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

Post by justinpowers » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:09 AM UTC

nicodjimenez wrote: post #548

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.

Educated people are more easy to brainwash actually. They’ll believe anything the establishment tells them because they spend more time in school following directions and going “by the book” - they excel at this. Less educated people need to learn to trust their instincts, and be skeptical at all times. Politics is about really simple stuff because you can’t over complicate at such a high level of abstraction. I thin…

Post by vmception » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:12 AM UTC

Program_Install wrote: post #495

stereoradonc wrote: post #132

The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.

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.

Post by ehsankia » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:13 AM UTC

FeepingCreature wrote: post #419

dgellow wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by ehsankia » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:17 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #420

ehsankia wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by sixstringtheory » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:19 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #503

enkid wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think people could believe non-sense?

I do. I know lots of people who believe things I believe are nonsense. You won't see me going around saying they should be censored.