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

661–670 of 872 posts

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

#661

Post by edmundsauto »

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!

You form fewer of your opinions than you think. YouTube is taking responsibility for their platform, and I encourage you to show your displeasure to them.

I also encourage them to form their own opinions.

If you form your own opinions through a mediator, you will be deceived. If you form it via direct connection, you will be overwhelmed. Nothing is new or old, here. It is just difficult to have good opinions while also not letting your platform be abused.

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

#662

Post by brnt »

mohanmcgeek wrote: post #659
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'…

> 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.

There is plenty of research supporting this thesis.

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

#663

Post by TrispusAttucks »

imnotlost wrote: post #563

Fine. You can’t force people or businesses to listen to you or broadcast your speech. That’s American liberty. That’s freedom. You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. If you do want a digital public square look for something run by the government with a mandate to publish everything. I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t be too happy with that either… too many libtards, too many nazis, t…

When the government mandates people to stay home via lock down the definition of public square is null and void. You've just removed the right to assemble.

You can't take away the public square and then demand people only air grievances in the public square.

The line between corporations and government is so blurred online that we must blur the lines between public and private spaces online.

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

#664

Post by cf141q5325 »

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'…

Have you thought about the implications of your opinion for democracy? Is it only acceptable as long as people are properly brainwashed?

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

#665

Post by edmundsauto »

mohanmcgeek wrote: post #659
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'…

> 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.

That’s also what YouTube viewers think. Not making a decision, is also making a decision. Develop your own news curation source and stop relying on a corporation to do it.

If that is too difficult, perhaps consider the challenge the news org faces.

Everyone makes bad decisions. While you are angry at YT for what they have removed, are you also praising them for each thing they did not action? If not, you are getting upset about a very small percentage. That may be valid for your own issues, but it does not make it representative

If you ever wonder why other humans don’t support your issue, and your issue is not representative, perhaps that is your answer to make more sense of things.

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

#666

Post by px43 »

archerx wrote: post #654
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'…

Could this have been more arrogant or condescending?

How about you type up a response to them, and if you phrase it better than I did, and get the message across more clearly that I did, then I'll delete my post and you can get all the attention?

I did my darnedest when writing that post, and I don't really think your meta-commentary is adding to the discussion.

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

#667

Post by mohanmcgeek »

px43 wrote: post #658
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everything that you, or the YouTube moderators at California, disagree with is not misinformation.

And the COVID situation showed how bad it was. I can't imagine why someone would think it works "well enough"

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

#668

Post by roenxi »

magicalist wrote: post #642
roenxi wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The son of the president is under criminal investigations and is being offered board positions in a country famous for corruption. There is surely a cash-for-influence scheme going on. There probably is something there.

Now you may not care. I certainly don't think it is the biggest issue, this sort of corruption is pretty small biscuits compared to the damage that US politicians of Biden's tenure typically manage to do. However, the fact that there was a vigorous campaign of censorship leading up to the election is extremely weird. Which is the polite phrase for "this was a partisan lie by omission because big tech is showing their cards and those cards are Democrat".

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

#669

Post by archerx »

px43 wrote: post #666
archerx wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could this have been more arrogant or condescending?

How about you type up a response to them, and if you phrase it better than I did, and get the message across more clearly that I did, then I'll delete my post and you can get all the attention? I did my darnedest when writing that post, and I don't really think your meta-commentary is adding to the discussion.

People should be able to watch what they want without a midwit nanny policing their thoughts. Have you submitted your application to run the ministry of truth yet?

If you don’t understand how this kind of thinking is bad for the people and good for those in power I suggest you go and do some reading.

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

#670

Post by mohanmcgeek »

edmundsauto wrote: post #665
mohanmcgeek wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That’s also what YouTube viewers think. Not making a decision, is also making a decision. Develop your own news curation source and stop relying on a corporation to do it. If that is too difficult, perhaps consider the challenge the news org faces. Everyone makes bad decisions. While you are angry at YT for what they have removed, are you also praising them for each thing they did not action? If not, you are getting…

I see you countering a bunch of right wing talking points which I have not even made.

I was referring to GP's overt arrogance in justifying YouTube's intervention here.

People can generally duduce for themselves what the truth is.

Post reply on HN