YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results • Hacker News Board

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

#601

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:36 AM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #198

bckr wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this sentiment, although I agree it's stupid that The Hill was suspended. If anyone wants to give a reason why these arguments are always about freedom of speech VS censorship, instead of being about private property + free markets, please I'm open to this.

1. Markets fails under the weight of monopolies. Youtube needs to be broken up or regulated. 2. There was a supreme court decision that a platform (in that case a large mall) that makes itself a de-facto public square has to act like one, accruing responsibility to protect speech. I believe this is the right link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-s...

If only Trump wasn’t so poor he couldn’t start his own video hosting service. It’s not like he’s a billionaire or something.

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

#602

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:37 AM UTC

polski-g wrote: post #337

oliveroak wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why don't they build their own platform? youtube can do what they want on their website.

Because then Google (YouTube) would force the competing app off the Google (Android) App Store for not meeting Google's (YouTube) own censorship policies.

Why do you need an app to play video?

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

#603

Post by 6510 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:37 AM UTC

ok123456 wrote: post #564

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…

The security by obscurity where they don't tell the user why their account was terminated is also a call to send in the regulators

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

#604

Post by wraptile » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:38 AM UTC

rsanek wrote: post #552

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.

When it comes to political stuff it was a good way to identify "contraversy" which is very useful in this world of information: should I research this further or can I trust this? Is there more going on with this subject?

I think our minds naturally stray to find these patterns to reduce computational load. For example, reading news on reddit and seeing hundreds of comments and very few upvotes puts your mind into "investigation mode" while seeing something average makes you much more trusting of it.

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

#605

Post by freedomben » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:39 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #374

freedomben wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us who lived through the years of "selected not elected" it is a remarkable double standard. Or, being charitable, a remarkable reversal of opinion. (I tried to slip the expression "flip flop" in there as a joke since that was a popular and widely over-used term at the time too, but I couldn't make it work).

Let us just take a moment to remember that Gore conceded, as did Hillary. On the night of the election, in her case. Former President Trump still has not conceded . There is no double standard. Citizens thinking the election was rigged is one thing, but when the President of the United States refuses to respect the democratic process, it is a very big deal .

Yep, totally fair. I agree.

For what it's worth I think it bit him the ass with the senate election in Georgia. If he hadn't told all his voters that it was rigged and there was no point in voting, the senate seats might have gone differently.

Overall I'm hoping that most people see through it and are tired of the stupidity and games that he plays. God help us if he wins the Republican primary in 2024.

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

#606

Post by jcranmer » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:41 AM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #373

jcranmer wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (not the legislature) changed their voting laws to accommodate widespread mail-in ballots and drop-boxes which was against the state constitution. And yet no one challenged the law until after the third election it had taken effect. Until after the results had come out. There's a doctrine called laches: you have to complain about things that wrong you when you find about them, and i…

You are right about the first part. You won't know you have a dead raccoon in your basement until it starts stinking. I was hearing the conservatives complain about the mass mail-in voting rules and Trump himself also, long before the actual election. On your second point: If a state holds an election contrary to their constitution and it's proven that it was contrary to their constitution, the votes wouldn't be cons…

> On your second point: If a state holds an election contrary to their constitution and it's proven that it was contrary to their constitution, the votes wouldn't be constitutional. In other words they're illegal. So wouldn't it be sensible to hear calls to count only the legal votes?

No. Those who voted using improper procedures had reasonable basis to believe that the procedures they used would have been proper. If they had known those procedures where improper at the time they availed themselves of them, they very well could have used proper procedures instead. After the election and the votes are counted, it is absolutely too late to cure any defects. Why should those people be penalized for actions that they have done through no fault of their own?

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

#607

Post by abernard1 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:41 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #591

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.

>Why not? Electricity is deemed a common utility and a regulated, granted natural monopoly - one considered a necessary requirement for all citizens and organizations. Video streaming is not a monopoly, and no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace change the fact that there are a number easily accessible competitors.

> Video streaming is not a monopoly

It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just as now, and yet the Sherman Antitrust Act happened.

The network power of these organizations makes them monopolies even aside from market share. In Sherman era anti-trust, "Build your own rail network" would not have flown as an argument, because it was clear that coercive actions to force people into a different network were problematic.

The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. You can read the Sherman Act, court opinions during that time, and the argument of it removing centralization of power. The "predatory pricing" argument is a recent invention, ironically created with right-wing judicial activism, and neither historical or textual in nature.

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

#608

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:41 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #384

jmull wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What monopoly???

not a monopoly on paper, but a monopoly in terms of reach. When 99% of videos seen on the web are from youtube, can you pretend it's not akin to some kind of monopoly?

if you want to host your own video - pay for it.

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

#609

Post by bduerst » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:47 AM UTC

abernard1 wrote: post #607

bduerst wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not? Electricity is deemed a common utility and a regulated, granted natural monopoly - one considered a necessary requirement for all citizens and organizations. Video streaming is not a monopoly, and no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace change the fact that there are a number easily accessible competitors.

> Video streaming is not a monopoly It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. There were plenty of competitors back then, just as now, and yet the Sherman Antitrust Act happened. The network power of these organizations makes them monopolies even aside from market share. In Sherman era anti-trust, "Build your own rail network" would not have flown as an argument, because it was clear th…

>It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share.

Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access.

>The government can regulate monopolies for any reason.

Whether or not the government can regulate a monopoly is not being debated here. Nobody is talking about that straw man.

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

#610

Post by dillondoyle » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 5:47 AM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #248

dillondoyle wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is completely different than claiming there were millions of hacked ballots and all kinds of other crazyness. Those are legitimate political arguments about voter suppression laws. No one on the left claimed Kemp and Republicans stuffed ballot boxes or China hacked whatever. The argument is based in facts. Many Republican controlled states, especially in the south, have historic issues with suppressing the votes…

[dead]

Whether or not county admins overstepped legislature's authority is a legal argument that doesn't involve fake votes or stolen votes.

No one of reasonable mind is questioning whether ballots that were automatically sent to people - without explicit laws instructing counties to do that - were somehow sent back en masse by fake or dead people, or adding additional ballots onto it.

Yeah a lot of places like that get very high turnout. Especially older people in general.

One reason is from what the right calls 'ballot harvesting' which is usually legal. where someone goes into a high voter concentration area and goes door to doo, helps to vote, then turns the ballots in on behalf of the voter.

Both sides do this.

While there are a few instances of bad actors filling in ballots for people (almost always Republican..) that would have to be proven. And there isn't any evidence in those instances. Even if it did happen for a few hundred votes - which I personally doubt - it would not have changed the outcome of the election, likely not even at the very small local level.