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

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

foxnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 814 posts

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

#771

Post by tekknik »

_kbh_ wrote: post #601
twofornone wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd like to see evidence for a lot of these claims that come from reliable sources cause I don't think the majority of them are true. This is effectively a disingenuous argument when the evidence clearly suggests that so called "reliable sources" are colluding to suppress content that is inconvenient for their political leanings. Incidentally it also ensures that all of wikipedia leans left, since any outlets which…

The reason I say reliable is not because I only want sources from one specific side or that say one specific thing. But because there are plenty of sources who are willing to say anything to please a specific party or person which is the exact reason some people are being sued into the ground.

That’s literally what you were just accused of doing. Demanding a source that supports your claim by negating his. The left controls the internet, and has for a while. Hence the right starts new sites where the left doesn’t have control.

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

#772

Post by tragictrash »

retrac wrote: post #766
tragictrash wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is doing the censoring here? It's YouTube. They have a right to remove content from their platform as they see fit, in accordance with their TOS. There is no right to post YouTube videos in the constitution. Your not being oppressed. Get over it.

I refer you back to my original comment. I quoted the Canadian Supreme Court in part to separate the legal question from the deeper one. As a non-American, the legal question is honestly pretty boring. The deeper issue of what constitutes a healthy society with free debate and expression, however, is interesting to me. Because free speech is a societal and cultural value, as much as a legal one. A commune of religiou…

There is no question here other than the legal one. End of story. These people have their free speech. If that artist wanted to, they could host their own website and serve that video all day long.

It seems like you are confusing real life with some fantasy world you live in. Welcome to late stage capitalism. It's not fair.

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

#774

Post by Phileosopher »

tekknik wrote: post #769
tragictrash wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah not even close. This has real repercussions, especially to the people that need herd immunity to reenter society, like the immune comprised.

So now everybody has to change speech for a very very small minority?

Yes, if you lean politically hard left in the USA. This has already become a political talking point for transgender people, and all censorship is good censorship under those claims.

No, if you're simply liberal or conservative in the USA. They generally think that speech should be uncensored until it's directly causing legitimate violence (e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or threatening death).

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

#775

Post by Phileosopher »

tragictrash wrote: post #737
newbie2020 wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half the songs out there contain disinformation. Is YouTube going to get rid of them all?

Yes, all the ones that contain statements about the pandemic being manufactured.

This is a precipitous road due to conflation. Are we talking about the pandemic as a social phenomenon, or as a spread of a virus?

It's evident that there's been political gain on the matter, which is a "manufactured" social phenomenon, but it's obvious that there's a physically propagating coronavirus that mutates and spreads via airborne transmission.

Unfortunately, I've seen people vacillate back-and-forth on the two depending on what they're trying to assert.

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

#776

Post by tragictrash »

tekknik wrote: post #769
tragictrash wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah not even close. This has real repercussions, especially to the people that need herd immunity to reenter society, like the immune comprised.

So now everybody has to change speech for a very very small minority?

Speech? No, that's free. We're talking about hurting people by not getting vaccinated.

YouTube is a private company. Them censoring someone is not an infringement on free speech.

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

#777

Post by TameAntelope »

matthewmarkus wrote: post #759
TameAntelope wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can easily lie while quoting someone, which you've clearly demonstrated, and your paraphrase was intentionally inaccurate so as to further your argument, at the expense of the truth.

It's not defamation if it's true, which it is. You have lied (made an untrue statement with intent to deceive) about what I've written, and what's been written in cited articles, to further your argument. That, definitionally, makes you a liar (a person who tells lies).

Section 230 being removed will not achieve the goal you desire, which is to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator. Any relevant protections that allow them to discretionarily host content that isn't produced by them without liability will remain. This is repeatedly explained in the above cited articles, as well as many additional articles easily found through a quick search of the topic.

As I said before, your opinion is not based in reality, and you are tilting at windmills. I will repeat this for as long as you reply, because bullies like you need to be stood up to and told no.

