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

711–720 of 872 posts

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

#711

Post by cudgy »

hhjinks wrote: post #710
cudgy wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 30-40% of YouTube users who don't have that skill, and become radicalized and violent when stupid bullshit like this starts gaining traction. Taking away their ability to hear different viewpoints especially those they believe to be true just drives these people to radicalize even further. I’m not even touching the matter of dismissing almost half of a country. Very shortsighted perspective.

I don't think that's true. They're probably referring to the people who fall down into alt-right/whatever radical group "rabbit holes." These people aren't radical from the outset. I'd say the real issue is the youtube algorithm, which causes the radicalization "highway" in the first place, but apparently youtube can't be bothered to fix their harmful algorithm, and would rather delete the content that is being promo…

I guess you are not a humanist. Your perspective is that people are easily manipulated and need to be told by other people whom are easily manipulated how they should think.

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

#712

Post by Azurin »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #692

Just to break up the angry posts self-radicalizing themselves: This is a good thing. Basically every media outlet mentioned here has a long history of publishing really big lies about important stuff they know to be false for monetary gain. The Hill had to quietly oust one of their own top propagandists recently because of how badly his obvious lies about Ukraine helping to steal the US election from Trump went down…

It's sad to see how many conservative"reeee muh freedom" is in HN. Hope they all get their Herman Cain Awards too

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

#714

Post by ZeroGravitas »

lenkite wrote: post #709
stingraycharles wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re talking about Trump denying the election results, which ended with a lot of violence in the Capitol. This is absolutely misinformation that did lead to radicalization.

So did Clinton about the 2016 election and she still claims the same. Along with her consistent hardline that Trump is a Putin Puppet - which is misinformation that has been proved false again & again at great expense to the taxpayer - but still gets published. Zero bans for her - since she is a cherished member of the political mainstream. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... https://news.…

We have proof that Trump tried to blackmail Zelensky into framing his political opponents by witholding aid they needed to defend themselves from Russia.

When Putin started his invasion, Trump praised him for being smart, then praised him again, suggesting he'd captured a whole country for a small cost in sanctions.

What do you think you're expressing when you say that Trump isn't a Putin puppet? That he's not made of wood?

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

#715

Post by DonHopkins »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #300
guelo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Once the case was over he stepped aside instead of trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.

> ” trying to take down our whole system of government like you know who.” This is pure hyperbole and exaggeration. Emphasis on “our whole system of government”.

It's really rich (in an olfactory, not financial way) that a Trump Big Lie supporting bitcoin shill would whine about hyperbole and exaggeration. Are you under the illusion that you have an exclusive monopoly on that, and you're mortally offended when you find yourself on the receiving end of what you believe you have the sole right to dish out?

After debasing yourself by jumping to Trump's defense with "Trump is obviously being sarcastic" when all the evidence from his previous statements and behavior and impeachment trial proves that he most certainly was not, you're certainly easy to trigger into instantly flip-flopping to the other extreme when it's the other side.

So why are you so eager to believe and defend Trump's "sarcastic" "pure hyperbole and exaggeration", but so disrespectful of anyone else's freedom of speech?

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

#716

Post by cudgy »

lenkite wrote: post #709
stingraycharles wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re talking about Trump denying the election results, which ended with a lot of violence in the Capitol. This is absolutely misinformation that did lead to radicalization.

So did Clinton about the 2016 election and she still claims the same. Along with her consistent hardline that Trump is a Putin Puppet - which is misinformation that has been proved false again & again at great expense to the taxpayer - but still gets published. Zero bans for her - since she is a cherished member of the political mainstream. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... https://news.…

Technically videos of Clinton Making such claims violate the YouTube policy stated below, but, as you said, YouTube selectively enforces their policies only against those that are not part of the mainstream narrative.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/10835034?hl=en#zip...

“Election integrity: Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of select past national elections, after final election results are officially certified. This currently applies to: Any past U.S. Presidential election The 2021 German federal election”

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

#717

Post by lenkite »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #714
lenkite wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So did Clinton about the 2016 election and she still claims the same. Along with her consistent hardline that Trump is a Putin Puppet - which is misinformation that has been proved false again & again at great expense to the taxpayer - but still gets published. Zero bans for her - since she is a cherished member of the political mainstream. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... https://news.…

We have proof that Trump tried to blackmail Zelensky into framing his political opponents by witholding aid they needed to defend themselves from Russia. When Putin started his invasion, Trump praised him for being smart, then praised him again, suggesting he'd captured a whole country for a small cost in sanctions. What do you think you're expressing when you say that Trump isn't a Putin puppet? That he's not made o…

You mean the claim that the Ukrainian President himself denied ?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-s...

And what about Joe Biden's proud public boast that he threatened to withhold aid if a Ukrainian prosecutor wasn't fired ? (who was investigating Burisma - the company whose board Hunter biden was on.)

https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-t...

Anyways, it's pretty clear that there are different standards for different people for news that gets published/censored/suppressed and most importantly amplified.

As Elon Musk said just today: "All news sources are partially propaganda, some more than others" - when he was told by governments (not Ukraine) that Starlink should block Russian news.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499982913949081600

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

#718

Post by ZeroGravitas »

xigoi wrote: post #701
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'…

Then why do they censor stupid bullshit only when it's right-wing?

> Hate speech, predatory behavior, graphic violence, malicious attacks, and content that promotes harmful or dangerous behavior isn't allowed on YouTube.

Is Pro-suicide or self-harm content right-wing? Because it's not allowed on YouTube.

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

#719

Post by xigoi »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #718
xigoi wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why do they censor stupid bullshit only when it's right-wing?

> Hate speech, predatory behavior, graphic violence, malicious attacks, and content that promotes harmful or dangerous behavior isn't allowed on YouTube. Is Pro-suicide or self-harm content right-wing? Because it's not allowed on YouTube.

That's not what we're talking about here.

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

#720

Post by ZeroGravitas »

ayngg wrote: post #639
nebula8804 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as if it had not been attempted numerous times only to be censored off every hosting/ payment/ app platforms Was this really something that stopped any of the services? >or hacked to have all the personal information of their users doxxed because they had "bad opinions." Come on this is not fair. This was caused by these services choosing to hire low skilled developers. The guy building Parler didn't even understan…

The point I was trying to make was that the argument that you can simply make your own social network is disingenuous and isn't the solution, the fact that Google has continuously failed to do that one thing is a testament to how difficult it is. Then in the case of censorship, you have to deal with being a persona non grata that socially conscious people and institutions won't touch, and that you need to build it in…

Creating social networks is easy. Getting Billions in investment to use to lure people into your walled garden so you can gamble on extracting even more billions from them later when they and their nwtwork are locked in is hard. Competing with competitors who have done the above and have near infinite money is hard.

There's a very obvious solution to this, and it involves government regulation.

Post reply on HN