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

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

tampafp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 872 posts

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

#841

Post by pfisch »

lliamander wrote: post #839
Lascaille wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only hope the pro-Trump faction had (and a slim hope at that) was to peacefully pressure Mike Pence into refusing to count the ballots from contested states. Which would potentially or eventually lead to the team they supported (Team Trump) capturing control of the government. If Pence refusing to count those ballots wouldn't potentially lead to them capturing control of the government, why would they do it?

Yes, it would lead to Trump being in control, but that's entirely different from a bunch of yokels playing king-of-the-hill with the capitol building. Again, there's no way that the protestors themselves would be able to take control. And if anything the breaching of the capitol building rather prevented Pence from throwing out votes.

If they killed the speaker and a bunch of representatives Trump would declare martial law and lock down congress. In that event no handover of power to Biden ever took place and it is very unclear what would happen next.

The electoral count act is now out the window entirely and Trump has a bunch of the GOP claiming the election is fraudulent based on no evidence but that doesn't matter. Eventually after Trump has it all set up the house reconvenes and picks Trump as president because GOP has the most delegations and the vote was "fraudulent".

You see, all that really needed to happen is for them to create enough disruption for Trump and his allies to find a way to set aside the vote and let the house pick based on number of delegations. The brooks brothers riot basically did something similar. Created enough disruption to stop a recount.

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

#842

Post by YATA0 »

dane-pgp wrote: post #776
YATA0 wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here Not really, no. From your own source: "The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates." It literally states there was no evidence of collision or…

The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's report", i.e. the Mueller Report, you'll find that: > Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republic…

>The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's report", i.e. the Mueller Report, you'll find that:

Yes it does, it links to the Mueller Report Wikipedia page that directly states:

"Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.""

With several linked sources.

>Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that:

And? There were multiple Democrats in the special counsel that also did not find any collision.

"On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction ... Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office."

Obstruction is not collusion. I can hear the goalposts screeching from here.

>so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump.

And no one, not any of the state or federal ADAs/AGs/etc. brought any charges up for collision... because there was no evidence of it as reported by Mueller. QED.

>In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia.

And also found nothing.

I'll say it again: There is no evidence that Trump and Co. colluded with the Russians.

What you believe is an Alex Jones level conspiracy theory that just so happens to be politically expedient to believe.

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

#843

Post by mohanmcgeek »

tekknik wrote: post #832
brnt wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of research supporting this thesis.

When will the egotistical narcissism stop? This type of “I’m better than you” talk is not acceptable when it comes to race, how come it’s acceptable when the subject is intelligence?

If we extrapolate this, these narcissists would be asking for an end to the Universal adult franchise and say that only the "properly informed" people should be allowed to vote.

I've heard this argument in my country already from certain circles

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

#844

Post by scarface74 »

ekianjo wrote: post #837
scarface74 wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you want to host your own video - pay for it.

and have effectively zero reach. Thanks for proving my point.

Sure it has “reach”. Any user can go to any website. It’s up to the publisher to market it. It’s not like there isn’t plenty of right wing media that wouldn’t be glad to accept the advertising.

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

#845

Post by xigoi »

yibg wrote: post #840
xigoi wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have. Nobody is saying that YouTube should post negative reviews of itself. We're saying that a website which pretty much has a monopoly on hosting videos shouldn't abuse its position by trying to be the “ministry of truth”, and it's fair to criticize it even though it's legally allowed to do that.

Isn't the basic question, should youtube be forced to do something it doesn't want to? In this case, host videos it finds objectionable for whatever reason. Same way they don't allow porn for example. From the way I see it there are only a few options: 1) Youtube hosts everything that's legal, no filters at all 2) Youtube decides what it does and doesn't host 3) Somethings are ok (e.g. news / fake news), others are n…

How about this: YouTube can host whatever it wants, but it will federate with PeerTube or something so that people can discover other content too.

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

#846

Post by noduerme »

scantis wrote: post #165
noduerme wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the purpose of newspeak and doublethink. To ultimately communicate by their absence from official channels the list of things that cannot be said. Of course, Russia has has more experience with this than anyone. But as a sibling post says, they've reached the point where plenty just enjoy killing, and the west could too, at some point.

It scares me, that some of us actually enjoy the killing and the carnage. The problem of newspeak is that most of us don't see it, until it's too late. When we feed the machine with our fears, it will cut us off. Most of us still like each other.

