Steve Bannon’s show pulled off Twitter and YouTube over calls for violence | Hacker News Reader

Steve Bannon’s show pulled off Twitter and YouTube over calls for violence

techcrunch.com

97 pointsdavidbarker61 comments

"Were I president I would use violence to political ends" is not a call for others to perform violence. It's a fantasy for the use of violence. These statements are not uncommon. It is normal and socially acceptable to wish for the death of sports teams, referees, your mother-in-law, billionaires, bankers, etc. etc. Here, take a look: https://twitter.com/search?q=%22kill%20billionaires%22&src=t...

The American people don't need to be protected from this. We aren't children.

It's clearly flame bait and Twitter/Google don't want it on their platform. The same would happen if it was posted here.

They accept it just fine when it's against Republicans. Heck, I've heard harsher rhetoric from the "Young Turks", an organization sponsored and feted by YouTube itself.

One needn't search long on YouTube/Twitter to find much stronger "flame bait" against the other side, which is allowed to stand.

No need to wonder why; it's no secret that Googlers literally cried in the hallways after Trump's 2016 victory, nor that numerous former (?) Democrat operatives now occupy positions of authority at Twitter.

Nope, literally called for Chris Wray’s and Fauci’s beheading. That’s at least glorification of violence, if not incitement. There is already been an armed kidnapping attempt stopped by the FBI in Michigan.

Note that “billionaires” is not a person... TV announcers don’t recommend killing refs by name after loosing a game, and that your MiL might get a restraining order against you if you post that online.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/932052602/twitter-permanently...

Twitter and YouTube don't serve at the pleasure of the American people.

Don't be obtuse.

A mainstream rightwing media figure is out there expressing nostalgia for the good old days of mob violence and when you could just lynch your opponents and calling for a civil war (as well as beheading Fauci). This is also in the context of armed extremists threatening people who are just trying to count the results of the election. Police are required to escort them in and out of counting locations in some cities for their protection [1].

Even his former whitehouse colleagues have expressed disgust at the statement. You don't have to pretend that this is at all appropriate just because Bannon is on the same "team" as you and companies like Twitter and Google have no requirement to be a mouthpiece for calls to violence.

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/otilliasteadman/fears-f...

Good! I'm tired of online platforms giving bad actors special treatment because their conspiracy theories and misinformation are so closely nestled with a political ideology.

Enough is enough and Twitter has no obligation to be a mouthpiece for calls for violence that are splitting our country apart.

Honesly some people are going to say the exact same in the opposite side for supporting gay marriage / trans young people.

I'm definetely not on Bannon's side but you guys in america could do with a little "step back" other it's going to get even more polarized and there will really be 2 americas which may end up in even more violence. It's like Hilary's "deplorables".. just try to understand the other side's point before insulting it.

> Honesly some people are going to say the exact same in the opposite side for supporting gay marriage / trans young people.

Are you unable to distinguish between supporting gay marriage and encouraging violence? If you need some help, consider the outcomes. In one of them, people end up married. In the other, people end up dead. Does one of those sound better than the other, perhaps?

The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the consequences of gay marriage is adoption, and that raising a child without both parents is a bigger violence for this child than any sort of physical violence.

I disagree personally with this point of view, but you really need to start understanding the opposite point of view to understand that at the end of the day, both parties feel they fight a legitimate cause...

> The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the consequences of gay marriage is adoption, and that raising a child without both parents is a bigger violence for this child than any sort of physical violence.

I don't even know what the first one means—"the consequence of gay marriage is adoption"?

> both parties feel they fight a legitimate cause

I agree that both parties feel like their cause is legitimate, but it does not follow that both causes are equally legitimate. For instance, if you remember a few years back, Cheerios had a commercial with an interracial couple, and they got a lot of complaints about it. I don't think anybody said that the people complaining didn't feel passionately that their cause was legitimate. However, that fact does not mean that others need to treat that cause as equal in legitimacy to the cause that people of different races may marry, and those marriages may be displayed in commercials. And absolutely, there are cases where both sides are legitimate. But we do not need to treat all cases like that, even if some are. We don't need to be full-on cultural relativists.

> The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the consequences of gay marriage is adoption

No, while the opponents of same-sex marriage also oppose adoption by same-sex couples, by far the vast majority of them will argue that the primary basis for opposition is either that marriage is intended to produce offspring and same-sex marriage is defective in that regard or that marriage is a divine institution instituted for heterosexuality and that extending it same-sex couples defies the divine plan, improperly endorses homosexuality, and pollutes society with sin independently of whether or not this is further compounded by allowing such couples to adopt.

I know we all like to rail against Trump (who ain't a saint), but honestly, it's stuff like this that just simply doesn't help. The argument that he "called for violence" is not only uncharitable, it's also blatantly untrue. He was making a comparison to the "good old days" where monarchs could publicly execute officials that weren't in lockstep with their policies. Bannon's argument is moot (as we don't live in a monarchy), and he was just being hyperbolic.

Twitter and YouTube went off the rails and decided to ban him, which I do think is unfair. His polarizing domestic policy notwithstanding, Bannon was doing a pretty good job of keeping pressure on China with regard to the Hong Kong situation. He was a fairly regular guest on "dissident" HK news channels.

