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

561–570 of 872 posts

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

#561

Post by undersuit »

makeitdouble wrote: post #490
judge2020 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just shows that many of the policies in China are wanted by many, probably the majority, in society there. The policies are not always used for good, but they are indeed used to stop the spread of harmful misinformation or harmful practices (eg. detox via drinking bleach). In the US, you have the right to say something, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to you or have to help spread your message; if you…

More and more I have the feeling that we focus a lot on the freedom to say some political things (“the 2020 election was rigged”), and accept stuff like jail for breaking DRM or life breaking monetary amounts in penalty for copyright infringement as some benign issue we should strive to solve, but if we can’t that’s just too bad, gotta live with it. I’m not saying I’d live in China, but I feel we’re putting too much…

Streamers on twitch were getting banned for saying the word cracker, temporarily losing their livelihood because of joke outrage from some loosely organized people on Reddit/Twitch. Meanwhile Covid variant Omicron was just about to peak and the amount of misinformation about Covid peaked too.

Sacrifice another ~350k Americans and countless others around the globe from our refusal to stop misinformation, I sleep. Save some gamers' mock wounded pride; real stuff.

Never saw much misinformation on Twitch to be honest, but they are taking a more active role as of a few days ago: https://safety.twitch.tv/s/safety-news/detail?language=en_US...

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

#562

Post by unclebucknasty »

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…

>The platform makes no distinction between the speaker and the content creator

But this actually is a potentially thinly veiled way to spread disinformation, right? If you wanted to push a dishonest narrative, all you'd need do is show clips of someone else speaking the words and call it "reporting".

And this is all within the context of a massive surge in d/misinfo across these platforms. They're already having trouble keeping up. I think that context is important, because it warrants a different level of "aggression" in policing. If someone is spouting lies is it reasonable to, say, block the original producer of those lies, but let thousands of other accounts repeat them and generate millions of impressions for the lies?

Because, the lies would still be getting out there, and these platforms are trying to combat being the conduit for them no matter where it comes from. Seems reasonable.

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

#563

Post by imnotlost »

Fine.

You can’t force people or businesses to listen to you or broadcast your speech. That’s American liberty. That’s freedom.

You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them.

If you do want a digital public square look for something run by the government with a mandate to publish everything.

I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t be too happy with that either… too many libtards, too many nazis, too many racists, too many whatevers…

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

#564

Post by ok123456 »

After the mid-terms, any Section 230 protection these companies have is going bye-bye. Any kind of active moderation of perfectly legal speech through 'terms of service'/'community standards' will remove any common-carrier liability shield.

Actions like this have turned this into political red meat for some. These companies really need to learn how to read the room. Ratcheting downward the ability of people to freely use these platforms just feeds into whatever persecution complex they have, and justifies it. You don't get rid of bad ideas by allowing them not be spoken no matter how well meaning you are.

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

#565

Post by lurquer »

wahern wrote: post #355
lurquer wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most? Source? Nearly 9% of US presidents have been assassinated. Over a much much smaller timeframe. I would bet you would be less likely to have been assassinated as a Tsar than as a President.

According to Wikipedia, 5 of 14 Tsars (35%) were murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_all_the_Russias That seems substantial, at least compared to Presidents, especially considering the threat of assassination was a serious consideration given all the political intrigue. Whereas AFAIU U.S. Presidents didn't take the threat of assassination seriously until the 20th century, exposing themselves to the pub…

No post body was provided.

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

#566

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

atlantas wrote: post #446
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sense the goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind from “the election was stolen” to “the election was fair”. Rather, it serves to enforce the notion that believing the former is considered unacceptable.

That's interesting. If they're not trying to persuade (and it doesn't appear so), then is the point of that to flex their power or what?

Pragmatically, you can persuade indirectly by means of not allowing the opposing side to express itself. I’m not talking about persuading partisans, but rather the people who aren’t invested and aren’t engaged on the topic.

The dominant message they will see is the notion that the election was fully legitimate and had nothing substantial occur that would question its legitimacy. Any compelling or specific counter arguments are simply not visible. So that unengaged person is learning the accepted stance is correct, the unacceptable stance must have a disclaimer because it is so wrong/dangerous, and that if they take that stance they also risk being labeled as crazy or expelled from the platform.

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

#567

Post by markdown »

belltaco wrote: post #304
markdown wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fellow was completely and utterly wrong about Putin, saying that he'd never invade. How can someone be proven so wrong about their life's work and still be called "one of your best thinkers in international politics."?

Source?

"If you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try to do that." John Mearsheimer, 2015.

https://twitter.com/SKalyvas/status/1498073083197931529

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

#568

Post by markdown »

chj wrote: post #317
markdown wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fellow was completely and utterly wrong about Putin, saying that he'd never invade. How can someone be proven so wrong about their life's work and still be called "one of your best thinkers in international politics."?

He predicted this crisis in 2014, and I think he has been quite consistent on saying Putin will act, just that Putin will not occupy Ukraine. Now there is the possibility of Russia taking the eastern part, but his main thesis is still valid: the west should leave Ukraine as a buffer state. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...

"If you really want to wreck Russia, what you should do is to encourage it to try to conquer Ukraine. Putin is much too smart to try to do that." John Mearsheimer, 2015.

https://twitter.com/SKalyvas/status/1498073083197931529

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

#569

Post by headsoup »

rsanek wrote: post #549
noahtallen wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?”

Is it not? I'm sure this would be very difficult to get right, but I've often wondered why there isn't more innovation in the direction of not censorship but rather "gating" behind proof of knowledge. What I mean is, what if there were a series of questions presented to the viewer before they could consume this kind of content? This could act as a way to deter folks from mindlessly viewing the video but also as an ed…

So sneaky censorship instead then?

Or you could just present people with the data and let them make up their own minds. We have to stop thinking we're on the 'right' side and it's ok to silence the 'wrong.'

Think about this, if the controls or restrictions you discuss were available to the opposition tomorrow, would you still support them?

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

#570

Post by [deleted] »

stimpson_j_cat wrote: post #481
potato wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She raised specific complaints regarding the process, but never suggested that they invalidated the results. She proclaims the election was stolen. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

No, she doesn't use the word stolen, and she conceded; but the article you linked to provides evidence of interference. > The investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton

[deleted]
Post reply on HN