Most of us do still like each other, if we can get past the mediation of our conversations by platforms and the kind of tribalism it inculcates. I just wrote this rant here. It's hard to put into words what I see happening, but I'm trying desperately because I think there needs to be a framework for understanding it. Which I'm not eloquent enough to state, but I hope people can build on these simple statements like "Most of us still like each other". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30584851

The machine thrives on fear. Twitter is a rage machine... its function is to generate tribal anger and mass hysteria, and its mechanism and chief innovation for doing so is shortening the language. When everything is a soundbite, nothing real can be expressed, only affiliation with one group or another. Any thought that tries to explore both sides of a conversation and weigh their relative merits requires more characters than Twitter allows, and that's by design. We sleepwalked into this.

/Rant. About your point about enjoying killing and carnage, it was also something Hannah Arendt talked about extensively, and we can see it on both sides of the political spectrum in America now, both "mobs" of totalitarian/authoritarians. It's the end equilibrium of the totalitarian state to have generations of killers weaned on brutality who enjoy it for its own sake, and in theory the normalization or stabilization of a state which breeds those minds is the most frightening thing for the future of humanity. Nazi Germany was almost there.

I'm still trying to formulate this. But I've begun to come to the conclusion that the only important thing is to stop thinking in terms of who's right or wrong. The only way for civilization forward is to re-introduce the civic principle, to enforce the rules of debate; to ingrain the reflexive ability to absorb the other person's point of view and see them as a human like yourself; even if you believe they are wrong. The ability to put their wrongness into context so you can accept it and treat them as an equal before you go about dismantling their arguments. Without that, we're just bloodthirsty savages. And that, sadly, seems like the way it's going.

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

#847

Post by FeepingCreature »

bena wrote: post #504
FeepingCreature wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.

I'm going to need a source on that one. I don't know of any decision where the definition of free speech includes a right to an audience. The owner of an auditorium or hall is allowed to not give platform to anyone. They get to decide who gets heard.

Well, the public forum doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal) holds that the point of free speech is communication among citizens. I don't have a cite for the direct quote I wanted (it's lost in my browser history), but the idea was that free speech is not satisfied by just making available a space in which one is not going to be heard by anyone. This doesn't imply a positive right to a particular audience, of course.

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

#848

Post by FeepingCreature »

ehsankia wrote: post #575
FeepingCreature wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to note, the US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts, includes the expectation to be heard by others. There is actually such a thing as a right to an audience; free speech is not fulfilled if someone is excluded from any space where someone may hear them.

But that doesn't mean, for example, that I'm allowed to force myself on your house and shout at you because I have a right to you being my audience. You're not entitled to Youtube hosting your content, just as you're not entitled to NYT hosting your opinion, just as I'm not entitled to have my words on your private blog.

Right, the question is to what extent YouTube is in fact a house and to what extent it is a public square.

My view is that it is functionally a public square, regardless of who owns it. Compare a protest on the side of a road in a company town.

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

#849

Post by lliamander »

pfisch wrote: post #833
lliamander wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the fact that these people believe democracy had already ended, and that they saw themselves as attempting to save democracy, how does this plan actually work ? Do they just sit in the capitol and declare Trump king? Maybe hold congress members hostage? Who in the federal government or military is going to go along with that? I just don't see it as a realistic threat to our system of government.

If they killed the speaker and a bunch of representatives Trump would declare martial law and lock down congress. No handover ever took place and it is very unclear what would happen next. The electoral count act is now out the window entirely and Trump has a bunch of the GOP claiming the election is fraudulent based on no evidence but that doesn't matter. Eventually after Trump has it all set up the house reconvenes…

Martial law was effectively declared in DC for months after January 6th anyway. No assumption of power by Trump.

Killing members of congress doesn't really change the fact that Pence was responsible for counting the votes, and the process would likely have resumed as quickly as possible.

This explanation is just so hand-wavy and doesn't really to capture what would likely happen in the case that a bunch of random Trump voters killed members of congress.

Now matter which way you slice it, any attempt by Trump or Pence to overturning official election results (even if they were fraudulent) was made impossible by the breach of the capitol.

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

#850

Post by Handytinge »

mabbo wrote: post #645

Moderating a top web destination today isn't possible to do correctly. You could automate moderation with ML, automatic recognition, user-flagging but the sheer number of false positives, and alleged false positives, means you basically need to have a full human moderation team to have real accuracy. You could just use human moderators, but then you have to pay for them all. Ads based websites can't afford that. You…

> So the only remaining option is to automate, ignore the false positive problem entirely and rake in money while abusing your content creators and users. This is 'The Google Strategy'.

Actually, I see this as both not the only remaining option and also as not an option.

If you can't moderate, then you're being irresponsible on your platform. Reduce the load (disable comments, limit uploads, etc), hire, or shut down.

"We're too big to moderate" is an absurd and irresponsible statement by some of the biggest companies in the world.

Post reply on HN