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

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#201

Post by greatgirl »

sn41 wrote: post #194
greatgirl wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberals own the media companies that are doing the banning. The government has no role in this. My claim is that if you don't like what the companies are doing, you don't like free markets. If you don't like that the government can change every 2 years, you don't like how American government works. Both of these are the smart opinions to hold.

My point was that it is reasonable to be moderate in applying policy. When did I attack free markets or the democracy? Perhaps I am not as smart as you are, but please do not insult.

I am not insulting you, and I think you are smart. I'm saying that it's unreasonable to expect that banning people is a slippery slope unless you already think corporations and government have too much power, in which case the conversation becomes something entirely different and unbanning these people is not going to solve anything.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#202

Post by LimaBearz »

clarkmoody wrote: post #150

> At some point the lies need to stop. It's politics. Everything is lies.

Yeah but this one wasn’t about telling your partner they look good in that shirt.

We are talking about rhetoric that lead to an insurrection on the Capitol and the death of 5 Americans.

I don’t quite understand why every one of these events devolve into high reductive free speech or slippery slope arguments. What is going to take for the people start accepting some personal responsibility?

From where I sit I see a group of people not accepting responsibility for some truly heinous acts perpetrated by their own “tribe” (for lack of a better word), so others are coming in and cleaning up their mess.

If that’s unacceptable or don’t like how it’s being done, then perhaps the most disarming thing would be to accept some personal responsibility, grab a mop and start cleaning your room.. not “it was the Democrats fault” has Rudy put it

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#203

Post by theoka »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #68

The only reason tech companies are doing this is because the democrats have a trifecta and they want to be in their good graces in order to avoid regulation. It's not about decency, it's about power.

I'm less interested in whether that's true and more interested in the fact that a broader demographic of people now actually care about the soft power inherent in a private social media company that is the sole medium through which millions of people communicate their politics and receive the information and influence that helps form their beliefs.

I was just out of high school during the Snowden leaks and have watched Americans who were at that time indifferent or considered him a traitor continue to spend time on these platforms over the years. The outrage then seems to have existed almost exclusively amongst the paranoid and those who have considered the effects of individual privacy in a democracy. This was always bound to happen, and it seems internally inconsistent to me in a capitalist free market for any individual to only now (post 2016) hold these companies accountable for perceived infringements if that same individual has up until now continued to use these platforms despite the public knowledge.

Put another way, if America's culture of public discourse had been of a higher quality back then, and our political apathy lower, this would not be such a surprise to as many people. It probably would be a non-issue, because we would have utilized any number of other readily available technologies for organization and communication to replace the products built by companies that exist strictly to create revenue for their stakeholders.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#204

Post by grzm »

tptacek wrote: post #181

I think we can't reasonably be doing front page stories every time one of these things gets reported. It's going to keep happening. Different people have different feelings about that, but we've had thousands of front-page-thread comments on much more important stories than Bannon's dumb podcast channel. At some point we should just refer back to those threads. I don't need to see Bannon's culpability litigated on HN…

I agree, if for no other reason than the repetition is boring. I don't see how members will stop submitting articles like this on their own: for some it seems to be a cottage industry to submit every piece they come across. How do you suggest HN address the concerns of members who consider moderating/curating/down-weighting such repeated submissions guilty of suppressing free speech and censorship? Particularly now, it would be perceived (as evidenced by so many comments) as part of the SV/Big Tech conspiracy to silence dissent.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#205

Post by methinkso »

csa wrote: post #18
tpmx wrote: post #2

I'm not even in the US, but all of this banning makes me really curious about what's being banned and why. Something that some of you may have missed: This banning thing already moved into the infrastructure/cloud services layer (AWS): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959

[Note: Trying to present this as factually as possible.] According to what the companies say: - The President incited some people last week to engage in violent behavior at and towards Congress. - There is evidence that further violence is being planned via a variety of platforms. - The platforms are attempting to limit their exposure to facilitating such actions. Some people think that the companies have ulterior mo…

The right to violent opposition to government is protected in the constitution isn't it? So more accurately were saying we can ban opposition we don't like.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#206

