YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#811

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #805

stx wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a gray area and social media platforms sit somewhere in-between being a common carrier and a being a publisher. Your right there is no hard legal line but the more they decide what is allowed and what is not allowed the more they move farther away from being a common carrier. > Social media companies don't become more liable just because they moderate. Actually they do: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/c…

It appears that those links describe the conditions before passage of the communications decency act of 1996. That was all overturned by section 230 of the CDA.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#812

Post by nailer » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

opnitro wrote: post #195

nailer wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You disagreeing with an idea does not mean is is false, likewise you agreeing would not make it true. Edit / reply to opnitro due to rate limit: I am arguing that the truth of an idea is unrelated to whether it causes offence. That should hopefully be very clear when reading the posts you're replying to.

You implied they were true (or at least questioned it). I gave my arguments as to why I think they are both false, A) being a lack of evidence, B) imperialism as a more believable explanation with more evidence. Ball is in your court

Now rate limit is over:

My post didn't say write that Molyneux's statements were true. My post didn't 'imply' they were true either - they provided possible arguments both for and against. The point is that you disagreeing, taking offence, or providing alternative explanations has no bearing on what is true. Which is true.

A. You did not state lack of evidence. You stated that you 'disagreed pretty hard'. Please read your own comment.

B. You suggested another possible explanation for Iraq not forming a viable democratic government. I could think of a third argument which I personally think is the more likely explanation. But that doesn't refute the original point. It just suggests another possible explanation.

You are suggesting that someone finding an idea offensive, or someone bad believing in an idea, or an alternative idea existing would make that idea wrong. That is not how logic works.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#813

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #523

skinkestek wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929

People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

The opposite thing is true of HN.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#814

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:14 AM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #592

empath75 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

Can this be because your group of "white nationalists" is getting very big and possibly includes a good number of innocent people? Someone wrote something really interesting here somewhere a couple of days ago: every time a non-racist says something not correct enough or God forbid even wrong (e.g. on twitter), they are ejected into the other camp. Eventually the other camp's grown from a fringe phenomenon to being n…

No, it's not. It's because people make point-in-time observations about HN and don't see the community working over hours, which is what you have to do, since anyone can make an account and write any comment they want here.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#815

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:15 AM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #756

user982 wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a thread topic about white nationalists being banned from YouTube. It has 700+ comments, many of them in defense of the banned. Which of the banned people being defended are not actually white supremacists, but innocents caught in a too-broad dragnet?

Stephen Molyneux is a single-minded crusader against corporal punishment of children. He cites IQ and demographic statistics as evidence that the high incidents of corporal punishment among African-Americans is harmful to the population. But untangling that ball of wax is a lot harder than calling him a racist and getting on with life isn't it?

Stefan Molyneaux is a racist. Racists can be concerned for child welfare.

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#816

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:16 AM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #420

gguevaraa wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supreme Court rulings[0][1]. They consistently rule in favor of free speech and believe something along the lines of "defending the thought that we hate". They even sided with the Westboro Baptist Church (the people with the offensive signs)[2] so they're pretty committed to "absolute" free speech. [0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492 [1]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1107 [2]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/20…

But they do assault people and commit acts of violence. As do hundreds of other domestic terrorist groups.

Yes, and those acts of violence are crimes at the federal and state level...

The First Amendment protects the content of their speech, however hateful it may be, which means they can generally think whatever they want, and say nearly whatever they want. The dividing line is when speech is action (i.e., yelling "fire" in a theater; the content of the yell is protected but the act of yelling is not).

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#817

Post by moneytalks » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:22 AM UTC

jahaja wrote: post #768

disposekinetics wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without force everything is voluntary, private property doesn't cease to exist as long as people have honor and abide by their word. It seems any reasonable system of people upholding their contracts would eventually result in private property?

There is nothing natural nor reasonable about absentee ownership. It has always been upheld by force. By kings, feudal lords etc. For other cultures, like for example native americans, the entire concept was completely foreign.

If it really was a totally foreign concept to native Americans, who did the European invaders steal the land from?

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#818

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:23 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #407

rickbutton wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. And yes, free speech, so long as everyone in the room agrees that all of the humans in said room are human. Anything less than that, and they can get the hell out of the room, their ideas aren't worth discussing. If you don't agree with that,…

> What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. By your logic, the first amendment has no salutary rationale. We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. There is no animating principle that we mig…

We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason.

That is pretty much the exact reason the Courts have given for allowing Neo Nazis to march, so its not anathema to how the first amendment has been understood.

It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s an appropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment.

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government not private entities and attempting to turn it into a club to force private entities to publish speech they find abhorrent is inappropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment, which provides that individuals have the right to say something but not to force others to disseminate it (or even pay attention).

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#819

Post by yellowapple » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:26 AM UTC

disposekinetics wrote: post #671

jahaja wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My understanding was that someone would prevent me from owning private property or acquiring capital? You got this the other way around. Private property needs force to be upheld. The sacralization of private property is so deeply ingrained that people actually prefer the KKK to even thinking about limiting it. It's so dogmatic that it's depressing.

> You got this the other way around. Private property needs force to be upheld. I don't follow this at all, but I'm willing to listen? How does private property require any more force to uphold compared to any other possible system? Even anarchy, if you want it to stay anarchy requires force if you have defectors.

> I don't follow this at all, but I'm willing to listen? How does private property require any more force to uphold compared to any other possible system?

Property (and we're mostly talking in the context of "real" property - i.e. land and maybe structures/improvements - since that's what's typically most scarce/valuable in a society given the fixed supply, though some resources like water might be subject to similar discussions for similar reasons) has two states: "owned" and "not owned". Asserting ownership inherently requires force. Not asserting ownership requires no force at all.

Typically, in an implementation of absolute anarchy, there would be no ownership of property beyond, at most, two categories:

1. Property which you individually (plus perhaps your family) are actively occupying/improving/using and can prevent use by others

2. Property which you and other people interested in occupying/improving/using that property (a.k.a. a "community") can cooperatively do so

Category #1 is a difficult proposition in a stateless society, since it definitionally means that your occupation is at the exclusion of a broader community. All but the absolute smallest of "communities" (if you could call them that) would likely outnumber you. You could probably recruit other community members to your cause, but - definitionally speaking - if you're able to get enough people on your side to avoid being outnumbered, then congrats, your property is probably in Category #2 and collectively-used.

You're right that private property and community property require an equal amount of force to uphold, but the thing is that per person community property requires less force per occupant. Thus, unless you've got a force multiplier that's unavailable to the broader community, you're gonna have a pretty hard time asserting "private" ownership of anything that the broader community claims to "own".

Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

#820

Post by gamblor956 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 5:34 AM UTC

fapjacks wrote: post #713

snowwrestler wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's up to the people who run Reddit. If they want to wipe out some subreddits, who is to say they can't? Any mechanism you can imagine to prevent them from doing so would have the effect of forcing speech upon them. A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's sho…

... Except for some people, though, right? I have an idea how you feel about the guy refusing to sell (decorate) the gay marriage cake (not trying to be pithy here, just tried to do a bit of footwork before replying). Do you absolve that guy under those "American values and traditions of free speech" as you would a website in this case? For me, second-order consequences are as important as whether or not this particu…

why I feel strongly that any platform which displays in its ToS that users agree that the views expressed on its platform are not the views held by the company, is violating the right of free expression to the users they ban from their platforms for the speech those users express on their platforms.

Users don't have a right to free expression on others' platforms. The right to freedom on of speech only extends to one's own platforms of expression. If someone wants to post videos they can host their own video sharing website.