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

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#241

Post by DuskStar »

catalogia wrote: post #196
stevebmark wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hear this a lot. Light is the best disinfectant. What evidence do you have for this? The propensity of totalitarian governments to censor dissidents is proof of it.

Ah, but it's not bad when we're censoring the wrong opinions, don't you see?

/s if it wasn't obvious.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#242

Post by klyrs »

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…

Please consider the following situation.

1. Government passes law that websites that get a million eyeballs a day and display user-generated content are forbidden from curating the content on their site.

2. Government produces propaganda, or through some legal indirections, arranges the production of propaganda.

3. Producers of above propaganda publishes or arranges astroturfing of the propaganda onto every large platform.

So this is a situation where the government has the power to dictate speech of private parties. Is that seen as a positive outcome by free speech advocates?

And what happens when the government lowers the bar? With precedent set that the government has the right to halt censorship by private parties, will they stop at a million views per day? Will they expand to things such as messaging services?

And what will happen to spam content? After a website crosses the million views threshold, must its genuine content be diluted into oblivion?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#244

Post by ravenstine »

mrfusion wrote: post #200
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…

It’s kind of the same argument for your water company. There’s only one company in town, are they allowed to deny you water service without some sort of published process with oversight?

If they did so unfairly, there'd be hell for them to pay.

As you say, they are fundamentally the same argument, except for one thing.

A water company that decided to cut off water to people that its CEO doesn't like would, in short order, have to face both political scrutiny and the proverbial torches and pitchforks, if you will; unlike speech, if the water goes away, people start dying or they are forced to leave.

Speech is necessary, but it's cheap as dirt, and most people don't have a lot to say in the first place. If the speech started going away, even in ways that are fundamentally unfair or flaunt the ideals of the country, not enough people would make a fuss about it. You won't die without speech. It can be comfortable to live without speech, or freedom of speech, anyway.

Otherwise, the argument is the same and, in either case, regulation and the pissed-offedness of the little guy could change the outcome. Such is less likely in the case of speech.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#245

Post by throwaway2048 »

ryankemper wrote: post #189
afrcnc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you believe that YouTube has an obligation to publish objective, demonstrable lies that harm people?

What about cryptocurrency scams, what about media co-coordinating assassinations of targets they don't like?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#246

Post by 6nf »

knzhou wrote: post #179
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.…

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?

Nobody should be above scrutiny, that's the point!

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#247

Post by steveeq1 »

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…

So you already do things like this for, say, rap music. Right?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#248

Post by runawaybottle »

Talanes wrote: post #237
runawaybottle wrote: post #186

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.

You see no difference in their role as a content-host and a content-aggregator?

Why would a content aggregator allow disinformation on their site during a global pandemic?

And now we enter the semantics game.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#249

Post by at_a_remove »

imode wrote: post #30

I see a lot of people not wanting to offer alternative solutions to the treatment of this particular individual's content: if you're not in favor of removal, then what? This content can't be allowed to stand as-is. I'm sure you'd complain about any measure other than leaving this individual alone. If so, you deserve to be angry, because you're part of the overall problem. Edit: To remind all of you, downvotes should…

Don't consider the downvotes as not contributing to the discussion, think of them as ... deplatforming your idea. It cannot be allowed to stand as-is, after all.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#250

Post by ryankemper »

joshuamorton wrote: post #218
ryankemper wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I personally agree that what David Icke is spreading is a bunch of nonsense. But I'm against suppressing him because otherwise I can't maintain a logically consistent belief system. That is to say, as soon as we can ban the lizard guy, we can also ban a lot more viewpoints that are not quite as controversial / outright crazy but straddle the line.

And just to head this off, the dimension of palatability to advertisers is separate, and if a site chooses to quarantine or whatever, so be it. I'm speaking merely from a framework of, "is this the kind of society we want?", as opposed to, "is it feasible for a profit-seeking corporation to adopt such an open policy"?

Post reply on HN