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

551–560 of 872 posts

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

#551

Post by yibg »

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 restaurant isn't forced to make good food. But in this analogy isn't it more like the restaurant being forced to put up a poster of your bad review? The overall point being made is, why should a private entity be forced to do something they don't want to do?

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

#552

Post by rsanek »

selfhifive wrote: post #509

Users can't tell misinformation and information apart when the dislike count is hidden. Who would've thought. Removing the dislike count was YouTube's renunciation of democratic ideals. Now it's a media outlet just like the others.

I don't think like/dislike counts were ever a good way to identify misinformation, and I would argue that even if they were, they shouldn't be.

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

#553

Post by KennyBlanken »

_yoqn wrote: post #437
dgellow wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In China you would risk being arrested for such a thing. Not just see your channel or video taken down by a platform.

In Canada you get arrested for peacefully protesting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-freedom-convoy-protest-a... Note all the attempts in the article to paint them as "armed" and "extremists". There was no violence, no destruction of property. It was a legal demonstration until it was made illegal by invoking the Emergencies act. And this use of the law in my opinion was an abuse as it clearly is for terrorist t…

Blaring horns and blasting music continuously through the night and day, keeping thousands of people from sleeping is not "peaceful" nor legal.

Blocking a nation's highways and borders for weeks is not legal.

People screamed blue-bloody-murder when BLM and Occupy protesters chained themselves to barrels across interstates, disrupting traffic for an hour or two...but the Canadian government tolerates a complete shutdown of a border, along with near continuous public disturbance for weeks - before finally clearing the protesters, and that's somehow an example of oppression?

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

#554

Post by headsoup »

selfhifive wrote: post #505
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.

Or, if you don't like it, don't watch the channel or leave a dislike or comment why the claim is wrong. This isn't even a call to violence or targeted harassment. It's the opinion of a man about election results.

I think you missed the bit where the platform removed content for the mere mention of Trump.

So you agree YouTube is perfectly ok to remove content because it mentions 'the opinion of a man about election results.'?

And if Trump was to hypothetically win in 2024, would it be perfectly fine for YouTube to remove any content which is dissenting of Trump? I'm sure a dislike or negative comment would stop that...

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

#555

Post by Kranar »

yibg wrote: post #551
Kranar wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 restaurant isn't forced to make good food. But in this analogy isn't it more like the restaurant being forced to put up a poster of your bad review? The overall point being made is, why should a private entity be forced to do something they don't want to do?

No one is forcing Youtube to do anything, all we're doing is criticizing Youtube for its policies which we believe make Youtube a worse product than it would otherwise be. Criticizing a video game, or a movie, or a restaurant or a streaming service does not imply the use of force to do anything nor does it imply having to get the government involved. It just means we think a product could be improved upon.

I think Youtube would be a better product and better serve their viewers and content creators if they didn't suspend The Hill for playing a clip of Donald Trump. My belief in this does not imply any use of force whatsoever.

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

#556

Post by Proven »

JoshTko wrote: post #524

The avg. American reads at a middle school level. Many read at an elementary school level, meaning ~1/4 of America will take this video as fact. Couple this with an algorithm that will only feed you things you like and you have a recipe for disaster. 100% unrestricted freedom of speech only works with a highly educated populate which America does not have.

[dead]

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

#557

Post by abernard1 »

noahtallen wrote: post #531
fuckcensorship wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the solution is better education, not censorship.

Totally, but only one of those things is within YouTube’s power. There are all kinds of decisions to make where “what do we do to mitigate this now” looks different from “what’s the ideal place we want to be?”

Why do they need to "mitigate" anything?

Politics has been rife with BS and lies forever. This isn't a one-off, they've been doing this for years and only in a certain direction. Not un-coincidentally, it's in the opposite direction of their employees' political views which are 95 D for Microsoft to 99% D at Google. (The whole range of big tech companies' political affiliations is within this range, which is actually more partisan than D voters themselves.)

The practical effect of this, and it may be hard to see this coming from an environment where literally 99% of the people who surround you think the same way, is for people to permanently form strong opinions against you. It's already happened in America because of 2020, which is why monopoly break ups are now a highly likely proposition, but coming from a different end of the spectrum.

It has always amazed me the vitriol that tech companies have for people they do not understand or care to.

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

#559

Post by YATA0 »

dane-pgp wrote: post #539
YATA0 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of Facebook groups, memes, and Twitter posts by Russian trolls != collusion. The left was screaming about Trump directly colluding with the Russians. When the facts came out and it was clear he didn't collude, the goal posts shifted to "well the Russian troll farms helped Trump win!" That's not collusion.

We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here: > Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity If you want to understand more, there is a summary of "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" in the Wikipedia article about "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"[0], including this section, for example: > In the email, Goldstone said the info…

>We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here

Not really, no.

From your own source:

"The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates."

It literally states there was no evidence of collision or conspiracy.

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

#560

Post by headsoup »

pfisch wrote: post #541
downandout wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed…the hypocrisy of these decisions grows increasingly outrageous each day. For example, the reasoning behind the banning of Donald Trump from Twitter was that his rhetoric was “dangerous,” in that it may have encouraged/not discouraged the January 6 riot. On Tuesday (March 1), a Russian official threatened actual war over the economic sanctions the world is taking against his country [1]. His account is still ac…

It is reasonable to say that Donald Trump caused the January 6 insurrection. The bigger issue for platform owners is that the insurrection represents catastrophic risk to them, and it is within their power to prevent it. The social media platforms can't prevent if Russia goes to war with NATO. Censoring the russian official won't do anything.

How did the 'insurrection' cause catastrophic risk to Twitter?
Post reply on HN