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

861–870 of 872 posts

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

#861

Post by nebula8804 »

ayngg wrote: post #639
nebula8804 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as if it had not been attempted numerous times only to be censored off every hosting/ payment/ app platforms Was this really something that stopped any of the services? >or hacked to have all the personal information of their users doxxed because they had "bad opinions." Come on this is not fair. This was caused by these services choosing to hire low skilled developers. The guy building Parler didn't even understan…

The point I was trying to make was that the argument that you can simply make your own social network is disingenuous and isn't the solution, the fact that Google has continuously failed to do that one thing is a testament to how difficult it is. Then in the case of censorship, you have to deal with being a persona non grata that socially conscious people and institutions won't touch, and that you need to build it in…

>the fact that Google has continuously failed to do that one thing is a testament to how difficult it is

Their network had nothing to pull people into. Parler didn't have that problem, in fact, I hear it was doing relatively well until they collapsed due to their own technical incompetence.

>Then in the case of censorship, you have to deal with being a persona non grata that socially conscious people and institutions won't touch, and that you need to build it in like a month before any political momentum gained dissipates and people move on.

Again it seems like we had evidence of a platform that managed to overcome this. Maybe I could have my memory wrong but Parler started off small, got promoted quietly by right wing people but was somewhat ready to organically grow as discontent grew among right wing people on existing platforms. Maybe it was just a honeypot all along (as some say) but it feels like they could have been an example that disproves your theory. The pieces were definitely there.

>Even if you manage to succeed after all that, and get adoption, all you have done is manage to create the same type of platform that censored you in the first place, with the only difference being that it is your hivemind of your own beliefs.

I wonder if liberal people went on Parler and confronted right wingers. I know they gladly ban people for doing the same on /r/Conservative but Parler being a "free speech" platform I wonder if they just let people be as they are.

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

#862

Post by FeepingCreature »

bena wrote: post #854
FeepingCreature wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's a heavy claim? Consider the notion of having free speech standing alone in a room. This is obviously pointless. Why would it be a stretch for a court to make the observation that the point of free speech is that people hear you?

I remember thinking "oh yeah, that makes sense, they wouldn't view free speech in isolation but as a tool of the democratic process."

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

#863

Post by Talanes »

VikingCoder wrote: post #818
coolso wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever Trump was doing to handle Putin certainly seemed to prevent Putin from doing any Ukrainian invading. I think Zelensky and the entire world would prefer more Trump phone calls and less Putin aggression right about now.

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…

Trump was useful to Putin, sure, but the amount of actual leverage Putin has over the leader of a rival nation is vastly less than he does over his smaller neighbors who share land borders.

The obvious gulf between how Trump was useful to Putin and how his actual puppets are useful to Putin is all people not disposed to agree with you can see. It doesn't matter that your tangible points are correct if people immediately discard it over your emotional appeal.

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

#864

Post by jquery »

adam_arthur wrote: post #527
jquery wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you'll recall there was a multi year period of mass belief that the president colluded with Russians to steal the election. On the back of very little evidence, other than news heads talking about it and "he said, she said" >There was also a multi year investigation that found nothing, and actually was able to largely disprove documents that helped to kick off the speculation. This is simply untrue: https://www.n…

"Ties" are irrelevant. The question was whether the president colluded with Russia. Unless you believe him to be a genius or master of stealth, I can assure you 4 years of all media investigations and official investigations would have uncovered anything compelling were it to exist. Also, you can tie most government officials to Russia in some capacity. Everybody in politics is well connected. It was a widely spread…

Ties are absolutely relevant when the guy is doing stuff like removing Ukraine aid or Russian sanctions from the Republican platform. Look up Paul Manafort.

Nobody is claiming Trump is a genius. The Russian ties are all out there in the open. The only open question was whether they rise to a criminal level. Trump apparently thought they did when he panicked and fired James Comey to halt an investigation. I don’t think the connections were necessarily criminal, just un-American (that of cozying up to corrupt dictators while denigrating allies).

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

#865

Post by stimpson_j_cat »

nostromo wrote: post #628
stimpson_j_cat wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, she doesn't use the word stolen, and she conceded; but the article you linked to provides evidence of interference. > The investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton

She has indeed called the election “stolen” > You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019...

Thank you for providing a different source, none was provided before.

This one also references the Mueller Report.

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

#866

Post by bena »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #862
bena wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's a heavy claim? Consider the notion of having free speech standing alone in a room. This is obviously pointless. Why would it be a stretch for a court to make the observation that the point of free speech is that people hear you? I remember thinking "oh yeah, that makes sense, they wouldn't view free speech in isolation but as a tool of the democratic process."

It is a heavy claim, because it implies you can coerce others. It implies you can grab someone passing by your hypothetical room and force them to be your audience.

No. That's never been the case. Your room is open to all and people who want to listen aren't prevented from going into it.

However, I'm also not obligated to host you in a room I own. The government guarantees my freedom of association as well. You want to opine, do it in your own room, or do it in places owned by the public at large.

Your recollection of what you were supposedly thinking doesn't mean you didn't misread what was written either. If you want me to even consider your claim, you are going to need a source on it. Because, like I said, it's a heavy one.

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

#867

Post by jandorn »

dataangel wrote: post #834
greyhair wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tell this to my liberal friends all the time. You don't have to listen to the swill on Fox News, but you should at least listen to valid conservative viewpoints to understand why the disagreements exist in the first place, to understand why there is a range of views on any topic to begin with. Living inside a singular viewpoint bubble doesn't help anyone. The same people that insist that human sexuality is non-bina…

Isn't sexuality obviously objectively not binary? The mere existence of bisexuals seems to punch a hole in this idea.

No post body was provided.

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

#868

Post by slowmovintarget »

hobs wrote: post #137
slowmovintarget wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. They finished the recounts. Three times. None of them came out in Gore's favor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... Here ya go - seems like that's incorrect.

Actually, it shows I'm correct, at least for the court decision. In all of the counts requested by the Gore team (those effected by the Supreme Court decision), all of them came out in favor of Bush.

Had there been statewide recounts, according to that page, things may have been different.

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

#869

Post by px43 »

ducktales wrote: post #685
px43 wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main thing lacking on modern platforms is a quick, reliable way to verify the reputation of any given content creator. First off, it obviously needs to be relative reputation, and not centralizedI think some sort of cross platform web of trust, where you publicly endorse some friends, some content creators, and some investigative journalists, etc. You also publicly repudiate sources of information that yo…

So, like, a social credit score....? I'm being quite reductive, but at the same time your points could be interpreted to resemble the concept. Fruit for thought

Recognize the difference between a centralized score and a relative score.

In the model I proposed, your "score" of anyone else would only be affected by people who you've selected to "score" others. This is exactly how people build trust mentally today, but assisted by a graph that lets you expand your trust network beyond Dunbar's number, which is required for filtering modern media.

The Dystopian centralized credit score seen in the Black Mirror episode "Nosedive" is what will happen if we fail to build something capable of calculating relative trust relationships.

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

#870

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #326
another_story wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit different considering the west has alternatives which are not blocked, whereas China doesn't. You can even spin up your own sources and serve whatever you want,a right not afforded the average Chinese citizen.

> You can even spin up your own sources and serve whatever you want,a right not afforded the average Chinese citizen. It's difficult when the backbone of the internet isn't available to you. For instance, AWS can be denied cutting off vital internet infrastructure we take for granted. Further payment processors like Visa can cut off access. Even banks could cut you off and even seize your funds if they got the direct…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN