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

511–520 of 872 posts

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

#511

Post by mulmen »

Kranar wrote: post #508
Program_Install wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.

The only silly argument I hear is when people think any discussion of censorship must involve the first amendment, or that complaining about censorship implies being forced to use a product. If I go to a restaurant and eat some food and complain that food tasted awful, I am not saying that the restaurant should be forced by the government to make good food nor am I saying that everyone is forced to eat at that restau…

The First Amendment is always relevant to cases of free expression in the United States. It is what gives YouTube the right to control what is on their platform.

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

#512

Post by polished85 »

polished85 wrote: post #203
dogline wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WW1 happened partly because nobody was afraid of it happenning. That is an interesting take on it. It may not be wrong, but I hadn't heard that before.

There is a thought provoking book about how terrible the repercussions of WWI really were. The author claims the world was on the verge of a renaissance in technology, medicine, energy, music, trade, etc. The thought of a world war was incomprehensible at the time—no one believed it could happen. Who knows how the world would look today without WWI. (If any one is interested in the book I will hunt it down as I don’t…

This was discussed shortly in: A Study of History by Arnold Toynbee

Another anecdote that speaks to the sentiment of the beginning of the war is Britain’s initial deployment of troops. The troops were literally marching towards Germany with music and percussionists that was supposed to motivate the troops and strike fear into the enemy. I imagine an army like you would see in Game of thrones (walking from point A to point B and making camp in between). Germany used their planes and promptly dispatched the British troops which suffered devastating losses. After this event Britain changed their tactics and took the war seriously.

(This event may have been WW2 which would make the story even more ridiculous).

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

#513

Post by Sparyjerry »

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…

They can have whatever policy they want. The problem though is that what they are doing is unethical and antithesis to their own stated beliefs. Less than 6 months ago their CEO said free speech was a "core value." The thing is it shouldn't ever even need to be said that something on the internet could be a lie but apparently that is not taught in schools and YouTube feels everyone is too stupid to decide for themselves. Frankly it should be included in their terms of service or on every single video on their platform that what is said might not be true, manipulated, or omitting facts. Maybe we need nutrition labels of the internet so that before you visit YouTube it states clearly how much banning of information they are doing. We don't need a platform to be the judge, jury, and executioner for misinformation but if they want to be I want to see big bold text at the top of their website saying "We ban channels and information we deem to be false. Videos with a checkmark are deemed to contain 100% true facts and if a video is found to reference untrue facts, it will be banned upon review." Everyone needs to know this before people are tricked into thinking it is a neutral platform where judgement of information and misinformation is the responsibility of the individual.

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

#514

Post by dukeofdoom »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #488
dukeofdoom wrote: post #462

Youtube is fighting populism. The common people no longer believe anything the mighty have to say. You can see it in this reporters eyes when he gets relentlessly mocked during the trucker protests in Canada. https://twitter.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1495146891646013443 This is a path where all this censorship will lead to if they don't stop it. It will be as bad for the modern day Oligarchs as it was for the French n…

> The common people no longer believe anything the mighty have to say Hypernormalization

Thanks, never heard of it.

Looked it up and found a Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

And the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLgkQBFTPw

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

#515

Post by jankyxenon »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #227
cryptonector wrote: post #158

If it's nonsense, then why censor it? If it's not nonsense, then why censor it?

> If it's nonsense, then why censor it? Because people believe the nonsense and then storm the capital, and/or support overturning democratic elections in order to allow would-be dictators to seize power. Misinformation can have a serious and deeply negative impact on the world, and the general public is clearly not immune to it.

Some would claim religion is misinformation and causes a lot of problems… they’d say the only thing going for it is that a lot of people believe it.

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

#516

Post by jquery »

adam_arthur wrote: post #421
lordnacho wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Most things aren't clear cut, and there have been many times in history where widely held beliefs have been proven largely false. If you'll recall there was a multi year period of mass belief that the president colluded with Russians to steal the election. On the back of very little evidence, other than news heads talking about it and "he said, she said" There was also a multi year investigation that found nothing, a…

>If you'll recall there was a multi year period of mass belief that the president colluded with Russians to steal the election. On the back of very little evidence, other than news heads talking about it and "he said, she said" >There was also a multi year investigation that found nothing, and actually was able to largely disprove documents that helped to kick off the speculation.

This is simply untrue: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intell...

Even a Republican-backed investigation found many links between Trump campaign advisors and Kremlin officials.

Just because Trump says he was "totally exonerated" for the soundbite doesn't mean anything.

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

#517

Post by lliamander »

webmaven wrote: post #298
lliamander wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the protestors at the capitol killed anyone. The police did kill at least one protestor though.

Generally speaking, if someone dies while you are committing a felony, you can be charged with their murder.

Sure, but the previous poster's language appears to intentionally misleading as to who actually performed the act.

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

#518

Post by mulmen »

jankyxenon wrote: post #506
Program_Install wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.

It’s true that YouTube is a private entity and should be able to do whatever is in its profit maximizing interest. But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one pla…

> But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly?

No.

> Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes.

The answer is no.

Vimeo exists. Facebook and Twitter both feature user-generated video content. I hear TikTok is a thing. In addition to these platforms basically anyone can self-host in 2022. Plenty of news outlets self-host.

> If there’s only gonna be one platform, or it’s socially optimal to have one platform - is it right to give control of that to one entity into perpetuity?

You have not made the case that there should be only one platform so the second part of your statement is irrelevant.

> That a political question.

Only for people who want to say things without suffering the consequences.

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

#520

Post by lostcolony »

splintercell wrote: post #225
lostcolony wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. In 2020's case, there was no dodginess, but nevertheless one candidate would rather discredit the institution rather than admit he lost, and -there is nothing to replace it with-. We've had 250 years of peaceful transfers of power because of this system; without a un…

> Because that institution then worked another four times without incident. The institution, as flawed as it is, still kept transferring power peacefully. The question you aren't answering is: At what point do YOU draw the line. Stop trying to explain that the line wasn't crossed in 2020 election (or in any other election before that). When, according to you, is the line crossed and the system has shown itself to be…

What line are you referring to?

-I- said that the system "worked" in the sense that power was transferred peacefully. I didn't say the system was flawless; just the opposite. But to tear down and discredit the system, as Trump has been endeavoring to do, without providing a replacement (other than "Trump is president no matter what the vote says", if that needs clarifying), means that power will no longer be able to transfer peacefully. That's the -one and only feature- that the system HAS to have; and it's that one that we'd be dispensing with.

I have no idea what any other lines being crossed has to do with anything.

Post reply on HN