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

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 983 posts

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

#881

Post by pjc50 »

thu2111 wrote: post #845
tptacek wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And how did you define "white nationalism"? HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU…

Fairly sure I could write a comment about how egregiously bad the handling of the financial crisis was in Greece by the EU, or the failings of the Common Agricultural Policy, without getting downvoted to -4.

(I used to consider myself a "cautious/mild euroskeptic" up until the referendum, at which point I've become a hard-remainer)

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

#882

Post by dublin »

dwaltrip wrote: post #823
stx wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is are these companies platforms like a phone company or are they publishers? Social media companies have argued that they cant be held liable for things posted to their platforms in the past and have tried to position themselves at neutral platforms. When they start to become the arbitrators of what is and is not to be posted they are no longer neutral platforms like the phone company. I do not recall a ti…

My limited understanding is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which is apparently one of the most important laws for this topic), passed in 1996, provides very broad protections to web platforms: 1) They can't be held liable for user-generated content, e.g. Facebook can't be sued for a defamatory statement that I make in a post on their platform. A newspaper that authors and publishes an article mak…

Section 230 protection should not exist. When this was enacted, nothing like Facebook, YouTube,Twitter, etc. existed, and InfoSeek and AltaVista were the leading search engines...

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

#883

Post by paulchap »

erichocean wrote: post #538
skinkestek wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly certain he can stand for it. Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that. Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?

> Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we? HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last… In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended u…

Linking to one flagged comment from a green account doesn't really support your position that the entire community is "racist-adjacent". Neither does linking to a blog post that claims Scott shut SSC down to protect his patients support your position that he did it to evade justice.

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

#884

Post by leereeves »

pjc50 wrote: post #879
rayiner wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait? We have a a “rep” on Twitter? HN is like one of the most civil places on the Internet insofar as ones where any debate of substance happens.

Mention sexism in tech and it'll get flagged off the front page almost immediately, because that's one of the issues where the third rail is too close to HN's own posters that substantial debate is impossible. Also, civility is not the same as not having abhorrent ideas written up in nice language.

Politics of almost any kind will be flagged quickly here, even if it's tech related.

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

#885

Post by chrischattin »

rickbutton wrote: post #635
chrischattin wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Are you seriously comparing the struggle of Jews in Nazi Germany to white supremacists being deplatformed in America? If you are, you should really take a step back and evaluate the gravity of that statement. Edit: Saw your edit. You can usually click the timestamp to reply when there is no reply button. Thank you for the clarification. I'll repeat my previous statement because it still applies, I can tell that you s…

Again, I'm not defending white supremacists. Stop putting words into my mouth. I'm defending free speech as a human right. You don't take away someone's human rights because you find their ideology reprehensible. Otherwise, you become the villian.

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

#886

Post by phonypc »

tptacek wrote: post #821
rayiner wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required p…

In Democracy and Distrust, Ely says rules like the First Amendment are important because they secure the channels of democracy; in his framing, it's important that the government not suppress speech because doing so prevents the people from governing. It's not because speech is an intrinsic or natural right, which is an idea he argues against. That made sense to me when I read it. The idea of a universal principle of…

I would/do have a problem with that idea being supressed. The path to defeating a truly bad idea is to publicly flog it, not pretend it doesn't exist.

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

#887

Post by stillbourne »

syshum wrote: post #856
stillbourne wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that private platforms can do what they want. I said private platforms have a right to moderation of content on their platform. Does that not count as freedom of expression? The ability remove content contrary to the intended audience seems like something anyone should be granted. If I host a website for children can anyone post smut? Well I just have to keep it because the poster has a right to post smu…

Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making Yes they have the legal ability to moderate content under current law. However that does not mean they are beyond criticism, just because they can do something does not mean the SHOULD do something, and if they do everyone has the equal right to voice their displeasure with said action >>Does that not count as freedom of expression? No I do not believe…

> Again you are focused on the legal argument that no one is making.

It absolutely is a legal argument. Furthermore it is an argument that has been ruled on by the courts. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) basically states the first amendment did not protect the students from printing articles in the school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.

That means that as the operator of a platform I as the operator am entitled to my freedom of speech and that as the operator I am allowed to moderate what I want to publish as content. That is a legal fact. Any individual or organization that advocates a message contrary to my views is not entitled to use my platform to spread their message.

It's funny how universal toleration advocates don't see that they are the ones that are quashing the free speech of the owner of a platform. Likewise it seems to me that most the universal toleration advocates also usually promote free market principals so why not the let the free market settle this? Don't like that you got deplatformed? Build your own platform. You are entitled to do that. Then on your platform you can advocate as much hate speech as you want.

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

#888

Post by user982 »

skinkestek wrote: post #537
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.

>People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. ...and they will be voted down quickly. > And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down. Examples please :-) The closest thing I can come up with is when I kind of reliably get downvoted every time I say I'd support a ban on nazis but that seems to be die hard free speech people, not nazis.

> Examples please :-)

The post you replied to was downvoted and flagkilled until I vouched for it. Every post from me in this thread is or has been graytext. Too many other examples just in this thread to enumerate or counteract.

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

#889

Post by TeaDrunk »

TomSwirly wrote: post #851
fzeroracer wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some very small experiments on such a thing a while ago. One was an example of someone being unjustly detained in violation of their rights [1] and another was an actual example of government censorship [2]. The first one was flagged and killed immediately, the second received zero response. On HN, all of the 'free speech' stories I see always pertain to the far-right and/or incredibly vitriolic individuals get…

Can you explain why either of these stories is at all relevant to this site? I come here to get away from the shouty people. You seem upset people here won't let you get shouty. I disagree.

In contrary this person doesn't seem upset at all. What rhetoric are you picking up upset by? It seems reasoned and evidenced logic to me.

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

#890

Post by kstrauser »

0xy wrote: post #830
kstrauser wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today, Reddit banned the Chapo Trap House left extremist group. From someone not involved in either extreme, it appears to me like they're being consistent and banning people for behavior and not politics. I've not heard anyone calling for George Will to be deplatformed, for instance.

Just checking, but you know the standard for "consistent" is not "at least one far left extremist group was banned" right? That is absolutely not the definition of consistent, so I have no idea why you've tried to square this circle. Consistent means proportional enforcement without political bias, which has clearly never been a priority for reddit. After all, reddit has repeatedly targeted right-leaning subs with sh…

I don’t know. Which left-leaning subs, specifically, have violated the Reddit ToS in the same way that the_donald and the various “clown world” subs did and were not treated the same?
Post reply on HN