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

631–640 of 872 posts

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

#631

Post by zpeti »

Is it just me or has YouTube gotten super boring at this point? It’s like I can feel they’ve turned down the viral KPIs, and they’re only showing established channels now, most if which are boring.

I was basically addicted to YouTube a few years back, first thing every day was go there, I could stop going to it many times a day, even when I felt it was too much. Now, I maybe actively go to YouTube 2-3 times a week, otherwise I just watch embedded videos on websites or Twitter.

I’m not surprised tiktok has taken over.

I think YouTube have basically neutered themselves over trying to “do the right thing” politically

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

#632

Post by sacrosancty »

heavyset_go wrote: post #587
headsoup wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did the 'insurrection' cause catastrophic risk to Twitter?

Much of it was organized on social media, and many those who participated it used the platforms to live stream and tell more people to come and participate, too.

Isn't that the opposite of catastrophic risk, and instead an opportunity for more active users?

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

#633

Post by polski-g »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #451
polski-g wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 believe this?

Because they did it to BitChute.

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

#634

Post by [deleted] »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #235
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it? >Not comparable. Nor did it ever actually happen. https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-check-no-trump-did-not-t... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/202... Not anywhere will you find Trump saying to “inject bleach”. That was the media narrative, completely their words.

> And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Seems to me like he is very clearly talking ab…

[deleted]

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

#635

Post by pfisch »

headsoup wrote: post #560
pfisch wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Jan 6th didn't "cause" catastrophic risk. Events like jan 6th present huge potential risks.

If the insurrection had been successful the best case scenario would be economic collapse and possibly civil war in the country where these platforms are based out of. It is likely that many states would reject the sovereignty of the federal government if it didn't honor the outcome of the election, and from there things would quickly spiral out of control.

The potential outcome from the end of democracy in the us would entail catastrophic risk for the companies based here.

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

#636

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

That is the wrong solution. The problem isn't people making content decisions, it's market concentration. They have too much market power and it lets them get away with too much hamfisted behavior without losing users.

They've already gone far enough for the market to start to solve this. Rumble and Gettr and whatever else are gaining users. But it's producing an ideological split which is pretty dangerous. The other platforms don't set out to attract only the right, but when the censorship by the incumbents is one-sided, it's them who want to leave for somewhere else. Which only makes the incumbents lean more to the left.

What we need is some way to get left-leaning people to move to platforms without excessive censorship, which would both keep the balance and deter the incumbents from continuing to be heavy handed.

A lot of this is cultural. The thing where people cheer because their ideological opponent got silenced is cancer and needs to go away. Everyone of all stripes should quit platforms that do this, and then they wouldn't.

This is kind of like the thing where violence is impermissible except in self-defense. We need to cancel anyone who tries to cancel anyone.

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

#637

Post by atorodius »

zpeti wrote: post #631

Is it just me or has YouTube gotten super boring at this point? It’s like I can feel they’ve turned down the viral KPIs, and they’re only showing established channels now, most if which are boring. I was basically addicted to YouTube a few years back, first thing every day was go there, I could stop going to it many times a day, even when I felt it was too much. Now, I maybe actively go to YouTube 2-3 times a week, o…

Might be just you. I still find awesome content, new hobbies (recently picked up analog photography because of a recommended channel), new food, new shows to watch. There is some garbage in my feed (family clips) but overall I go there daily.

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

#639

Post by ayngg »

nebula8804 wrote: post #620
ayngg wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on what I have seen and what I have heard people say, the principle of freedom of speech is probably dead in the west. People will give their sanctimonious justifications like "it only means the government can't censor not us," "it's freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences," or misuse quotes like Popper's intolerance towards intolerance, or Schenck v. United States's yelling fire in a theater, but in r…

> as if it had not been attempted numerous times only to be censored off every hosting/ payment/ app platforms Was this really something that stopped any of the services? >or hacked to have all the personal information of their users doxxed because they had "bad opinions." Come on this is not fair. This was caused by these services choosing to hire low skilled developers. The guy building Parler didn't even understan…

The point I was trying to make was that the argument that you can simply make your own social network is disingenuous and isn't the solution, the fact that Google has continuously failed to do that one thing is a testament to how difficult it is. Then in the case of censorship, you have to deal with being a persona non grata that socially conscious people and institutions won't touch, and that you need to build it in like a month before any political momentum gained dissipates and people move on. Even if you manage to succeed after all that, and get adoption, all you have done is manage to create the same type of platform that censored you in the first place, with the only difference being that it is your hivemind of your own beliefs.

If the problem is that people don't know how to talk to each other anymore, and that isn't solved by creating more insular communities.

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

#640

Post by Thorentis »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #443
Thorentis wrote: post #112

This is what "private companies can do what they like" results in.

It's wild to read HN comments advocating for significantly more government control of private companies. A decade ago that would be pure heresy on any tech forum. Now it's (currently) the top comment on one of the top stories on HN. That said, I guarantee that a government-controlled or otherwise heavily regulated platform would have far, far more instances of benign content removed for violating obscure rules. Once…

Very few people on this forum would disagree with the government telling private companies that they cannot discriminate against people based on protected classes. And yet, the idea of the government telling social media companies they cannot discriminate between types of user generated content is so much more difficult to swallow?
Post reply on HN