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

411–420 of 872 posts

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

#411

Post by rootusrootus »

koolba wrote: post #299
dane-pgp wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of trying to "both sides" gerrymandering, why don't you work out how many votes it takes on average for a Democrat to win an election, and how many it takes a Republican. With that information, you can infer which party has the most motivation to end gerrymandering.

There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide. You could argue that the electoral system gives an advantage to smaller States because that’s true. But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels. Large scale change is supposed to require multiple types of majority, not just a snap mob decision. That’s a feature, not a bug.

> But that’s by design to force a consensus at multiple levels.

It is a flaw. Republican votes in California count for much less than Democratic votes in Wyoming. It's a national election, the counting should be done nationally. We did away with states voting for Senators, it's time to do the same for President.

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

#412

Post by godmode2019 »

3np wrote: post #312
godmode2019 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you thinking? Iceland maybe, but that would be the exception to the rule.

What are your sources that elections are rigged in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, Austria, Ireland, Japan, Taiwan, Czech Republic?

Sorry I wrote something really long but it gave too much information about me.

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

#413

Post by base698 »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #172
cabaalis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either people have and live by principles or they don't. Part of our division is these sides you speak of, instructing their followers what to believe about individual topics.

Most atrocities in the world are committed by principled people. If they didn't have them they wouldn't care enough to commit them.

Everyone quoted this in regards to theocracies. It's clearly a way more abstract principle.

> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

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

#414

Post by rootusrootus »

8note wrote: post #151
andrewjf wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both parties need to learn that if you lose it’s because voters just didn’t like you that much. What you're saying is only true in a dream world where gerrymandering, closing polling places, and preventing access to ballot boxes (in-person or otherwise) isn't happening. Unfortunately this isn't the case. So, no, you are wrong.

Voters still ultimately decide. Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win

> Not all voters are equal, but if people dont like you, you won't win

Does that sentence not completely contradict itself?

How often in modern times has a Republican president won a majority of the popular vote? Seems like the will of the people is not consistently respected, and even if people like you then you may very well lose. Especially if the people that like you are urban voters.

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

#415

Post by lordnacho »

adam_arthur wrote: post #360
DoctorOW wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not been eliminated. Quite a few people believe the election was stolen. Also, it's not a view worth keeping around. There's no evidence to support it and it's just used to justify violence and division.

There's no evidence to support the fact that corporate greed in an otherwise competitive market leads to inflation, yet we have plenty of politicians pushing that. There's no evidence supporting price controls to be an effective way to fight inflation, as was shown to produce awful results in the 70s among many other eras, yet we have politicians pushing for that. There's no evidence to support that nominal wages ris…

Agree on the economics, but I think it's weak to compare these to the purely forensic question of whether the election was stolen.

Economic opinions are generally not that clear cut, requiring an awful lot of theoretical harness and qualifications to explain. Evidence is similar, you can quibble about a lot of things in economics.

Whether the election was stolen, well, where is a shred of evidence? It's not hard to define what we mean by stolen.

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

#416

Post by makeitdouble »

bfung wrote: post #67

Seems like the underlying problem is that YouTube is 1 generic platform that contains news, entertainment, random home videos, etc. Perhaps the right answer is to “divide” it up and set requirements for each category of video, similar to how “YouTube kids” is a thing now. News and podcasts would go under its own section and have some level of sanity checks while home videos can be as random as they want to be.

Youtube kids is just an excuse to put the blame on creators if a video happens to be problematic. For a lot of reasons actual kids targeted content is not there, and a ton of predatory stuff still thrives there.

To your point, Youtube has a strong legal incentive to make Youtube Kids succeed, and they failed. I’m not sure we can expect better for other category splits that are no less controversial.

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

#417

Post by jakebasile »

ehsankia wrote: post #359
another_story wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every single day on HN, people mix up giving someone a platform to censoring someone. Social platforms are megaphones. Up until a decade ago, it was impossible for nearly everyone to reach out a large audience, especially worldwide. Nowadays, anyone can make a video accessible by billions of people with a single click. If people banned from that is "censorship", then by that definition the whole world was censored 2…

Before the printing press most people couldn't mass produce their written word. The printing press was a megaphone and a platform. Is taking away someone's access to a printing press censorship?

Not too many years ago no one had the ability to call anyone with a telephone. That service is provided by private companies in many countries. Is denying someone the ability to call their associates censorship?

Times change.

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

#419

Post by FeepingCreature »

dgellow wrote: post #405
d0gsg0w00f wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is taking away the megaphone the same as silencing them? When everyone has a megaphone, those who don't are not heard.

And that’s fine. Not everybody can or has to be heard by everybody else. There no such as a thing as an expectation to be heard by others. That becomes more problematic and debatable once infrastructure companies such as a DNS provider or a hosting company refuses to deal with some content given that you remove the ability to create your own soapbox.

Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.

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

#420

Post by roenxi »

ehsankia wrote: post #359
another_story wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every single day on HN, people mix up giving someone a platform to censoring someone. Social platforms are megaphones. Up until a decade ago, it was impossible for nearly everyone to reach out a large audience, especially worldwide. Nowadays, anyone can make a video accessible by billions of people with a single click. If people banned from that is "censorship", then by that definition the whole world was censored 2…

It doesn't really matter that much if you want to use the word "banned" in preference to "censored"; the facts of the matter is that the entire right wing's viewpoint is under threat on these channels to the point where people have been decamping and moving on to other platforms in large numbers. There have been quite a few notable social media plays (thinking Gab, Parler & Truth Social) that may as well have started in response to the 2016 election.

So we don't have to use the word censorship but there is a lot of voting with feet going on that suggests some sort of speech suppression. The persistent banning of private opinions by American big tech is probably the major cause of that.

Post reply on HN