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

651–660 of 872 posts

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

#651

Post by TrispusAttucks »

px43 wrote: post #646
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'…

What about all the times that YouTube banned videos that turned out to be correct?

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

#652

Post by zwirbl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #630
bduerst wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 governm…

It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. You host somewhere else and YouTube isn't going to surface your video to their users, and neither is Google since they're the same company. This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.

So discovery is now a basic right and Youtube must enable everyones boring or inciting videos to be discovered? Can't you just share a link on $SOCIAL_MEDIA like others do?

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

#653

Post by rhdunn »

themitigating wrote: post #580
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…

Why would the midterms do this?

If the midterms result in more Republicans being elected -- which is a possibility -- it would be easier to vote through laws like this.

That risk is likely one reason why Biden's state of the union speech echoed Trump policies: strengthening the border, moving jobs (like chip manufacture) to America, improving police funding, etc.

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

#654

Post by archerx »

px43 wrote: post #646
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'…

Could this have been more arrogant or condescending?

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

#655

Post by earleybird »

mulmen wrote: post #538
goodluckchuck wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also a statement of domestic values and proof that YouTube’s conduct is un-American.

As a great late 20th century philosopher said “that’s like, your opinion man”.

The Dude abides.

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

#656

Post by lliamander »

pfisch wrote: post #643
lliamander wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Leaving aside the fact that these people believe democracy had already ended, and that they saw themselves as attempting to save democracy, how does this plan actually work? Do they just sit in the capitol and declare Trump king? Maybe hold congress members hostage? Who in the federal government or military is going to go along with that?

I just don't see it as a realistic threat to our system of government.

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

#657

Post by px43 »

mabbo wrote: post #645

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…

I think the main thing lacking on modern platforms is a quick, reliable way to verify the reputation of any given content creator.

First off, it obviously needs to be relative reputation, and not centralizedI think some sort of cross platform web of trust, where you publicly endorse some friends, some content creators, and some investigative journalists, etc. You also publicly repudiate sources of information that you don't find credible. This means that if anyone goes off the rails there's a visible trail of distrust, and that information is de-prioritized in your network.

This also has a bit of sybil resistance built in, because upvotes or downvotes of thousands of bots isn't relevant at all to your trust graph unless friend of friends actually endorse some of these bots or something. Still though, it would probably also be good to have some burnable staking mechanic. Everyone needs to put in a dollar, or 10 dollars, or something to participate (which could be removed at any time), and people who clearly violate terms of use would have their stake burned, and all of their endorsements or repudiations would be invalidated.

I feel like eventually someone is going to have to build something like this. Incentives are hard to get right, but if by some miracle it works, and the trust graph takes off, then lots of these problems just go away. Imagine something like DNS that you could just query to see how much you should trust some chunk of information. It would be a game changer.

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

#658

Post by px43 »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #651
px43 wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

What about all the times that YouTube banned videos that turned out to be correct?

Why would you assume that some machines at Google would always be better at weeding out misinformation than actual humans? There are obviously going to be a lot of false positives, but there are systems to compensate for that, and they seem to work well enough.

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

#659

Post by mohanmcgeek »

px43 wrote: post #646
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'…

> the 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill,

Who are you or YouTube to make this judgement?

More often than not, the "I'm smarter than the average person" types are the ones making the worst decisions.

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

#660

Post by webmaven »

krapp wrote: post #57
erichocean wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations do not have rights, they are government-defined entities—not people. There's no "Bill of Corporate Rights" or "UN Convention on Corporate Rights." Corporations have locally-defined privileges and exist by, and at, the will of the people where they reside. Governments can change what those privileges are at any moment, for any reason—or no reason at all. If we don't like what Google is doing, we can simpl…

Corporations do have rights, including the right to free speech and association, because even as entities they are not separable from the people (or the rights of the people) who create and interact with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood >Government can change what those privileges are at any moment, for any reason—or no reason at all. No, this isn't the way government works anywhere outside of…

> >Government can change what those privileges are at any moment, for any reason—or no reason at all.

> No, this isn't the way government works anywhere outside of a dictatorship.

It really is. The executive branch is the most constrained in practice, but the legislative branch is relatively free to do whatever they want (spend money, create or abolish departments, set the rules, change the rules, allocate money to enforce the rules, etc. Even revise their own deliberative procedures), and the judiciary is even less constrained except that it is the other two branches that control who gets appointed as judges.

There are checks and balances, but those are pretty much always another part of government, so ultimately, anything the three branches agree on gets done. Anything.

There might be consequences including failing to get reelected for the executive and legislature, but that doesn't necessarily undo what's already been done.

Post reply on HN