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

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#851

Post by ryankemper »

hef19898 wrote: post #699
ryankemper wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, by not addressing that I put myself in the trap where I was forced to respond to it anyway in a later comment. So, in order to avoid repeating myself, I believe I addressed that notion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063309 In short, I am not saying that the truth will necessarily "win out" over the false. Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the noti…

Calls for violance can be, and are, very subtile. Just removing open calls for violance wouldn't change a bit, propaganda doesn't work that way. Nor does psychology. So in the end, both of your examples about $Group can lead to violance against that group. EDIT: Typos

Yes, but I think trying to map out indirect violence gets into very dangerous territory. So, that's why I draw the line at "directly" advocating violence.

Of course, the lines as always get blurry. To use a random example that comes to mind, when Kathy Griffin posted the severed head of Trump - was that a direct call to violence? That's a tough one to answer. My first intuition is that it does cross the line, but I could very easily see an argument that it's not.

So unfortunately there will always be that difficulty, unless we committed to an absolutist position of not removing ANY speech. I drink a lot of the kool-aid, and even I don't go that far.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#852

Post by rurban »

What he says reminds me a lot on religious teachings. They are still allowed to spread their bullshit. Esp. it reminds me on Scientology. Which is allowed in many countries to teach the very same bullshit.

Censorship is violating fundamental rights. Somebody should fight them, Facebook, Google, Twitter, in court, but nobody will for these nutcases.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#853

Post by cutemonster »

ryankemper wrote: post #148
techsupporter wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking The problem is you’ve just said you won’t address the primary, most compelling reason to take these actions. Assuming that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contempla…

Yes, by not addressing that I put myself in the trap where I was forced to respond to it anyway in a later comment. So, in order to avoid repeating myself, I believe I addressed that notion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063309 In short, I am not saying that the truth will necessarily "win out" over the false. Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the noti…

> Remove blatant calls for violence,

Not ok to kill people via violence, but ok to do the same by (contributing to) spreading a pandemic?

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#854

Post by watwut »

nostrebored wrote: post #778
watwut wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CFR is case fatality ration and is literally defined as "people who we know are sick to people who died". It does not mean overall lethality and it never meant that. CFR is not prediction nor model, it is input into the mode. Asymptomatic non tested population is literally not supposed to be counted into CFR.

'asymptomatic non tested population' is an interesting way to refer to people with covid 19 antibodies found via immunoassays. This sizeable population shows that our cfr estimates have enough error to be meaningless.

CFR does not have "error rate" this way. It is just defined differently then you thought it is defined. You thought it is mortality, it never was. It is the only number available at the beginning of epidemic (no matter which one).

"asymptomatic non tested population" is the most exact description of people who were not tested, had no symptoms and therefore don't count as "cases". Yes, we measure them by measuring antibodies if precise tests are available.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#855

Post by cutemonster »

ryankemper wrote: post #851
hef19898 wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calls for violance can be, and are, very subtile. Just removing open calls for violance wouldn't change a bit, propaganda doesn't work that way. Nor does psychology. So in the end, both of your examples about $Group can lead to violance against that group. EDIT: Typos

Yes, but I think trying to map out indirect violence gets into very dangerous territory. So, that's why I draw the line at "directly" advocating violence. Of course, the lines as always get blurry. To use a random example that comes to mind, when Kathy Griffin posted the severed head of Trump - was that a direct call to violence? That's a tough one to answer. My first intuition is that it does cross the line, but I c…

> not removing ANY speech.

That causes genocides to happen though -- are you okay with that or did you not know

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#856

Post by gremlinsinc »

ryankemper wrote: post #46

I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…

So, operatives for ISIS, should be allowed to put up bomb-making or even just videos on how to shoot a gun properly with infidel-like targets (manequins in business suits for example), and it should just be allowed? Should they be allowed to put up recruitment videos to get more kids willing to become walking bombs?

