I hear this a lot. Light is the best disinfectant. What evidence do you have for this? I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea die out when more people learn about it and scrutinize it. However, I have repeatedly seen the opposite: Sharing bad ideas increases their audience, increases ignorance, hate, fear, and human suffering. You're looking at an article describing th…

> I've never seen a bad or immoral or harmful idea die out when more people learn about it and scrutinize it.

Communism.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#182

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:12 AM UTC

jfnixon wrote: post #150

techsupporter wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking The problem is you’ve just said you won’t address the primary, most compelling reason to take these actions. Assuming that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contempla…

Therefore we should let those with power choose what everyone can say and hear? Sorry, I'm not following.

Here's a question for you: Do you believe HN has an obligation to allow anything to be posted here?

If someone wanted to post about how much they hate a certain race, do you believe the moderators here have an obligation to allow that post to remain?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#183

Post by no_wizard » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:12 AM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #97

ryankemper wrote: post #46

I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…

Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. The reason I say this is that, if a small number of entities control the flow of information, and they get away with picking and choosing who has the opportunity to be heard, then the first amendment is effectively made meaningless. I want to be able to choose what comments to allow on my block and, at the same time, I w…

How do you, though, actually decide in a reasonable and objective fashion who’s big enough to warrant being held to a different standard than others?

How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious

Look at the rise of tiktok. On one hand at least where I live they had almost no mindshare but in the past 2 months now they do, and they’re growing in user count. Should they meet the same threshold as YouTube now? Instagram?

This feels intractable to me, I don’t have a good answer to this problem. Not to mention it could easily become a gating mechanism to competition

Also, how do you determine what information is harmful? Some of it feels obvious, but some of it not so much

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#184

Post by smitty1e » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

all2 wrote: post #64

luckydata wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deplatforming works, that's proven. The truth is more fragile than you think.

It has worked well in every fascist/despotic state that has implemented it. Free speech, even outright lies, racism, etc. must necessarily exist in the public forum if a society is to remain free. For now, the silencing is "friendly" in that it only destroys livelihoods. If we allow it to become a norm then how long will it take a populous - now so used to being silenced - to agree to let the government silence the "…

> every fascist/despotic state that has implemented it

"For a while," said pretty much every such outfit.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#185

Post by ravenstine » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #143

ravenstine wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree. Yet when a platform like YouTube deletes accounts and publicly announces the censoring of information that doesn't conform with the Ministry of Information(aka the World Health Organization), there's no mystery that they're violating people's rights.

Not promoting the video in their algorithm would basically accomplish the same functional difference as censorship. Ditto for any platforms that can demote content from their ranking.

Like I said, I [mostly] agree. However, there's precedence that publishers be free to pick and choose the content that they publish. Even if it isn't fair, this is a concept that's already existed at various scales for hundreds of years. To single out YouTube for censorship-by-curation would be much more difficult than to guard against them for blatant abuses.

I'll give you an analogy. In America, businesses can't pick and choose people on the basis of their skin color or their sex. Obviously, discrimination in hiring still exists to some degree, but because it's covert or the result of implicit biases, there's a limited number of things you can do to address that discrimination. On the other hand, if the PR for a fast food chain goes on TV and says that the company only hires white people, that's unambiguous and has no conflict with the rights of the corporation.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#186

Post by runawaybottle » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

If Youtube really believes this is the right course of action, why doesn’t it’s sister company Google remove those items from search as well? If this is really a principled action, then let’s see some follow through.

They’d never do that because that is the very definition of internet censorship as we know it today.

That’s how close Youtube is with this dangerous game.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#187

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:14 AM UTC

wnoise wrote: post #77

rajup wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not censorship by any means; YouTube isn't the government. David Icke and his ilk should feel free to take their lunatic fringe theories to the lunatic fringe corners of the Internet like Breitbart etc. They won't be "censored" there.

Wherever did people get the idea that the only form of censorship is governmental?

If someone is putting signs on your lawn, you're censoring them by removing those signs.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#188

Post by wnoise » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:14 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #144

wnoise wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wherever did people get the idea that the only form of censorship is governmental?

It's quite literally in the definition of censorship, and has been since its origination in Ancient Rome. More importantly, the restriction on censorship has been tied to government action since it was first enshrined in the First Amendment. A private party can choose not to spread the content of a third party. That is not censorship. That is one party choosing not to spend their own resources to further the interest…

Ah, the etymological fallacy. Certainly the office of censor started in ancient Rome. However there have been plenty of other censors throughout history, and many that currently exist.

Consider: 1. The Catholic Church's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum 2. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority 3. The Hays code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Standards_and_Practi...

None of them are governmental. All exist to police speech.

In general, merely declining to publish something should probably not be called censorship. It is indeed a fine line between maintaining editorial control and suppressing speech. However, when one publishes just about everything, but excepts certain viewpoints with the explicit goal of suppressing them, the term starts to fit a lot better.

Is any of this against the First amendment? Of course not. But it's still clearly censorship.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#189

Post by ryankemper » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:14 AM UTC

afrcnc wrote: post #104

ryankemper wrote: post #46

I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…

There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. You're entering propaganda territory.

Are you saying that I am entering propaganda territory, or instead that David Icke is/was? The meaning is not clear to me, although I assume you are referring to myself.

Again, the distinction here is that I don't think being wrong (even if you think it's intentional) is something we should try to suppress. And the reason I think that is because right/wrong is ultimately a value judgement, and thus opens the door for equally flawed individuals to castigate a viewpoint as false while conversely spreading their own falsehoods (which they themselves view as truth).

As far as advertising revenue is concerned, I understand that business incentive. So, if they want to use Reddit's quarantine concept - or even boot them off their platform as they are doing now - they're free to do so, but I don't think that it's the _right_ thing to do.

In other words, we can agree that a business is acting in its own self-interest and thus would want to get rid of these types of people. I believe that they have the legal authority to do so, as well as all the incentives. But where I don't agree is that I don't cheer them on when they do it. Rather I think it's very dangerous.

So in other words, I suspect the difference between our beliefs here is that you are cheering on YouTube for doing this. You're (correctly) seeing that David Icke is a total fucking wacko and saying to yourself "good riddance". I certainly understand that inclination. I just don't believe in it myself, for the reasons that I've outlined. (I hope I haven't mischaracterized you there - sorry if I did)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#190

Post by ravenstine » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:15 AM UTC

no_wizard wrote: post #183

ravenstine wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. The reason I say this is that, if a small number of entities control the flow of information, and they get away with picking and choosing who has the opportunity to be heard, then the first amendment is effectively made meaningless. I want to be able to choose what comments to allow on my block and, at the same time, I w…

How do you, though, actually decide in a reasonable and objective fashion who’s big enough to warrant being held to a different standard than others? How do you really quantify that in a way that is objective and obvious Look at the rise of tiktok. On one hand at least where I live they had almost no mindshare but in the past 2 months now they do, and they’re growing in user count. Should they meet the same threshold…

I was hoping someone would ask that.

I don't actually know. At some point, we need to figure out how to address that question. I think it can be addressed... I just don't have a good idea, and I don't know that anyone does. But we've been kicking that can down the road for ages.