Besides, the two cases you keep citing are from 91' and '95. They're not relevant now because of how many of the facts are different (as I've said, YouTube and NYT are fundamentally different businesses, with or without Section 230), and could not be used as precedence even if Section 230 were repealed.

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

#778

Post by matthewmarkus »

TameAntelope wrote: post #777
matthewmarkus wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can easily lie while quoting someone, which you've clearly demonstrated, and your paraphrase was intentionally inaccurate so as to further your argument, at the expense of the truth. It's not defamation if it's true, which it is. You have lied (made an untrue statement with intent to deceive) about what I've written, and what's been written in cited articles, to further your argument. That, definitionally, makes…

I don't think Big Tech is scared of little old me, the bully, LoL.

My goal isn't to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator, but to interject some responsibility.

That responsibility is coming as common law works through systems outside the USA. For instance, consider George Galloway, a far-left UK politician, and his push towards making Google pay for keeping defamatory videos online [1].

Hopefully, once people understand that, to quote the article, "an intrinsic part of freedom of speech is the right to be heard if one thinks one's character has been falsely impugned," the USA will take a serious look at either reforming or, ideally, repealing CDA 230.

[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/colum-kenny-george-gallow...

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

#779

Post by TameAntelope »

matthewmarkus wrote: post #778
TameAntelope wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily lie while quoting someone, which you've clearly demonstrated, and your paraphrase was intentionally inaccurate so as to further your argument, at the expense of the truth. It's not defamation if it's true, which it is. You have lied (made an untrue statement with intent to deceive) about what I've written, and what's been written in cited articles, to further your argument. That, definitionally, makes…

I don't think Big Tech is scared of little old me, the bully, LoL. My goal isn't to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator, but to interject some responsibility. That responsibility is coming as common law works through systems outside the USA. For instance, consider George Galloway, a far-left UK politician, and his push towards making Google pay for keeping defamatory videos online [1]. Hopefully, once people understand t…

> I don't think Big Tech is scared of little old me, the bully, LoL.

Again with the lies. Nobody said you were bullying Big Tech, I said you were bullying HN users (me, specifically). You're a bully, and I don't like bullies.

> My goal isn't to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator, but to interject some responsibility.

I literally do not believe you. It's clear you don't apply this consistently (hello HN user), and it's clear you have a specific political leaning that undermines your credibility here (Hunter Biden's laptop is something you apparently think is a credible news story, and not blatant propaganda to try and recreate the "Hillary's emails" for the 2020 election cycle).

You apparently want to hurt Big Tech because you are angry your team got censored.

> the USA will take a serious look at either reforming or, ideally, repealing CDA 230.

They will not, no matter how many times you state it as if it were fact.

You tried this "Repeat a bunch of nonsense long enough and hopefully people will eventually let your nonsense go." strategy with your claims about the efficacy of introducing fake rhino horn into the Asian black market to drive down prices, and that didn't work (though honestly wholly on brand, you wanted to lie to admittedly bad people about what you were selling, and as far as I can tell you were attempting to make a profit off of these illicit sales).

You tried again, when you attempted an ICO to (I assume) fund your company in 2017, and your state's government found out and seemingly shut you down, so that nonsense about whether PembiCoin qualified as a security or not (I guess it did qualify, despite your claims) didn't work either.

Now you try to misrepresent your way through a conversation about Section 230, and it's not working, either.

Maybe stop lying? It isn't working for you.

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

#780

Post by jeegsy »

tragictrash wrote: post #764
jeegsy wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The speed at which we have embraced censorship with the attendant rationalizations has been amazing.

Who is doing the censoring here? It's YouTube. They have a right to remove content from their platform as they see fit, in accordance with their TOS. There is no right to post YouTube videos in the constitution. Your not being oppressed. Get over it.

As I said, rationalizations. What is also amazing is that people think that repeating the obvious in vaguely sassy fashion is somehow an argument. In any case, Youtube's "rights" as you call them would be more palatable if they did not enjoy section 230 immunity. Furthermore, I'm sure there is a legal case to be made regarding the Government employing private actors in a manner that violates the first amendment.
Post reply on HN