YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#751

Post by wernercd » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #712

wernercd wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"trump largely cared" and biden gets a cut from his family making millions on his name while he destroys America.. how is he not about "stuffing his pockets"?

I missed the part where America got destroyed by this. Could you clue me in?

    * Afghanistan pull out: Disaster. Many Americans STILL trapped in Afghanistan while Biden looks like cornholio on national TV

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56255613

    * 100+ days of crisis at the border. No law and order. No enforcement of law. Massive crisis that didn't exist on Jan 5th.

https://apnews.com/article/business-economy-prices-inflation...

    * Massive inflation under way. Unseen failure from the top

    * Supply chain collapsing by corruption, shit laws and mandates

https://gallagher.house.gov/media/press-releases/gallagher-w...

    * Fauci has been undeniably shown the liar we all knew he was before. Corrupt POS with funding lies and experimentation on animals.

https://reason.com/2021/10/06/ag-merrick-garland-fbi-critica...

    * FBI ignores violence across America and instead goes after "domestic terrorists"... aka parents who don't blindly obey the gestapo tactics.

I could go on about the number of scandals, corruption and dumpster fire issues... but the collapsing poll numbers and cries of Lets Go Brandon speak it more than I ever could.

And I didn't say America was destroyed... I said Biden was in the process of destroying - and the above scandals as a starting point... they show an inept or corrupt plan that is in effect destroying America as we speak.

Lets Go Brandon.

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#752

Post by matthewmarkus » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 4:57 AM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #747

matthewmarkus wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But Section 230 substantively protects more speech than the First Amendment, and the First Amendment will not adequately backfill any reductions in Section 230’s protections." — Your source, not mine (not that matters). Your argument seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter, but it is imperative that it not be repealed, which is kind of a nonsensical position.

Thank you for demonstrating that you're not engaging in this conversation in good faith, considering I never said "CDA 230 doesn't matter", nor did any of the articles I cited say that. At this point I'm giving you a way to respond further to demonstrate how unreasonable, fundamentally, people who hold your position actually are. It's clear from what you've written that this isn't a rational position you hold, and so…

You said, "Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation." And that, "There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230."

One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from certain responsibilities:

"Because we [YouTube] are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]

That absolution is ridiculous.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#753

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 5:09 AM UTC

wernercd wrote: post #750

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rudy sat there in an interview on TV claiming that he had one of Biden's Macbooks in his physical possession and proudly displayed it to TV cameras. It was a Windows-based LG machine. I can totally see how a 70 year old grifter wouldn't want to spend the money on the correct prop for the media. Somehow, I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that a guy with sensitive material on laptops worth literal millions is just…

You focus on "grifters" from the right and endorse grifters from the left by ignoring their scandals and the rumors about their grifting. You don't like Rudy? Okay... now... why are you silent about Hunter? Joe? other stories about their corruption? Why do you accept at face value rumors about the right - when many of those rumors turn out to be false or their "lies" turn out to be true? and then you'll support "bide…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#754

Post by TameAntelope » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

matthewmarkus wrote: post #752

TameAntelope wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for demonstrating that you're not engaging in this conversation in good faith, considering I never said "CDA 230 doesn't matter", nor did any of the articles I cited say that. At this point I'm giving you a way to respond further to demonstrate how unreasonable, fundamentally, people who hold your position actually are. It's clear from what you've written that this isn't a rational position you hold, and so…

You said, "Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation." And that, "There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230." One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from…

So you admit you lied in your prior quote of me?

And no, my source agrees with me, it literally does not say what you claim. Considering you have a track record of lying about citations, this is unsurprising.

Anything else you feel like lying about? Would prefer more lies that are immediately and obviously false, such as the Notre Dame article not agreeing that Section 230 provides a litigation shield.

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#755

Post by matthewmarkus » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 5:23 AM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #745

matthewmarkus wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There is a valley of nuance between Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. [1] and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. [2]. All of this nuance was being worked out in the courts via common law principles before Congress short-circuited the process with CDA 230, which turned out to be one of the things that helped facilitate the rise of the Big Tech oligopoly that Congress now decries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.…

Yes. There's no such thing as nuance when it comes to corporate liability via third party participation. Companies are going to do the thing which reduces the surface area for litigation as much as possible. Youtube would nuke political speech entirely so fast from anyone not paying them a fee to be broadcast that heads would spin.

Let's say I post the following on a forum:

"X is a rapist." (Where X is a private figure for simplification.)

The nuance is as follows:

A) Under Cubby without proactive moderation.

The website is not liable for the above speech. All the website needs to do is remove the offending speech once it is made aware of its defamatory nature, maybe via a court order.

B) Under Stratton with proactive moderation.

The website is making an effort to determine the truthfulness of content. As such, letting a defamatory post go through subjects the website to liability.

C) Under CDA 230.

As per YouTube, "Because we are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]

Option C is the worst. It is akin to letting an oil company pick and choose which spills are worth cleaning up. Websites can remove things they think are defamatory to certain people and leave up other things that are defamatory to others with no repercussions.

Ideally, we would live in a world governed by A and B. In that world, sites could choose between moderation and no moderation and the corresponding legal and financial burdens. What we have right now is a mess that works to the advantage of Big Tech.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#756

Post by MisterBastahrd » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 5:49 AM UTC

matthewmarkus wrote: post #755

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There's no such thing as nuance when it comes to corporate liability via third party participation. Companies are going to do the thing which reduces the surface area for litigation as much as possible. Youtube would nuke political speech entirely so fast from anyone not paying them a fee to be broadcast that heads would spin.

Let's say I post the following on a forum: "X is a rapist." (Where X is a private figure for simplification.) The nuance is as follows: A) Under Cubby without proactive moderation. The website is not liable for the above speech. All the website needs to do is remove the offending speech once it is made aware of its defamatory nature, maybe via a court order. B) Under Stratton with proactive moderation. The website is…

There's a zero percent chance that a company like Youtube would allow its content to go completely unmoderated. It has to moderate its content. It has advertisers who are associated with content and it has to keep on the right side of copyright law. Also, no website operator wants the hassle of dealing with court orders because posters are engaging in verbal slapfights online. Your proposal of A would have an EXTREME chilling effect on speech.

Because Youtube exists in the real world, and because earning money through ads is a hell of a lot better for business than trying to get people to pay for content, C is always the best option for them and for every other content provider AND virtually all small and independent content producers.

Otherwise, companies like Youtube would be forced to gate entrance to supplying content by charging hosting fees for content. You are seeing the tree and missing the rest of the forest.

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#757

Post by JohnHaugeland » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 6:07 AM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #416

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you struggle this way with casual english

I'm sorry you're resorting to insults when the facts don't support your argument?

There are no insults there, and the argument you didn't successfully understand isn't mine

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#758

Post by JohnHaugeland » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 6:09 AM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #232

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really need this help, champ? > Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember) That's medical disinformation.

Show me how any of the vaccines stop the spread. Go ahead and show the study that shows any of them stop it. And make sure you pay close attention to the word “stop” because I believe that’s where you’re getting confused.

I don't have time to argue with someone who's demanding to be told that vaccines work, and I have even less time for "not every car crash is stopped by a seatbelt so seatbelts are dumb"

I'm not getting confused. I'm discarding facile positions based around inappropriate literalism

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#759

Post by matthewmarkus » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 6:09 AM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #754

matthewmarkus wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said, "Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation." And that, "There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230." One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from…

So you admit you lied in your prior quote of me? And no, my source agrees with me, it literally does not say what you claim. Considering you have a track record of lying about citations, this is unsurprising. Anything else you feel like lying about? Would prefer more lies that are immediately and obviously false, such as the Notre Dame article not agreeing that Section 230 provides a litigation shield.

Ha! Are you trying to defame me by calling me a liar?

I've quoted you twice and paraphrased your argument once by saying that it "seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter." Perhaps that was an oversimplification; however, let's be clear, CDA 230 is a stronger litigation shield than the First Amendment. For that reason, it needs to go.

Re: YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

#760

Post by matthewmarkus » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 6:39 AM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #756

matthewmarkus wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say I post the following on a forum: "X is a rapist." (Where X is a private figure for simplification.) The nuance is as follows: A) Under Cubby without proactive moderation. The website is not liable for the above speech. All the website needs to do is remove the offending speech once it is made aware of its defamatory nature, maybe via a court order. B) Under Stratton with proactive moderation. The website is…

There's a zero percent chance that a company like Youtube would allow its content to go completely unmoderated. It has to moderate its content. It has advertisers who are associated with content and it has to keep on the right side of copyright law. Also, no website operator wants the hassle of dealing with court orders because posters are engaging in verbal slapfights online. Your proposal of A would have an EXTREME…

A few notes:

1.) A and B are not my proposals; They're case law that has been preempted by C.

2.) Copyright falls under the DMCA, which pretty much follows A's procedures (i.e., a takedown notice model) even though the DMCA is a statutory provision. Why are copyright holders so special?

3.) There is no constitutional right to an ad-based business model. Ad-based models evolved under rules similar to B's, but for newspapers, and B is what should govern said models online (unless someone can demonstrate a successful ad-based model under A).

4.) CDA 230 is the golden goose; hence, it won't be repealed. Everyone gets paid to the detriment of society and the individuals who are denied their day in court.