> he was just being hyperbolic.

How do you know that maybe he really meant that.

How do you know he didnt? We are getting way to comfortable with censorship and selective enforcement of community standards by a small group of people in Silicon Valley.

> How do you know he didnt?

I did not make the claim that he was being hyperbolic in the first place.

We are getting way to comfortable advocating violence which ends with terrorists trying to kill politicians and kidnapping governors.

You can still get your point across without the violent language.

After he was banned from Twitter, Steve Bannon's verified Facebook Page reiterated it. In fact, the Facebook post is still up:

https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776

Here's an archive.org link: https://web.archive.org/web/20201106185230/https://www.faceb...

Here's the text of that post in case it is removed:

    [BREAKING] On www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com -
    *Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack*
    - Steve Bannon Under Attack
    - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray
    Get your news NOW - Bookmark www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com

I altered the URLs in the message above, I don't think HN turns URLs into links but I want to avoid any possible pagerank funniness.

It's uncharitable? It's untrue? It's hyperbolic because it's a counterfactual?

Then why did Steve Bannon's verified Facebook Page reiterate that he called for their execution without any of those caveats or counterfactuals or even the defense that it was hyperbole or parody?

Facebook post here: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776

archive.org snapshot here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201106185230/https://www.faceb...

Here's the text of that post in case it is removed:

    [BREAKING] On www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com -
    *Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack*
    - Steve Bannon Under Attack
    - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray
    Get your news NOW - Bookmark www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com

Why would anyone listen to Steve Bannon complaining about authoritarian behavior?

What do you think made those services suddenly respond quickly to those issues? Do you think it's just that they were prepared with extra monitoring staff and stricter rules for the election time, or was there some fear of possible regulation if they used filtering before? (Which is gone now?)

Twitter barely reacted to any reports before, but now Trump's feed is missing most quotes and has warnings on many tweets. The content hasn't changed that much in my opinion.

I think this is perceived by many as a potential crucible for democracy in US. They are doing everything they can to not be made vehicles of violent unrest that could upset the peaceful transfer of power.

> everything they can

Trump hasn't spoken a word of truth over twitter (or elsewhere) as far as I'm able to establish. Do you think he'd have his account still if he weren't president?

Also, look at the number of fact checkers Facebook and twitter employ. That is far cry from "doing everything they can".

American democracy is being undone by means of these social media platforms. In the past few weeks this the veneer has finally come off with "America is a republic, not a democracy". I can't believe how you could ignore the essential role social media play in all this.

I would bet they became legitimately concerned his words would incite violence in response to a close election.

Not exactly. Read past the headline. Here's the exchange they based their decision on:

> Maxey: Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors.

> Bannon: That’s how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war.

Questionable, yes, but not an overt call to violence like the headline implies.

He said that after saying this:

"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci, no, I actually want to go a step farther, but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put their heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the program or you're gone."

Bannon called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci: https://boingboing.net/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-calls-for-beh...

That one is far more egregious, but still not a call to violence.

Really? Is it a call for a non-violent beheading?

What definition of "call to violence" are you using where posting the severed heads of your enemies doesn't qualify?

I would think a call to violence meant "hey people, go do this ____." It's certainly tactless and a really dumb thing to say and I understand why they took him down.

Edit: yes. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

"Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct"

I think he should be investigated for that claim, but that headline reads like he was telling people to go commit a crime.

Edit 2: Recommended reading. https://www.amazon.com/How-Judges-Think-Pims-Immigration/dp/...

The line is not that clear. Otherwise "it would be a shame if you didn't pay and your shop burned down" would not be intimidation for protection racket.

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Ted Nugent was even less egregious when he said he'd wind up dead or in jail if Obama got a second term, but he still got a visit from the Secret Service over it because people are capable of reading between the lines.

In a tense political climate where violence has already broken out in the streets, erring on the side of caution seems like a good idea.

I agree with that and think it'd be reasonable for the Secret Service or FBI to give Bannon a visit.

You're completely wrong. That is not what got him banned. He advocated beheading Dr. Fauci & FBI Director Wray and literally putting their heads on pikes in front of the White House. Here's the full quote:

Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci.

Now I actually want to go a step farther but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I'd put the heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats

https://www.mediamatters.org/steve-bannon/steve-bannon-and-h...

He kinda also threatened Dr. Fauci and the FBI director right before that. Kind of puts the whole revolution/civil war comment in context. By itself innocuous, in the context of the conversation and w/Bannon being a white supremacist, questionable.

"Former presidential advisor and right-wing pundit Steve Bannon had his show suspended from Twitter and an episode removed by YouTube after calling for violence against FBI director Christopher Wray and the government’s leading pandemic expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Bannon, speaking with co-host Jack Maxey, was discussing what Trump should do in a hypothetical second term. He suggested firing Wray and Fauci, but then went further, saying “I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats.”

This may strike one at first as mere hyperbole — one may say “we want his head on a platter” and not really be suggesting they actually behead anyone. But the conversation continued and seemed to be more in earnest than it first appeared:

Maxey: Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors.

Bannon: That’s how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war."

I am reading past the headline and it seems that you flat out ignored the part where the article said that Bannon called for Trump to behead two government officials.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com