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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#371

Post by wilsynet »

o-__-o wrote: post #314
wilsynet wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have any beliefs about this. A violent mob invaded the capital. Some of them carried weapons. I’m not claiming they were all armed or that they were filmed using the weapons. Although they certainly did attack police officers. With flag poles, ladders, fire extinguishers, pepper spray. I’ll leave it there.

There were three separate bonfires in DC in May. In that case, DC was also burning back then from angry mobs of protesters. My point is the narrative. Take a step back and observe and claim the wrong done by both parties instead of saying one is right and one is wrong.

With all due respect, you don’t know anything about me. When BLM protestors burn down a Footlocker, I say they did something wrong. But I also don’t assume that all BLM protestors are violent. And I don’t assume all Republicans are violent.

But all the people who invaded the capitol? They all invaded the capitol. Let’s be clear about that.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#372

Post by reddog »

mschuster91 wrote: post #121
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.

> Do you believe Fox News should be banned/censored? In Germany, we have the section §130 StGB in our criminal code: incitement to hatred. While it would be extremely hard if not impossible to get a TV station such as Fox News to be banned here, its hosts/mouthpieces/guests could certainly be sanctioned - up to actual jail time. Also, our core media codex ("Medienstaatsvertrag") binds all broadcasting stations - radi…

>I have yet to see a report that CNN broadcasts people that claim that the election was "stolen" or "manipulated". There is a massive difference between biased reporting and openly distributing lies.

You may have missed it being in Germany, but for 3 years CNN, NYT, MSNBC, et al reported 24/7 that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election. The Justice Dept spent millions thoroughly investigaing that claim and it turned out to be all lies.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#373

Post by vmception »

bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

Well that escalated ... steadily over four years.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#374

Post by rodgerd »

S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise?

Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#375

Post by Guthur »

sumedh wrote: post #321
Guthur wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is not that they were telling the truth, just that both sides tell blatant lies. And career politicians will have racked up a bewildering history of lies and mistruths. YouTube, Twitter or whatever are private property but they are increasingly being used for political discourse on both sides this would not be a probably except that the parent companies are very obviously partisan in they're application of "…

> just that both sides tell blatant lies. This is the old both sides are equal argument which is wrong. Can you please give a source where a democrat President wanted to "find the votes by putting pressure on election officials or when he told violent protestors that they are good people and the President loves them?

So some lies are ok, just not the ones you don't like.

How are we measuring this scale please? I'm uncertain.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#376

Post by marcusverus »

sumedh wrote: post #255
S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

How about Adam Schiff, whose lie that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion was the cornerstone of the case for a Special Council?[0] We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.""[1]

And yet, even after Barr released his summary of the report, 84% of Democrats and 41% of Independents believed that Trump had colluded with the Russians.[2]

Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. If the past is any guide, many of you will attempt to defend the lie by replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort, or obstruction, or what have you, willfully ignoring the fact that that *the overwhelming majority of Democrats* were, less than two years ago, convinced of a lie that is eerily similar to right's lie-de-jour regarding the results of the 2016 election.

[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-... [1]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#377

Post by boc »

S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

This isn't an episode of West Wing. Thousands of radicalized Trump supporters tried to overthrow American democracy through a violent attack on Congress and the Vice President. These people aren't going to listen to you or me, they are in a cult where they worship the President and his rotating cast of confidants. Going after those specific people is the only way to turn down the temperature and prevent future acts of violence.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#378

Post by berneezy3 »

txru wrote: post #268
S_A_P wrote: post #240

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…

To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". Politics is going to be messy. There's a lot of fait-accompli-as-fiat. But while there are two parties, there is no inherent need for the parties to be symmetrical. There is no equivalent person on the left to Giuliani, because he's meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition, while in power. I hear things like this, and I think i…

Can you point me to a source on how Giuliani "meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition"?

I can't name democrats who facilitated ilegal insurrection in regards to this past election, but I can name democrats who facilitated illegal insurrection against their own communities after the George Floyd incident. The democrats who refused to call out rioting and looting (as a separate incident from the peaceful protesting), those who called for the short-sighted defunding of police departments in cities with high crime (look up the uptick in shootings and murder in NYC after the city removed $1 billion from the police department) have meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection in their own communities, in my opinion.

I agree that Bannon does make egregious comments, but I tend to think the media blows his comments out of proportion. Due to his military background, he often uses war analogies, which make for the detestable quotes you mention. For example, in the Fauci "head-on-a-pike" comment that he made, it was clear to me that he was not suggesting for folks to literally murder Fauci. He was suggesting for an example to be made out of Fauci by removing him from power. It's similar to when athletes say they want to "kill" the opposing teams. Regardless of this, I agree with you that comments such as the one I mentioned are in bad taste.

On the other hand, left-leaning celebrities who posted picture depicting Trunp's dead body (e.g. Snoop Dogg) did not seem to face similar consequences from big tech.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#379

Post by [deleted] »

sumedh wrote: post #321
Guthur wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is not that they were telling the truth, just that both sides tell blatant lies. And career politicians will have racked up a bewildering history of lies and mistruths. YouTube, Twitter or whatever are private property but they are increasingly being used for political discourse on both sides this would not be a probably except that the parent companies are very obviously partisan in they're application of "…

> just that both sides tell blatant lies. This is the old both sides are equal argument which is wrong. Can you please give a source where a democrat President wanted to "find the votes by putting pressure on election officials or when he told violent protestors that they are good people and the President loves them?

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#380

Post by lokedhs »

Darmody wrote: post #72
e40 wrote: post #21

The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population of people that only hear these lies, day in and day out? They're going to react just like they did on 1/6.

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

I'm not in the US, and I haven't visited the country in a very long time. But I'm casually curious about all of this, and have looked at US media.

You are absolutely right that CNN is biased. They clearly are not trying to make it seem as though they aren't. The same with Fox, who are equally biased. However, only only of those outlets lets their reporters outright lie.

Now, it may be that I'm looking in the wrong places, but if I were to see lies on CNN in the same way as I see it on Fox, I'll be happy to change my mind, but right now I think it's pretty clear which one needs to be curbed.

Fox also allows comments on their stories. A lot of the real hateful stuff can be found there, and section 230 allows Fox to wash their hands of that. Perhaps Trump was on to something when he was campaigning to have it revoked? (the last part is sarcasm, of course).

Edit note: (this post has been downvoted into oblivion. I honestly have no idea which "side" have been doing the downvoting. I wonder if it's because the downvoters misunderstood what I was saying, or if they did understand and simply disagree)

Post reply on HN