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

disown wrote: post #19
tpmx wrote: post #2

I'm not even in the US, but all of this banning makes me really curious about what's being banned and why. Something that some of you may have missed: This banning thing already moved into the infrastructure/cloud services layer (AWS): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25707959

A stronger element of the power structure is silencing another. It's simple as that. Look at the relentless pro-censorship brigading on most social media. Lots of money, power and influence is being applied here. If this was china or russia, we'd call it a soft "purge". They'd call it promoting "harmony" or "protecting the people". Not sure what we are going to call it. Seems like whatever battle Trump and his factio…

It's neither brigading nor a broad new historical trend. A lot of people (myself included) simply see this as an emergency situation requiring extraordinary measures, and are okay with censorship of the Trump campaign even though we're anti-censorship in general. If it were Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, or even 2019 Donald Trump getting deplatformed like this, I'd be strongly opposed.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#207

Post by AnthonyMouse »

creato wrote: post #143
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most interesting things cable news networks do is compile clips of their competitors caught in acts of hypocrisy, self-contradiction, breathless hyperbole and blatant lying. They can all do this to each other because they are all guilty of it. Cable news is a tower of partisan propaganda.

Social media has the exact same problem magnified 100 fold, because there is so much more content to cherrypick from. People only see the actions of extremists and attribute that behavior to everyone that doesn't agree with them. Traditional media definitely has flaws, but rejecting them in favor of social media because of it is an absurd and incredibly destructive reaction.

This is not (as) true of most other traditional media, e.g. local newspapers to the extent that they still exist. But cable news really is propaganda. Fox used to be the worst offender, but now they're all that bad, though playing for different teams of course.

There seems to be some kind of law that the larger a media outlet is, the more partisan it gets. Which is why social media is like the Exxon Valdez crashed into Deepwater Horizon and caught on fire.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#208

Post by [deleted] »

TheOperator wrote: post #195
tptacek wrote: post #181

I think we can't reasonably be doing front page stories every time one of these things gets reported. It's going to keep happening. Different people have different feelings about that, but we've had thousands of front-page-thread comments on much more important stories than Bannon's dumb podcast channel. At some point we should just refer back to those threads. I don't need to see Bannon's culpability litigated on HN…

The story has nothing to do with Steve Bannon's podcast channel and everything to do with the sea change in how social media moderation policy is being interpreted and enforced.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#209

Post by joverholt »

vehemenz wrote: post #157
Darmody wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? What about CNN? They are as biased as Fox News.

Preposterous. CNN is not as biased as Fox News. Where does this narrative come from? After 9/11, I don't remember CNN becoming the propaganda machine for a political party courting religious zealots and xenophobic "patriots" while sliding into its own editorial extremism. Even if CNN were as biased as Fox News, the problems would not end there. Fox News peddles misinformation, disinformation, white nationalism, resen…

Do you watch CNN? For about 2 years they had cnn playing on a tv near the break room, so as I refilled my water bottle, I got to see what cnn thought was the most important (Trump) news.

They spent a week on how much diet soda he drank. They had experts on saying why it could cause mental problems and that they should use the 25th on him.

They spent several days when he had 2 scoops of ice cream at a White House dinner, while his guests only got one scoop. I wish I was joking about this, but I am not. I sometimes wonder what Wolf Blitzer thinks as he’s commenting on some of these stories. Such a name, wasted.

Those are the two most comical, but the scary thing is all news is biased. Two sides of the same coin. If you don’t think so, I suggest you search out other sources. Why wouldn’t they be biased? News today is about making money, and cnn and others cashed in on the hate for trump.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#210

Post by [deleted] »

TheOperator wrote: post #195
tptacek wrote: post #181

I think we can't reasonably be doing front page stories every time one of these things gets reported. It's going to keep happening. Different people have different feelings about that, but we've had thousands of front-page-thread comments on much more important stories than Bannon's dumb podcast channel. At some point we should just refer back to those threads. I don't need to see Bannon's culpability litigated on HN…

The story has nothing to do with Steve Bannon's podcast channel and everything to do with the sea change in how social media moderation policy is being interpreted and enforced.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN