Live data from Hacker News

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

201–210 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#201

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 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…

Believing that shutting down "bad" speech will help things is also simplistic and seductive.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is racism equivalent to fat shaming now?

I suppose it would depend on what you mean by equivalent. It seems plausible that they stem from the same or similar social, psychological, and/or moral defects.

Most stems from ignorance. Of which education and constructive debate style education are the best solutions and what you have left, that is the pure hate that need more than blocking in society.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#203

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…

What you are missing is the bad, immoral and harmful ideas that perpetuate themselves by virtue of being proclaimed true by the authorities. Every totalitarian regime out there perpetuates a set of such 'official truths', that are painfully and obviously untrue to the subjects, but have to be aquiesced to.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#204
post #82

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…

COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Some people, after being exposed to misi…

Do you have evidence that censorship wins over lies? Considering that one of the most fundamental and important US laws is freedom of speech, it behooves you to prove that censorship works, not that free speech works.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#205
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Some people, after being exposed to misi…

"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well.

Are you saying that the truth is "Covid-19 is caused by 5-g towers"?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#206
post #125

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…

The first amendment is about the government. Your speech is not illegal. The government cannot persecute you for your opinion or beliefs. It has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to be heard on the internet.

> The government cannot persecute you for your opinion or beliefs.

United States v. O’Brien?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien

Edward Snowden?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#207
post #179
post #164

I'm not going to shed a tear for David Icke, but this quote is very concerning: > YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and the NHS [the U.K's healthcare system] [emphasis added] The WHO at least has been flat out wrong several times during this pandemic, such as telling people not to wear masks.…

Do you have a standard in mind that's better than the WHO? Would you prefer content prohibited on the basis of whether it sounds right or wrong to a random Google employee?

I would prefer content not to be prohibited at all. Content is not a problem. Actions are a problem. Watch all the videos you like telling you to burn down a cell tower. Once you do burn down a cell tower, then you go to jail. Perhaps we should also then hold the people telling people to burn down cell towers responsible, criminally and civilly, for the people who listen to them.

David Icke might not be so cavalier about telling people to burn down cell towers if he could be sued and/or jailed after people took him up on it.

As a general principle, I think we should focus on actual consequences, not imagined, potential consequences.

This has the effect of also encouraging useful dissent. If you disagree with WHO and you turn out to be right, you can be properly credited with it. You are not automatically punished for the crime of daring to disagree with the WHO, and we all benefit from having more accurate, useful information.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#208
post #179
post #164

I'm not going to shed a tear for David Icke, but this quote is very concerning: > YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO [World Health Organization] and the NHS [the U.K's healthcare system] [emphasis added] The WHO at least has been flat out wrong several times during this pandemic, such as telling people not to wear masks.…

Do you have a standard in mind that's better than the WHO? Would you prefer content prohibited on the basis of whether it sounds right or wrong to a random Google employee?

No, there should not be a standard of truth, that's the point. It's a market place of free ideas.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#209

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…

There's even a saying for this: "A lie can travel half-way around the globe before the truth gets done putting its shoes on."

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#210
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad. Stipulating that you're correct in your assessment: * the opportunity to drive trucks through and over the holes in the reasoning and teach people something through a "Stuff David Icke Says" parody channel is snuffed. * Icke gets to assume a martyr pose. * YouTube looks a trifle authoritarian. The truth doesn't have to resort to heavy-handedness to prevail. Newton's Third Law applies (in a social way) in these f…

> the opportunity to drive trucks through and over the holes in the reasoning and teach people something through a "Stuff David Icke Says" parody channel is snuffed. I wish reasoning worked. I know people who follow nut jobs like Icke, are anti-vaxxer, think COVID is 'just a cold', etc... and no amount of reasoning or data will change their minds.

Persuasion isn't easy. There are those who adhere to ideas that have endless historical wreckage piled up beneath them.
Post reply on HN