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

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#211

Post by Mirioron » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:20 AM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #133

YarickR2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, yes, those lunatics claiming Earth is circling the Sun, and claiming thousands of worlds are out there, similar to our God-chosen . Heretics, society is better without them spreading their nonsense ; deny them their voice, or burn them at stake

Could you explain the argument that you are trying to make? I'm not sure how scientifically confirmed theories are equivalent to, in many cases overtly disproven, conspiracy theories.

When you say something that is inconvenient to those in power then one way for them to deal with is to label you as a conspiracy theorist. These confirmed scientific theories weren't always confirmed and there was a time when they were quite inconvenient to those in power (the church). The parent poster is making the argument that it's easy to label true information as a conspiracy theory too. Even to this day there are many people who think evolution is a lie. What do you think it was like when Darwin was alive? Now think about the fact that many people have been killed because they were accused of practicing witchcraft.

Yeah, I'll take 9/11 truthers over that.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#212

Post by longtom » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:20 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: 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.…

The WHO seems to have been embarrassingly wrong or overconfident on many accounts:

1. Global air travel does not need to be stopped.

2. There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission.

3. There is still a "window of opportunity".

4. Masks don't work (but health workers need them!).

5. The CFR is like 4%.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#213

Post by mrfusion » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:20 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #170

kiba wrote: 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…

> Some people, after being exposed to misinformation, chose to believe them. Some people, after being given the opportunity to gamble, choose to place a bet, even when it has a negative expected value. Should Nevada ban blackjack? Some people, after being given the opportunity to buy insurance, choose to buy insurance, even when it has a negative expected value. Should we ban insurance? If not, what about credit defa…

As an example of your point. At some point in the past the censors would have gotten the truth wrong on the cancer/smoking connection. Believe it or not, that began as a fringe belief.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#214

Post by Talanes » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:21 AM UTC

olliej wrote: post #79

dvt wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be careful with dismissing the giants whose shoulders we straddle. If it weren't for the Magna Carta, the French and American Revolutions, and the Declaration of Independence, most of us would still be living under despotic rule.

The manga carts basically gave power to landlords, the American revolution protected slavery, the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated the slaves were not people. No one should be beholden to the “giants whose shoulders we straddle”. Note that that phrase is actually applied to scientists who developed evidence based theories rather than old “pure thought” silliness. As far as despotic rule - England had an…

> the Declaration of Independence explicitly stated the slaves were not people.

That is categorically not true. It said some problematic things about Native Americans for sure, but they could never have gotten away with pro-slavery language in the Declaration. It's a propaganda document that had to unite wide swaths of revolutionary ideologies; abolitionists included.

I assume that you are actually thinking of the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution, which is still more complicated than just "saying slaves aren't people." Counting slaves as people was the slave-owner position, because being counted wasn't about rights or freedom, it was about State power. It was the abolitionist arguing that slaves shouldn't count as people, not to de-humanize them, but to keep the slave-owners from being able to have it both ways.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#215

Post by throwaway122378 » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

cmckn wrote: post #125

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…

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.

Corporations should not be allowed to persecute based on option or beliefs either. Corporations already cant persecute based on sex, race, religion, orientation or age. Why should beliefs be any different?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#216

Post by Zenst » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:22 AM UTC

hyperbovine wrote: post #92

bcoates wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As everyone knows, nobody propagated strange conspiracy theories before the invention of YouTube and Twitter.

Perhaps you are genuinely not old enough to remember a time before YouTube and Twitter, but there were way fewer conspiracy theories floating around, and they didn't have nearly the social impact that they do today. A coordinated misinformation campaign could never have swayed elections in the US and UK before social media. Why? Because there were institutions in place that acted as a filter. Say what you will about…

Yes the media has many ways of getting wacky stories out there.

One of the old favorites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport Still didn't stop some people believing it completely though, human nature.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#217

Post by brandonmenc » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:22 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…

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

We set a number. Done.

These are corporations that only exist because we permit them to. Given enough political will, we can regulate them however we want.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#218

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

ryankemper wrote: post #151

DonHopkins wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit. And the Constitution decides that the truth is that the First Amendment doesn't apply to YouTube. That's an objective truth you seem to be unaware of.

I consider your statement to really be saying the following: "According to myself, YouTube is perfectly capable of objectively and correctly deciding that David Icke is full of shit."

The idea that in some cases we do not know what is true is valid. The idea that therefore we can never determine what is true and therefore must, in the name of "free speech" support and help anyone say anything is not.

David Icke is not spreading information. He's spreading nonsense about lizard people. That's objectively true.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#219

Post by longtom » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #208

knzhou wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But then we'd learn about all those oligarchs, abuses of the system, tax evasion, astroturfing, propaganda, opposition gate-keepers, distractions, fake conspiracies etc. ;)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#220

Post by knzhou » Mon, May 04, 2020, 1:23 AM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #194

kiba wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. I guess we should let anti-vaxers spread disinformation causing a whole bunch of people dying unnecessarily because people believed it.

I agree anti Vaxers are ridiculous. But just to play devils advocate. What if there ever was a dangerous vaccine out there, wouldn’t we want people to be able to speak out? Honestly I don’t have any solutions. I don’t like either option.

There indeed were a few dangerous vaccines, about three generations ago. That's exactly why we have the elaborate clinical trial system today: they stop potentially unsafe vaccines all the time. A large fraction of the COVID vaccines might go this way. Nobody is against banning unsafe vaccines, but some are for banning people from spreading baseless, conspiratorial anti-vax bullshit.