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

331–340 of 872 posts

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

#331

Post by jasonfarnon »

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.

Sad that they decided to start "choosing what content to host" after everyone has become dependent on it. It's the bait and switch.

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

#332

Post by throwaway0a5e »

vain_cain wrote: post #213
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…

I think you misunderstood what the commenter was trying to say. He didn't mention anything about becoming emotionless, but becoming less emotional. I think we can all agree that new first world generations are on the extreme side of the spectre of emotions and would benefit from leaning to the opposite side a bit.

> I think we can all agree that new first world generations are on the extreme side of the spectre of emotions and would benefit from leaning to the opposite side a bit.

"We all" find our opinions are unwelcome on the internet when we say things like that.

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

#333

Post by chitowneats »

AaronFriel wrote: post #133
natsup123490 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard times and war change people. Many changes are negative: poorer, less secure, less trusting, more fearful, devastating losses. But other changes are for the better. And you don't need war to make these changes. If you make them before hard times come, you'll be better prepared for them: becoming more stoic (less emotional, less offended at everything), becoming more serious, more resourceful, more self-reliant, l…

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…

This going from zero to fascism in ten seconds flat is exactly the type of mindset OP is rightly criticizing.

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

#334

Post by jasonfarnon »

DoctorOW wrote: post #282
psychlops wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies with monopolistic power and revolving door political hirings need to be held to a different standard as they are beyond competing for views and shape narratives. It doesn't matter whether they are shaping it politically or profitably or via AI for clicks. It isn't neutral and drowns out or outright eliminates competing views.

Can you give an example? What's a view that's been eliminated?

What about the very subject of this thread? Not a view worth keeping around?

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

#335

Post by car_analogy »

jmull wrote: post #311
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a nearly two trillion dollar company. I shed no tears for “forcing” them to host speech they don’t like. My desire to give companies rights diminishes with scale.

Fortunately, in the US, we have the first amendment as a shield against authoritarians who would dictate the content we see.

Against government authoritarians.

You have no shield against private oligopolies.

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

#336

Post by [deleted] »

_yoqn wrote: post #114
TameAntelope wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious about where you see an institutionalized support on the left for election tampering claims, if you have any sources.

“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…

[deleted]

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

#337

Post by polski-g »

oliveroak wrote: post #13
freedomben wrote: post #7

One of the hosts wrote this about it [1]: particularly appropriate quote: > What casual observers might not understand, however, is just how far the policy goes. Not only does YouTube punish channels that spread misinformation, but in many cases, it also punishes channels that report on the spread of misinformation. The platform makes no distinction between the speaker and the content creator. If a channel produces a…

why don't they build their own platform? youtube can do what they want on their website.

Because then Google (YouTube) would force the competing app off the Google (Android) App Store for not meeting Google's (YouTube) own censorship policies.

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

#338

Post by AaronFriel »

vain_cain wrote: post #213
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…

I think you misunderstood what the commenter was trying to say. He didn't mention anything about becoming emotionless, but becoming less emotional. I think we can all agree that new first world generations are on the extreme side of the spectre of emotions and would benefit from leaning to the opposite side a bit.

> that new first world generations

What do you mean by this?

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

#339

Post by [deleted] »

jmull wrote: post #311
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a nearly two trillion dollar company. I shed no tears for “forcing” them to host speech they don’t like. My desire to give companies rights diminishes with scale.

Fortunately, in the US, we have the first amendment as a shield against authoritarians who would dictate the content we see.

[deleted]

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

#340

Post by coffeefirst »

ComradePhil wrote: post #308

Alphabet/YouTube should seek for government regulations that requires them to not delete the videos that are not explicitly illegal. They keep removing videos to keep their advertisers or customers happy. If they are not allowed by the government to delete videos that are not illegal, they can just blame the government. Of course, they should not be forced to keep every video. It has to be profitable for them.

Or they could actually use their brains and check if an account in otherwise good standing suddenly gets flagged, why that happened.

This would eliminate most the edge cases.

The problem is trusting the algorithm to make decisions and then pretending you aren’t responsible for them.

Post reply on HN