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

851–860 of 872 posts

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

#851

Post by bena »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #847
bena wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 audie…

You said, specifically, that "US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts", included the expectation to be heard. That it implied an audience be made available to you.

You need to be able to cite a source, ideally a case or specific law, on such a claim because no one else I know holds to that definition. A link to a Wikipedia article about a different concept does not satisfy, because it does not cite a legal definition of free speech by US courts.

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

#852

Post by FeepingCreature »

bena wrote: post #851
FeepingCreature wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 audie…

You said, specifically, that "US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts", included the expectation to be heard. That it implied an audience be made available to you. You need to be able to cite a source, ideally a case or specific law, on such a claim because no one else I know holds to that definition. A link to a Wikipedia article about a different concept does not satisfy, because it doe…

As I just said, I don't have a source. I was surprised as well. (Should have bookmarked it...)

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

#853

Post by VikingCoder »

coolso wrote: post #821
VikingCoder wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because Putin was too busy enjoying the other things President Trump let him do. Taken from someone else: Trump had the US military abandon their bases in Syria and Russia promptly captured them. Russia was caught paying bounties in Afghanistan for killing American soldiers. Trump did nothing. After Putin seized Crimea, Obama put sanctions on Russia. Trump promptly got rid of those sanctions for his buddy, then…

Sorry, what administration did Putin start a war with Ukraine under? Interesting that the one who was Putin’s supposed puppet, ended up being a better puppet master than the elder experienced statesman we supposedly have in office currently. I repeat: I think Ukraine, and the world, could do well with some mean tweets and mean phone calls in place of what we have now!

Cool, so we 100% attribute problems to whomever was President at the time? So George W. Bush is entirely to blame for 9/11, and Donald Trump is entirely to blame for Covid-19. Glad we cleared that up.

Or, maybe, prior administrations are at least partly to blame? And maybe you didn't even bother to read the list I gave you, of things Trump allowed Putin to do?

Cheers.

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

#854

Post by bena »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #852
bena wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said, specifically, that "US legal definition of free speech, at least according to the courts", included the expectation to be heard. That it implied an audience be made available to you. You need to be able to cite a source, ideally a case or specific law, on such a claim because no one else I know holds to that definition. A link to a Wikipedia article about a different concept does not satisfy, because it doe…

As I just said, I don't have a source. I was surprised as well. (Should have bookmarked it...)

Then it's quite possible that you've completely misread what the alleged source actually said.

You've levied a pretty heavy claim with nothing but your word as evidence for it.

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

#855

Post by bduerst »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #742
ClashTheBunny wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't TikTok bigger than youtube now?

That's optimised for short-form videos, isn't it? It's also extremely addictive, so it doesn't speak well of the market if the main competition to the #1 player comes at the price of addiction.

>No True Scotsman

TikTok is still a competitor. Facebook, Vimeo, Reddit, Twitch, etc. all popular, easily accessible competitors as well.

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

#856

Post by bduerst »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #630
bduerst wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is more of a monopoly than Standard Oil was in terms of market share. Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity make it a monopoly. Standard oil was the only accessible supplier in the market in many places. The video streaming and hosting market has many easily accessible suppliers wherever there is internet access. >The government can regulate monopolies for any reason. Whether or not the governm…

It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery. You host somewhere else and YouTube isn't going to surface your video to their users, and neither is Google since they're the same company. This isn't a problem if there are dozens of video hosting services or search engines that all have equal market share, but there aren't.

>It's not about hosting. Anybody can host. The issue is discovery.

Again, no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace make it a monopoly. You are not entitled to being discovered in competitive markets, and forcing suppliers to host your content is anti-competitive.

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

#857

Post by Lascaille »

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.

>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.

That's not 'entirely different' from 'a bunch of yokels playing king-of-the-hill with the capitol building,' that's the intended result of 'a bunch of yokels playing king-of-the-hill with the capitol building.'

I really don't understand the point you're making here.

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

#858

Post by Talanes »

michaelmrose wrote: post #497
Talanes wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users have just as much right to complain about policies they find ridiculous as they do to leave.

Yes but they have no right moral or legal to force tech companies to be complicit in the spreading of their malicious lies.

Believing that someone shouldn't do something and that someone shouldn't have the right to do something are not the same thing. GP comment only stated the first and I see no reason to pile on with retorts assuming they really meant the second.

Also, I don't see how systematically scrubbing video recordings of a man who loves to say "I never said that" about things he has said on camera is a net gain to truth-telling.

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

#859

Post by pfisch »

lliamander wrote: post #849
pfisch wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Tru…

They wanted to kill Pence, and the speaker of the house, and most of the democrats. If those goals had been achieved it is very unclear what would've happened.

Martial law was not declared after Jan 6th and the legal handover of power had already successfully occurred.

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

#860

Post by Talanes »

lenkite wrote: post #763
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although the United States did withhold government aid to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor,[5] this was the official and bipartisan policy of the federal government of the United States, which, along with the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, believed the prosecutor to be corrupt and ineffective, and too lenient in investigating companies and oligarchs, including Buris…

I want this to be front-page news because Biden explicitly threatened the withdrawal of aid unless a prosecutor of a sovereign nation investigating his son's company was fired. This was the same threat that you accused Trump of and everyone castigated Trump for - which was proven false. But Biden gets a complete media-free pass for the same bald faced threat. Biden's own words below: In December 2015 -- he told Ukrai…

>I want this to be front-page news because Biden explicitly threatened the withdrawal of aid unless a prosecutor of a sovereign nation investigating his son's company was fired. This was the same threat that you accused Trump of and everyone castigated Trump for - which was proven false.

Do you legitimately not understand that it was the perceived motivation and not the action that people dislike? No one cares about the Biden scenario because it takes five minutes of Googling to find out that the whole thing was over the British being mad the prosecutor didn't turn over documents potentially indemnifying Burisma to UK authorities when requested. Why would Biden be personally mad at a prosecutor for NOT indemnifying his son's employer?

>A classified US State Department email from 2016 shows a leading diplomat warning that Hunter Biden’s lucrative job with a Ukrainian energy company “undercut” American efforts to fight corruption in the Eastern European country.

I mean, yeah, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Hunter Biden is someone who only makes smart choices that help advance his father's aims. Unless you're aiming to criticize Joe Biden as a parent instead of as a political figure, that's not relevant by itself.

Post reply on HN