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

YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

tampafp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 872 posts

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#321

Post by [deleted] »

DoctorOW wrote: post #274
virgildotcodes wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Seems to me like he is very clearly talking ab…

The Politifact article even clarifies that Joe Biden's error was saying Trump advised "drinking bleach", as opposed to "express interest in exploring whether disinfectants could be applied to the site of a coronavirus infection".

[deleted]

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#322

Post by rayiner »

atlantas wrote: post #242
AaronFriel wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the things you wrote as good things are (mostly) good things, glittering generalities that have no bearing on whether hard times are good or bad. To connect the two, you'd have to complete the scurrilous reference made that we are currently in a time of "weak men". You may or may not be aware that the "Hard times..." meme is widely used among not just stoics, but also fascist groups to suggest that the current…

What's the deal with using guilt by association as a way to disparage or dismiss ideas? Seeing that a lot lately.

Ironically it’s an outgrowth of the very weakness in mindset that GP is talking about.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#323

Post by TameAntelope »

asabjorn wrote: post #222
_yoqn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Racially motivated patterns of voter suppression are responsible for Stacey Abrams not being governor of Georgia right now.” — South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), in remarks in Bow, N.H., Oct. 25, 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/30/did-racia... Also don't forget about Bush v. Gore. It's apparently a "historic" moment when Gore finally conceded the election to Bush. https://www.history.co…

Stacey Abrams still claims she was cheated out of her governorship in Georgia. There are many such examples.

Can you name some more examples? I’m trying to understand…

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#324

Post by dane-pgp »

vkou wrote: post #94
will4274 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the anti Vietnam war movement blew up a bomb in the Senate mail room in the Capitol on two separate occasions (and got a pardon from Bill Clinton 30 years later). Is storming worse than bombing?

I would like to remind you that the anti-Vietnam war movement at Kent State[1] was literally machine-gunned by the army. It was a bit of a different time. But maybe not that different. [1] https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/kent-state-shooti...

To provide more context, Nixon's government openly sent thousands of men to their deaths in Vietnam against their will, because of the draft. That of course doesn't justify violence against politicians, but it does suggest a very different motivation compared to "We think there might have been 40,000 fake ballots flown into Arizona from China".

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#325

Post by incompatible »

atlantas wrote: post #296
colordrops wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, both sides are authoritarian. It's not mutually exclusive.

Confession: I only just realized over the past few years. I had always thought that authoritarians were a right phenomenon.

It depends how you see "left" and "right". I see the left as promoting equality, and generally freedom, and the right justifying or increasing inequality. An authoritarian system by definition gives far more power to some people than others, which is an idea of the right. However, systems of government in practice are generally not strictly left or right, and you get the likes of the Soviet Union which gave some degree of economic equality but little equality in terms of power.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#326

Post by bko »

another_story wrote: post #187
dayvid wrote: post #127

It's scary how many of the systems we were worried about in China (e.g. social credit system, censorship, etc.) are basically being created now in the west through the proxy of critical companies blocking access and/or working together.

A bit different considering the west has alternatives which are not blocked, whereas China doesn't. You can even spin up your own sources and serve whatever you want,a right not afforded the average Chinese citizen.

> You can even spin up your own sources and serve whatever you want,a right not afforded the average Chinese citizen.

It's difficult when the backbone of the internet isn't available to you. For instance, AWS can be denied cutting off vital internet infrastructure we take for granted. Further payment processors like Visa can cut off access. Even banks could cut you off and even seize your funds if they got the directive.

You can spin your own service is a nice fiction we tell ourselves but with financing getting cut off it becomes impossible to build a service that reaches a lot of people without a lot of money and a disregard for profit.

In China maybe someone would come knocking on the door to take you away to jail. But in the US, we don't need to go that far. All it would take is the press secretary telling big tech they need to help fight "misinformation" and pointing them in the right direction.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#327

Post by cryptonector »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #318
DoctorOW wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair. Instructions on drinking bleach might cause others to be harmed. This is different because nobody has ever come to harm because of this. I'd imagine if people believed this, there would have been some kind of violence on say, January 6th the day of the insurrection-- sorry, inauguration. Please let me know if you know how to fix this unfortunate typo.

> ” Please let me know if you know how to fix this unfortunate typo.” You can click the edit button. But you’re probably trying to make a snarky point. If we are going to say that censorship is justified because you want to prevent violence or insurrections, we open the floodgates to some seriously bad things. Here’s a scenario: Claiming that people are being systematically discriminated against could lead to violenc…

We don't do prior restraint on speech in the U.S. Only if there's an imminent threat of violence (and that imminence is not interpreted liberally) do we allow the government to stop a speaker. If speech eventually leads to violence, we expect law enforcement to deal with it, and there can be consequences after the fact, but not before.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#328

Post by rayiner »

galangalalgol wrote: post #215
AaronFriel wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the things you wrote as good things are (mostly) good things, glittering generalities that have no bearing on whether hard times are good or bad. To connect the two, you'd have to complete the scurrilous reference made that we are currently in a time of "weak men". You may or may not be aware that the "Hard times..." meme is widely used among not just stoics, but also fascist groups to suggest that the current…

The GP did point out that war was not needed to make the changes suggested, and they are good in times of peace and plenty as well. We understand that striving to be less offensive is good, but we hesitate to advocate that people become less easily offended because it can sound like we are blaming the victim. But it is good for everyone's emotional health to be able to be unaffected by the intentional or unintentiona…

I’ll be more blunt about it: cultivating emotionality is a disservice, especially to the most disadvantaged. Being offended doesn’t serve you at all; it’s a merely feeling that makes you easier to exploit.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#329

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

lliamander wrote: post #107
awb wrote: post #59

Soave (co-host of The Hill’s morning show: Rising) wrote an article about it here: https://reason.com/2022/03/03/youtube-rising-the-hill-electi... > YouTube has taken the position that merely acknowledging an utterance of the false claim is the same thing as making the claim yourself unless you correct and disavow it elsewhere in the video. It is also sufficient to post a warning label in the video's description that…

What nonsense from YouTube. Do they really think putting in such disclaimers is actually going to change anyone's mind?

I sense the goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind from “the election was stolen” to “the election was fair”. Rather, it serves to enforce the notion that believing the former is considered unacceptable.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#330

Post by bko »

jmull wrote: post #245
pokstad wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is arguing about YouTube being forced to do things. People are discussing how sad it is that YouTube has gone down that road.

It’s sad that youtube can choose what content to host? It’s sad that not everyone agrees with all the choices they make? Doesn’t seem sad to me. The alternative, where youtube cannot choose what content to host, seems sad to me.

Let be real here. It's very likely the former guy may run again. You may be against that, as would I. But I think its pretty creepy that a handful of large tech CEOs will be able to get together and prevent that from happening by shutting him off from every social media platform and biasing search results, even so far as censoring our private communications via FB messenger, email or similar chat apps.

You want to argue he did something illegal, should be in prison, should not be allowed to run? Fine, that's what the court system and respective political parties are for. But please don't tell me it's completely cool that tech CEOs get to decide who can and can't run. You may like the side they fall on this time, but how confident are you that you'll agree in the future? What if leadership changes? What do you think would happen when a politician has a credible shot of winning on a promise to break them up?

Post reply on HN