Live data from Hacker News

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

tampafp.com

731–740 of 872 posts

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

#731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confession: I only just realized over the past few years. I had always thought that authoritarians were a right phenomenon.

It depends how you see "left" and "right". I see the left as promoting equality, and generally freedom, and the right justifying or increasing inequality. An authoritarian system by definition gives far more power to some people than others, which is an idea of the right. However, systems of government in practice are generally not strictly left or right, and you get the likes of the Soviet Union which gave some degr…

> freedom

I think this word should be banned from such comparisons. Equal outcome can equal opportunity and different takes on what matters. Right-wing libertarianism tends to be the most "pure technical freedom" for the individual but tends to lead to little practical freedom for those without significant capital.

You could rightfully argue that the far end of either in its pure form is the meaningful flavor of "freedom".

Authoritarianism is orthogonal to that, in either case.

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

#732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left to me feels more pro fairness but anti freedom. Either way though in most conceptualizations libertarianism/authoritarianism is usually separated from left/right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Political_Compass_stand...

It depends what freedoms you are talking about. In a communist system you wouldn't have the freedom to own somebody else's house and charge them rent, for example. It's interesting how we throw around concepts like "left" and "right", or "liberal" and "conservative", either not understanding what they mean, or having many different understandings. I'm puzzled about how we manage to communicate at all, but maybe we do…

Specifically "liberal" has very different implications in NA vs Europe.

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

#733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 - s…

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.

What's "a lot?" A lot relative to a normal day? A lot relative to a BLM rally?

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

#735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.

If it’s that serious and important - nationalize them and have the federal government run it. Or you could call your congress people and ask them to increase funding for PBS or NPR or whatever. Or start a tax funded service. Or start your own service. I’m sure you’ll welcome everyone’s suggestions on how to run it. Or is it that you want someone else to run it, you don’t want to pay anything for it, don’t want to pay…

I automatically donate money to Democracy Now and PBS each month because I like to support mostly liberal news that sometimes carries a different emphasis than more mainstream news. I am voting with my wallet.

That said, I hate to see conservative or any other opinions censored, and this is what YouTube is doing, because if we give up on true free speech then I think that bodes ill for our society long term.

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

#736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not? Electricity is deemed a common utility and a regulated, granted natural monopoly - one considered a necessary requirement for all citizens and organizations. Video streaming is not a monopoly, and no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace change the fact that there are a number easily accessible competitors.

Pray tell, what are those YouTube competitors with non-negligible market share? I'd love to move there and find all my favourite channels (or at least some chunk of them) posting their videos there.

Isn't TikTok bigger than youtube now?

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

#737
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Markets fails under the weight of monopolies. Youtube needs to be broken up or regulated. 2. There was a supreme court decision that a platform (in that case a large mall) that makes itself a de-facto public square has to act like one, accruing responsibility to protect speech. I believe this is the right link: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/583/pruneyard-s...

1. People without content share video on the internet and even sell it on plenty of sites. You might as easily not organically get it front of as many people who aren't explicitly looking for it but you can certainly share it and your content being unpopular doesn't imply that they have a monopoly. 2. Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution not the US constitution protected their right to pro…

> Regarding the shopping mall they found the CA state constitution

Where is YouTube headquartered?

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

#738
This is lunacy. If a YouTube video contains a clip of an elected official (or former) making a false claim (which they almost all do to varying degree), that is simply highlighting an event that occurred. The politician said X, and here is the video documentation of that event.

The state of our world is comically broken, and it’s getting worse by the year. I cannot fathom any viable solution to turning things around. Roger Waters album “Amused to Death” was astonishingly prescient.

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

#739
post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your metric? We have weapons that can end our entire human species. Never before in the history of our entire planet was this even been a possibility. Its like living with a loaded gun to your head. Not to mention the impending climate related crisis domino effect we are going to face in the next 50 years. I'm sure having nuclear weapons will make that go smoothly.

>What is your metric? Poverty and disease, for one.

Yes for some. But I still would say you are missing the forest for the trees.

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

#740
post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did the 'insurrection' cause catastrophic risk to Twitter?

Jan 6th didn't "cause" catastrophic risk. Events like jan 6th present huge potential risks. If the insurrection had been successful the best case scenario would be economic collapse and possibly civil war in the country where these platforms are based out of. It is likely that many states would reject the sovereignty of the federal government if it didn't honor the outcome of the election, and from there things would…

War being threatened by a nuclear power like Russia carries with it the “catastrophic risk” of the end of the world, with billions of people dead. Even if one were to wholeheartedly believe that the hyperbole in your comment was an entirely plausible outcome of January 6, the Russian tweet is far more dangerous than anything related to the Capital riot.

It’s outrageously hypocritical that the Russian official’s account is alive today. They didn’t even slap a warning label on his tweet.

Post reply on HN