Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#701

Post by sneak »

bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

Why do the lies need to stop?

Who needs to stop them?

By which authority?

Who decides what is a lie and what is truth?

Who cross-checks them when they're inevitably wrong?

By which authority?

Simple dismissals like this miss the point. Until there are some good answers to these questions, kneejerk censorship is no solution at all.

Stating falsehoods should absolutely not be grounds for censorship, even the private kind undertaken by hosting providers.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#702

Post by [deleted] »

chongli wrote: post #413
strogonoff wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Took 4-6 full years (if including the primaries) and 30,000 lies to grow a conscience. Arguably, it took election results. Easier to do what is right when the wind blows the right way.

No I think a violent insurrection in the Capitol was the tipping point. Up until then, all of the dangers associated with the rhetoric was theoretical.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#703

Post by pmyteh »

ChrisRR wrote: post #667
e40 wrote: post #21

The lies are 100% of the reason the capital riot happened, so yes, they do need to stop. Fox News lies every single day. What do we expect from a population of people that only hear these lies, day in and day out? They're going to react just like they did on 1/6.

As a brit, Fox news fascinates me. Because every clip of it I watch is so clearly opinion piece propaganda, they don't even pretend like they're reporting the news Even our "equivalent", the Murdoch owned Sky News channel is nowhere near as bad as Fox news

We're about to get our own: News UK News (from Murdoch) and GB News (fronted by Andrew Neil) are starting, expressly on the Fox News model. It was thought until quite recently that the requirements for 'due impartiality' and 'due accuracy' in the Broadcast Code precluded expressly partisan TV news (unlike newspapers). But these two have been licenced anyway, so clearly not.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#704

Post by tempestn »

jansan wrote: post #627
wilsynet wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also there’s this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/politics/capitol-arres... Jake Angeli carried a spear. Several weapons recovered from Eric Munchel.

>Jake Angeli carried a spear. I honestly cannot tell if you are being sarcastic here.

He literally was carrying a spear with a flag tied to it. And if you're implying that a spear isn't a real weapon, the officer who died was beaten with a flag and a fire extinguisher, so I'd say a spear is dangerous enough.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#705

Post by sneak »

karlshea wrote: post #468
tenpies wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point the lies need to stop. Imagine that all the news agencies actually spread the lie. Imagine that for the next 4 years of Biden's presidency, they would talk non-stop about election fraud, how he's illegitimate, and how there needs to be an investigation. Imagine that the opposition party appointed a special investigator who's sole mission was to take down Biden by uncovering fraud. Now imagine that aft…

> How would Democrats react if they had to deal with 4 years of fraud investigations, #Resistance, #NotMyPresident? I'm sorry, did you not live through the entire Obama presidency?

I don't support either of those presidents, but the things you each describe are not comparable in scale or character, IMO.

The asymmetry that GP describes is real, and everyone should be wary about the way politics are carried out now.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#706

Post by Quarrelsome »

pmiller2 wrote: post #697
Quarrelsome wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't be like that. Tailoring for the crowd just becomes a game of "who can invite more of their friends". The tone of this place _should_ be curated. We're tech, we're educated, we're start ups. If we lose that, we lose our soul.

Sorry, but, you've got it all wrong. "We" are whoever shows up.

Yes and no. We should have standards.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#707

Post by AniseAbyss »

endymi0n wrote: post #502
bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

Also from the original article: "On November 5, 2020, Twitter permanently suspended Bannon after he called for Dr Anthony Fauci to be beheaded in an episode." It's good they finally pulled the trigger, but considering that Steven Bannon has been constantly putting oil to the fire on every single channel available, that point was very certainly much earlier.

Deplatforming works. That's why they are upset. Now when normal people scroll through YT they won't see 4chan content.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#708

Post by kmlx »

sixothree wrote: post #146
garbagetime wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an important question: would it be a good thing or a bad thing if it was very difficult to make plans involving violence on the internet?

How would any government exist if it were simple to coordinate violent acts against people you don't agree with? How can we even exist as a society is if don't we force people to use the framework of governance?

> How would any government exist if it were simple to coordinate violent acts against people you don't agree with? How can we even exist as a society is if don't we force people to use the framework of governance?

exactly the same point that China was making when the US politicians were supporting the Hong Kong protestors.

and similar point Fidel Castro was making when he let the Cubans escape into Florida.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#709

Post by [deleted] »

KMag wrote: post #572
bitcharmer wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the term "permanently suspended" several times already. Not a native speaker, could someone please explain to me the difference between that and "banned"?

As a native speaker, it's probably a distinction without a difference. Both sound more harsh than regular suspension and both sound less harsh than permanently banned. Neither one tells you exactly what they've done in terms of the amount of effort required to re-instate him if they change their mind. Both signal that they're unlikely to change their minds any time soon. With a physical location, "banned" sometimes i…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#710

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #701
bryan0 wrote: post #13

The headline has important context: “YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on Democrats” At some point the lies need to stop.

Why do the lies need to stop? Who needs to stop them? By which authority? Who decides what is a lie and what is truth? Who cross-checks them when they're inevitably wrong? By which authority? Simple dismissals like this miss the point. Until there are some good answers to these questions, kneejerk censorship is no solution at all. Stating falsehoods should absolutely not be grounds for censorship, even the private ki…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN