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

#671

Post by anon2020dot00 » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:42 AM UTC

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.

It's not about the phrasing but about the message.

How can it not be condescending to say "30% to 40% of people don't have enough intelligence to filter propaganda". Whether that's true or not is debatable but there's no phrasing it better.

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

#672

Post by lenkite » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:44 AM UTC

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'…

Basically the only news that should be allowed is news that satisfies the mainstream political narrative so that folks are kept fully sanitized. This is far more important than silly things like freedom of speech. Any critical questioning of the "facts" is "misinformation".

Who cares later if the "misinformation" later is found to be true ? The most important thing is to obey and follow the will of the collective - set by the whatever the media overlords and political masters judge as "correct thinking". Any attempt to deviate from the same is "radicalization" and must be suppressed by any and all means.

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

#673

Post by mohanmcgeek » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:51 AM UTC

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.

Perhaps if you dropped your arrogance you would realise that other people in the thread don't share your opinion and don't want to get the same message across more clearly?

You and YouTube seem to share the same sentiment that you somehow are smarter in every way than the said 30-40% of the population.

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

#674

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:51 AM UTC

bckr wrote: post #126

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.

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.

The difference between the private property + free market argument is that much of the HN crowd is sympathetic to the deranked content.

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

#675

Post by DoctorOW » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:52 AM UTC

adam_arthur wrote: post #360

DoctorOW wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not been eliminated. Quite a few people believe the election was stolen. Also, it's not a view worth keeping around. There's no evidence to support it and it's just used to justify violence and division.

There's no evidence to support the fact that corporate greed in an otherwise competitive market leads to inflation, yet we have plenty of politicians pushing that. There's no evidence supporting price controls to be an effective way to fight inflation, as was shown to produce awful results in the 70s among many other eras, yet we have politicians pushing for that. There's no evidence to support that nominal wages ris…

This comment is unrelated to my point. I asked for an example of a viewpoint being eliminated. Instead, I get a wrong answer and a pivot to a request for my views. You're changing the subject yet again to just listing other things politicians have said. That doesn't substantiate the claim that there are viewpoints being eliminated.

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

#676

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:53 AM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #500

a_shovel wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument would work equally well to support spreading neo-nazi propaganda material. Trite catchphrases are nothing to base a belief system around. An argument doesn't have to make logical sense for it to convince millions of people. Especially not if they like the conclusion.

That's Godwin's law territory. I remember being taught in the very liberal NY schools I went to that the ACLU defending the free speech rights of Nazis in Illinois was part of the deal in a free society, and in this case we're not even talking about Nazis. But I'll defend to the death your right to say ridiculous nonsense.

Youtube isn't saying that no one has the right to say ridiculous nonsense, they are saying that they can't use their platform and infrastructure to do so.

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

#677

Post by cryptonector » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:53 AM UTC

tyler_sf wrote: post #47

scantis wrote: post #3

Right on. If you are dumb enough to censor, you can only censor content and the frame you are looking through doesn't make any difference. Imagine in a totalitarian regime, you would like to inform people on system critical thoughts others have been executed for, so people can avoid them.

I can imagine a regime like this having enough people who simply enjoy the killing.

Ask Argentines. I'm not sure how many killers they had during the Proceso, but however many it was, they killed many. And, crucially, people knew, and they looked the other way, and if need be said of the victims that "they must have done something". (What else were they going to do anyways? If you live under a murderous regime, maybe the best thing to do is not rock the boat and hope you survive, and the last thing you want is a knock at 3AM and the cattle prod put to your genitals a few hours later and your drugged broken self tossed out of a plane into the ocean a few days later.

There's a always enough people who would enjoy the killing, if only someone would employ them to do it. And most people would probably deal with it as long as they aren't the victims. It's really sad. Our societies are very vulnerable to falling into such messes.

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

#678

Post by mohanmcgeek » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:55 AM UTC

archerx wrote: post #669

px43 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The current "moderation" is in line with their opinion and they don't want to imagine what will happen when that changes.

And YouTube gets no love because they also removed the dislike button (which is a much more robust way of moderation) because they didn't like the outcome

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

#679

Post by stonogo » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 7:59 AM UTC

nicodjimenez wrote: post #548

JoshTko wrote: post #524

The avg. American reads at a middle school level. Many read at an elementary school level, meaning ~1/4 of America will take this video as fact. Couple this with an algorithm that will only feed you things you like and you have a recipe for disaster. 100% unrestricted freedom of speech only works with a highly educated populate which America does not have.

Educated people are more easy to brainwash actually. They’ll believe anything the establishment tells them because they spend more time in school following directions and going “by the book” - they excel at this. Less educated people need to learn to trust their instincts, and be skeptical at all times. Politics is about really simple stuff because you can’t over complicate at such a high level of abstraction. I thin…

  > They’ll believe anything the establishment tells them because 
  > they spend more time in school following directions and going 
  > “by the book” - they excel at this.

Grade A satire. I, of course, have yet to meet anyone with an advanced degree who trusted "the book," as such naivete is the surest route to frustration. Critically evaluating received wisdom is essential to surviving grad school... As is learning to play politics to satisfy the hidebound whilst pursuing your own goals.

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

#680

Post by DoctorOW » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 8:02 AM UTC

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #647

DoctorOW wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

> 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.

Again, you're agreeing with YouTube on that point. The Hill's ban was because they didn't contextualize the false information they shared.