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

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#761

Post by intended »

pmyteh wrote: post #703
ChrisRR wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow. There’s 300 mn people in the UK and 66 mn in the UK.

Id worry that polarizing people would take no time at all.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#763

Post by tim333 »

jamisteven wrote: post #740

There is an all out war right now from big-tech on conservative everything. Ushering in authoritarianism like its 1984. Parler blocked by iOS app store and google play, AWS removing their servers from its platform, youTube banning Bannon's podcast. There are plenty of people, groups, and politicians, for example the ayatollah of Iran, chinese state media etc that should pose far more of a threat to the world than som…

I think people are fine with small c conservatism. It's trying to overthrow democratic elections that's bad whether it's Trump or Maduro or whoever.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#764

Post by dazc »

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

So how did Sky News cover the US recent election? I assumed it would have been singing to the same hymn sheet as the rest of the UK media but I am open to the idea I was wrong?

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#765

Post by simonh »

koheripbal wrote: post #741
ChrisRR wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is likely some significant sample bias if you're receiving clips from social media. If you go to conservative forums, you'll find the same biased clips of CNN/MSNBC that portray those networks as heavily propagandized.

Also a Brit. I occasionally go directly to the Fox News web site just to see their take, because I'm basically a conservative and have been a lifelong Conservative voter here in the UK. The main problem I have with Fox News is the lack of reflective self-analysis of conservatism or republicanism. There's no sense of trying to figure things out, to look at problems with a clear eye and then say what the conservative answer to an issue is, there's no attempt to course correct when things go wrong or in an unexpected direction. It's all about on-message heavily editorialised spin, omitting or heavily spinning anything that doesn't fit the narrative. As such, I find it almost completely useless to me. The news is incomplete and the opinion is uninteresting. They're really little better than RT.

Fortunately there are some decent conservative leaning news sites, such as The Federalist and National Review, but Fox News does seem to dominate. Even though I often find myself disagreeing with what the leftier US news organisations say as opinion, they're much better at actually delivering facts and presenting differing opinions with useful context.

To be fair, we have the Daily Mail over here. It's not as bad a Fox generally, but it depends on the topic. The BBC does definitely have a left bias, but it's pretty mild and they're really good on informative content. We do have The Economist though, which is our jewel in the crown of news and opinion IMHO.

The bottom line is though I even can go to the Guardian web site, and I might think they're off the rails a bit and missing context. Some of their opinion pieces are ridiculous, but I can generally trust their factual information. I can't trust Fox or the Daily Mail on facts. That really worries me because a movement based on or informed with extensive misunderstanding of basic facts, or worse with a disregard for the truth, is doomed long term.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#766

Post by OJFord »

enkid wrote: post #748
OJFord wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a native speaker, I've seen it too, and it's just wrong. If you suspended someone and then said 'we're making your suspension permanent', it sounds like a 'cute'/think-you're-on-a-soap-opera way of saying 'you're now fired/expelled(/as applicable)'. Suspensions end. Even a suspension bridge for example is alluding to some temporal aspect, the natural outcome (gravity having its way) would be different.

Suspend means to literally hold up above the ground. A suspension bridge is called that because something is "above" it holding it up.

Yes. And when that thing ceases to hold it up, it will come crashing down.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#767

Post by intended »

jeltz wrote: post #727
nathias wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but its the same with the left media, the news are so highly politicized and opinionated that when comparing two news stories wouldn't be able to tell they are talking about the same event. One calls the other conspiracy theorists, the other is fake news, and everyone is applauding when their team is censoring the other.

There is left wing media like that but none of it is close to as big as Fox News. Yes, both sides do it but quantity matters.

This is being nice to Fox, which was designed and imagined from, the ground up, as a partisan machine.

I mean these are the people who happily pushed and continue to push creationism because evolution (science) is a problem for them.

People are aghast today by how there’s a separate reality, but the human trials were done in public.

Creationism was the writing on the wall.

Lumping Fox in the same breath as both sides is not true.

The other side doesn’t include just “leftist” content, it includes the BBC, NYT, and apparently Jstor papers and Darwin.

Fox also actively prevents content that undoes its narratives. They argument is that “the other side does it.”

There’s no doubt that there is motivated reasoning and bad arguments in the normal news.

But Fox uses that as an excuse to give up altogether and just double down.

America is where it is because Fox News paved the way. You couldn’t give them enough credit for what they achieved.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#768

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#769

Post by andybak »

laurent92 wrote: post #605
rorykoehler wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can sue for defamation. We need similar laws for politicians (yellow cake WMD claims) and news media (Fox News blatant lies) where the people responsible are legally liable for what they say if they can't prove the veracity of their claims in court and/or if what they say turns out to be fabricated. Jail time is a must in this case. You can't have free speech without honest speech.

Most of my friends and myself who became Trump supporters entered this area after feminist issues, investigating them and finding out they were spreading lies on national TV, in a discourse that easily passed thresholds of direct incitation to hate. In national newspapers and TV. Is it time for co-de-escalation? Would one be ready to get rid of men-hating on TV as part of getting rid of political lies? As long as the…

Anyone else find this comment a bit strange?

I don't know anyone who feels this way and if I did I'd suspect they had some underlying unresolved misogyny.

Re: YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel

#770

Post by MrMan »

pmiller2 wrote: post #309
SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting how strongly people have been blaming facebook for the worlds problems but as soon as tech companies start to clean up their services its suddenly too much use of power.

If it makes you feel any better, I blame Facebook for a lot of issues in the modern world, and I'm glad tech companies are finally doing something about some of them.

Facebook is the problem in a lot of ways (not all). Making hate viral to millions of people in a decentralized network is an innovation that I am not happy about. What to do about it I don't know and haven't heard many convincing arguments. I do think European style bans on hate speech might be a positive change. Europe has a lot of weird cultural things as a result of their imperialist and colonial past, but their recent experience with genocide and war does lend them some credibility in terms of how they have adapted. I think they have mostly open societies with high quality of life and not many compromises in terms of "liberty". I equate liberty with overall quality of life, not the liberty of individuals to abnegate societal obligations. So bans on hate speech, and attendant penalties, I see precedent where little harm has been done but a lot of harm has been mitigated.
Post reply on HN