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

641–650 of 872 posts

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

#641

Post by chj »

markdown wrote: post #568
chj wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Today you and me can debate what "conquer" means, but if policy makers follow his advice, this war won't happen at all. I think that's what really matters.

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

#642

Post by magicalist »

roenxi wrote: post #588
magicalist wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's being subjected to a federal criminal investigation. There is a bit more there than "simply being on a board". It is a big story and deserves public investigation to find out what was going on. It came out in December that his taxes were being investigated and it was widely reported. Easy to see from the wikipedia article where there are multiple citations from major news outlets. > It is materially interestin…

> It came out in December... Which lends some rather solid credence to all the people back around the election who were saying this looks like fairly obvious corruption. I mean, the facts haven't really changed much, the only change is that the political establishment is OK with it being reported on in December. Anyone reading the initial story could have told you there was going to be an investigation. Whether they'…

This is a whole lot of words to refer to nothing specific.

> Not finding overwhelming evidence of money laundering can't be the story unless the original - silenced - accusations of corruption were also a story.

Not finding evidence can't be the story because the original story (which is what had no evidence), er, was a story? Again, an accusation can't pull itself up by its bootstraps. There has to be a there, there.

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

#643

Post by pfisch »

lliamander wrote: post #626
rootusrootus wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you call it if Democrats and BLM protesters had stormed the Capitol in 2017 demanding the vice president be hanged for not agreeing to turn over the election result? Please don't try and with a straight face claim it would be trespassing. I'd have called it insurrection.

You do realize left-wing protestors did actually destroy a fair bit of DC in 2017, right? And when DC boarded up again in late 2020, it wasn't in fear of right-wing protesters. Anyway, while I do disdain the use of violence for political ends, I do think the events have been exaggerated and misrepresented by the corporate press for political purposes.

Wasn't their goal to stop the handover of power to Biden? Weren't they using force to achieve that goal by attacking the capitol building to stop congress from being able to proceed?

How is that not an attempt to end democracy. An insurrection.

The ringleaders seemed to be well aware that the objective was to invalidate the election and keep trump president. How is that not an insurrection?

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

#644

Post by mulmen »

jankyxenon wrote: post #624
mulmen wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, the issue that people are starting to react to is - are some platforms a natural monopoly? No. > Is it useful to have all user-generated public video clips be aggregated by one central provider? The answer seems like it’s yes. The answer is no. Vimeo exists. Facebook and Twitter both feature user-generated video content. I hear TikTok is a thing. In addition to these platforms basically anyone can self-host in…

The answer is not yes or no. The answer is whatever a large enough portion of the electorate believe. I’m not making a case for anything - I’m explaining the narrative behind a growing POV. But I will say that YouTube is different than Facebook videos or TikTok. YouTube is meant to be a searchable video index across topics and time. It’s a video search engine and hosting service in one.

Natural Monopoly is a technical term. If the electorate wants to change the constitution we can do that with no justification. It only has to pass Congress and be ratified by the states.

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

#645

Post by mabbo »

Moderating a top web destination today isn't possible to do correctly.

You could automate moderation with ML, automatic recognition, user-flagging but the sheer number of false positives, and alleged false positives, means you basically need to have a full human moderation team to have real accuracy.

You could just use human moderators, but then you have to pay for them all. Ads based websites can't afford that.

You could charge users money and not be purely ads-based, but then you won't be a top web destination because people aren't willing to pay for the internet with money.

So the only remaining option is to automate, ignore the false positive problem entirely and rake in money while abusing your content creators and users. This is 'The Google Strategy'.

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

#646

Post by px43 »

mathogre wrote: post #584

Fuck YouTube. If they're going to control what news I get, I'll choose other than YouTube. I do not need them. I have read from both hard left and hard right, and am intelligent enough to make my own decisions about what makes sense. Let them play their games, whether silly or dangerous. I form my own opinions. Losers!

This isn't about you, it's about the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction.

YouTube isn't a news network. It's a video platform catering to a global audience, many of whom are really really bad critical thinking. Same with Facebook. We all know what happens when content isn't curated, and it's really, really bad.

I'm glad that you're an adult and can make your own grown up decisions, and actually get news from a wide range of sources, and curate it yourself. I obviously wish everyone had that skill, but they don't, and it's actually really really dangerous to take that privilege you've earned for granted.

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

#647

Post by UnpossibleJim »

DoctorOW wrote: post #618
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>If we are going to say that censorship is justified because you want to prevent violence or insurrections, we open the floodgates to some seriously bad things If it were just as bad as "The censors want to prevent the bad things", I think I might feel that it would be justifiable. This type of thinking also robs the broader public of its agency to reason. The broader public is not comprised of petulant children, re…

You realize this is YouTube's position right? They're fine with the exact clip The Hill used if it's to criticize those ideas. To oppose YouTube's stance is to argue we shouldn't pair false claims with the evidence that refutes it.

I'm not sure I represented myself well at all. I'm not for censorship or any form of "Ministry of Truth". Those ideas will be paired with videos naturally by people who would choose to refute the ideas put forth. And I think fair use should cover rebuttal videos (though I'm unsure how copyright works in that way). I don't think anyone needs to be banned for showing a video discussing any topic... it's legal, and a private platform. They have the right, but it seems a bit tacky. I don't see how I could have been misconstrued as for not rebutting poor arguments or false information with facts, good arguments and critical thinking skills. I apologize if I did - I got a little long winded and should have kept it shorter and to the point.

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

#648

Post by lodovic »

bduerst wrote: post #627
clord wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No the point is whether YouTube is better if it allows us to evaluate. I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. I don’t want to be treated like the child here though. If I click on a Ukraine war video or I want to find a quote from trump to pick apart there should not be filters preventing it. The product is better if I am in control. YouTube ought to stay out of it. It do…

> I want YouTube to show me darker news and also keep my kid entertained without worry. This is a different argument. You already have the agency of being in control, you can pick any platform to watch from. Youtube is exercising it's own right to censor, similar to how you want to censor for your kid, based on what you think is harmful.

But I don't want to be censored like a kid. I'm an adult.

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

#649

Post by eyelidlessness »

abnry wrote: post #621
eyelidlessness wrote: post #574

I’ll take the downvotes or whatever argumentation incoming but this is obviously (to me) Google being bad at technology and intentionally opaque about it, and just as mealy mouthed about the subject matter as always because they don’t give a fuck.

In that case, it is still bad. And it makes for a good cover to actually censor based on political speech. And it is hard to give Google the benefit of the doubt in this regard. But you are probably right.

It is bad but it’s not clear what cover it gives to censor. They suspended a neutralish account which would ostensibly be part of the “liberal” media for playing verbatim a far right media clip to report on the fact of it existing. Who’s being censored here?

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

#650

Post by eyelidlessness »

gundmc wrote: post #581
eyelidlessness wrote: post #574

I’ll take the downvotes or whatever argumentation incoming but this is obviously (to me) Google being bad at technology and intentionally opaque about it, and just as mealy mouthed about the subject matter as always because they don’t give a fuck.

I feel like this is the case with 99% of YouTube takedowns.

Yep but it feels worth recognizing in the context of freezed peach.
Post reply on HN