Comment by Wolfenstein98k | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Wolfenstein98k | Hacker News Reader

This stuff makes me really, really suspicious.

At this point, the reason for deplatforming is that someone accused a bad thing on the opposite party.

It would be ludicrous to ban anyone blaming the events at the Capitol on Trump and/or Republicans, even if you earnestly believe that's unfair.

There is no objective case for blaming it on anyone except the individuals doing it. Anything beyond that is subjective, and you get your hands dirty really quick (ie try arguing that the Scalise shooting - by a Bernie volunteer against Republican congressmen - is completely divorced from Bernie, but the Capitol events are completely tied to Trump).

Ergo this amounts to banning people - almost all on one side of politics, even if a fringe thereof - for saying things that appear to be untrue. Not even a hint of violence or a call thereto, just an opinion that is believed to be wrong.

Are we quite sure we're happy with people losing their income and livelihood and brand and platform, just because the tech companies don't agree with their claims?

Do you know how many smaller, left-of-centre groups will quickly get caught up in that once they join this discussion around unionising the workforce of the tech giants?

You may despise Bannon, and I find it hard to believe he's an earnest actor, but think through the steps for how this happened. He's being banned for an opinion, entirely separate from any risk to anyone, and to argue otherwise (ie an implicit call to violence against the blamed party) would open you up to the claim that blaming anything in the last week on Trump is a call to violence against the president and/or his supporters, and is thus equally bannable.

Is that reasonable? Should all opinions on this topic result in permanent banning and deplatforming?

> Are we quite sure we're happy with people losing their income and livelihood and brand and platform, just because the tech companies don't agree with their claims?

Freedom of speech does not equate with freedom of consequences.

And yes, inciting over the course of many weeks [1] an actual coup attempt that only does not end into a bloodbath because a Black cop acted as bait and led the mob away from the Senate chamber so that they could barely evacuate in time [2] should absolutely lead to consequences.

Steve Bannon should be happy he has only lost his Youtube channel and did not get arrested... yet.

As for Youtube, Twitter and Facebook: they are, as corporate entities, members of all our societies - incredibly powerful. Which also means that they have a responsibility towards the societies that allow them to exist. And that responsibility, in my opinion, also entails that people working to destroy society do not get access to the virtual equivalent of a planetwide PA system.

[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/13/business/stop-the-steal-d...

[2]: https://twitter.com/kristin__wilson/status/13482872159028469...

I keep seeing news pundits and social media posts calling this a "coup". If you listen to the experts, this is not a coup - not even close (https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/06/why-this-wasnt-a-coup-c...).

I don't think anyone would say it was a "coup" per se, but they might say that it was an "attempted coup". To determine whether that expression is correct, we have to consider what the intended outcome was, and how things would have likely played out if the mob had encountered even less resistance.

Obviously it seems that one of their targets was the VP, and I can't imagine they would have let Nancy Pelosi continue as second in line to the presidency. There was also the strong possibility of enough fatalities occurring that the Democrats would lose their majorities in both chambers. Perhaps most importantly, the boxes containing the electoral votes could have been captured and the votes destroyed, putting the constitutional process in uncharted waters.

So imagine the situation, where the joint session cannot continue, and Trump sends in his hand-picked troops to "secure" the Capitol. Congress has to amend the Electoral Count Act to clarify how the votes should be counted if the certificates have been physically destroyed. In conditions similar to those at the passing of the Enabling Act of 1933[0], we could imagine Congress deciding to fall back on the procedure outlined in the 12th Amendment for "if no person have such majority". Arguably that would be the correct procedure even without a change to the ECA.

The outcome would thus be for Trump to win the vote by 26 states to 24, maintaining his presidency through means outside the legal and constitutional order. That would naturally and correctly be called a self-coup or autogolpe, in my view.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933#Preparati...

Is there any proof they are not already banning left-wing hosts? I feel like at this point they are banning everyone against the status quo.

Anyway I feel like this is a blessing in disguise, stuff like this can cause Tech giants to lose huge market share in the long term future.

It is good that people are forming other organic communities completely separate from Google/FB/Twitter.

pushing people to form organic communities is conservative populist demand

> Anyway I feel like this is a blessing in disguise, stuff like this can cause Tech giants to lose huge market share in the long term future.

It is already happening in India. So many of my friends uninstalled WhatsApp and moved to Signal. This is a real positive. The lesser the reliance on Big Tech the better for all of us!

> I feel like at this point they are banning everyone against the status quo.

Deciding that reality is whatever you "feel like" is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Lol, how do you decide the reality then? Is this a joke?

Demonetization has been a common occurrence for leftist online figures, even ones that are not at all "radical".

I'm aware of precisely one left-wing outlet that was banned, and they intentionally use edgy humour that includes remarks about death and political violence which are (sarcastically) in favour of those things.

There are a few outlets left of centre caught in the dragnet, but so far the bans have got everything from Parler to Bannon to Trump to Trump's Campaign finances (Stripe) to Gab to...

It's hard to find a single lefty outlet which has had its finances attacked, let alone by a concerted effort of the five largest tech companies in America (and the world) within a 48 hour period.

I am no fan of Bannon's or anything of the sort, but try to explain what he just got disappeared for. What rule did he break? "Thou must tell the truth at all times"?

>There is no objective case for blaming it on anyone except the individuals doing it

I don't think we should be banning anyone. I'm very pro-free speech. I'm not a Conservative or a trumper. I'm a limey brit.

But I don't quite think I'd go as far as you have in the above quote. I think Trumps continued lies and the support of multiple other republicans encouraged and legitimised these actions.

Does that excuse the actions? No.

Does it make them criminally liable? Imho, maybe. Incitement is a thing.

But they certainly can't say "it's not my fault people listened to me". There is a very real need right now for republicans to look at the company they've kept for the last 4 years and do some soul searching.

That would be best for them and for the country even if I don't think failing to do some merits arrest or deplatforming.

This isn't a right/left spat. It's a moral fiber, truth vs lies question. What sort of person does a party member want to be and to be associated with?

Unfortunately personal accountability vs accountability by group affiliation is a divisive subject between Left/Right.

No one, no matter their intentions, will ever be able to actually discuss any of these issues because we can't even agree on fundamentals like language and "permitted" words.

Truth in whose eyes?

I believe what Bannon said is false. But at no point has any social media standard been "you must tell the truth", even if we just pretend there is some objective truth that everyone knows.

Easily a hundred million Americans have watched Trump lie AND be lied about.

But the issue here is that Bannon is being disappeared from YouTube for what, exactly? Speaking an untruth?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com