People literally are using the mis-information about covid-19/5G and setting 5G towers on fire. Mis-information is dangerous. It's a tool used by governments and terrorist organizations alike, information can be propagandized to create upheavals that benefit specific groups.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#857

Post by anthony_romeo »

BurningCycles wrote: post #548
Frondo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, so far I haven't seen anyone on here take the strong free speech absolutist position -- that nothing should be censored ever, including calls to violence. I've seen several comments that basically say "don't censor in general, but do remove calls to violence," so that seems like it's not a controversial opinion at least in this discussion. Why are calls to violence bad, but spreading misinformation about a pandem…

>Why are calls to violence bad, but spreading misinformation about a pandemic How do you know what is 'misinformation' ? WHO claimed that face masks were worthless, now you are forced to wear them in lots of places. WHO also claimed that there was no human to human transmission of COVID-19, etc. The powers that be will not stop spreading misinformation when it suits them, they just want no one to be able to question…

It looks like you've been caught-up in misinformation as well, as the WHO never said that masks were "worthless" nor that there was "no" human-to-human transmission. Those are distortions of more nuanced and qualified statements by the WHO. You can argue that these more nuanced statements were still harmful, but you're pushing misinformation by claiming the WHO said what you merely think they said.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#858

Post by tw04 »

ryankemper wrote: post #148
techsupporter wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking The problem is you’ve just said you won’t address the primary, most compelling reason to take these actions. Assuming that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contempla…

Yes, by not addressing that I put myself in the trap where I was forced to respond to it anyway in a later comment. So, in order to avoid repeating myself, I believe I addressed that notion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063309 In short, I am not saying that the truth will necessarily "win out" over the false. Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the noti…

So we should expect schools to teach our schools that the earth is flat, and the earth is round, and hope the kids pick the right option? Or where exactly do you draw the line in "we shouldn't suppress speech, just because it's provably false?"

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#859

Post by gamblor956 »

wnoise wrote: post #188
gamblor956 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite literally in the definition of censorship, and has been since its origination in Ancient Rome. More importantly, the restriction on censorship has been tied to government action since it was first enshrined in the First Amendment. A private party can choose not to spread the content of a third party. That is not censorship. That is one party choosing not to spend their own resources to further the interest…

Ah, the etymological fallacy. Certainly the office of censor started in ancient Rome. However there have been plenty of other censors throughout history, and many that currently exist. Consider: 1. The Catholic Church's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum 2. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority 3. The Hays code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code 4. h…

If you want to get technical about it, the Catholic Church was deeply embedded in most European governments when the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was issued, and was the official state religion for multiple kingdoms.

The Hays Code was issued by the MPAA as a voluntary set of guidelines governing the then vertically-integrated studios and theaters. Importantly, they were not prohibitions on movie content. Many film productions did not adhere to the Hays Code and many independent theaters similarly ignored it. Indeed, the body established to enforce the code did not even how the power to order studious to cut material... The only instance of the Hays Code having an impact on films was during the short Breen era, which lasted only 6 years, and this only affected films shown in vertically-integrated theaters owned by the studios. Independent theaters continued to ignore the Hays Code, as they always did.

And the Broadcast Standards was a decency code intended to mollify advertisers, i.e., other private parties, who generally did not want to be associated with certain types of content. As with the Hays Code, it was a series of guidelines, not a prohibition, and late-night shows generally flaunted the Broadcast Standards with impunity.

In other words, not censorship...

Just private acts of self-interest to protect their market position.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#860

Post by WalterBright »

zimpenfish wrote: post #694
WalterBright wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common people with nobody parents routinely wind up as Presidents, Senators, Representatives, and SC Justices.

I think "routinely" is overstating it. These days, "infrequently" is probably more accurate. US politics is very much of the monied, for the monied. Without a huge warchest, barring odd circumstances[1], you've got little chance of making it through the various filters. [1] e.g an extremely unpopular incumbent against a popular challenger with excellent ground game.

Let's look at Presidents:

Obama - commoner

Clinton - commoner

Reagan - commoner

Carter - commoner

Ford - commoner

Nixon - commoner

Truman - commoner

Sounds like routinely to me.

Post reply on HN