[HN Gopher] YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song cla...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical
misinformation
Author : mrfusion
Score : 240 points
Date : 2021-10-23 12:58 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.foxnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.foxnews.com)
| pmurt7 wrote:
| Something is wrong when the king needs to censor the jester.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| I don't understand the allegories to feudalism when jesters who
| crossed a line weren't censored but executed. (I would guess
| specially if they expressed or supported any sort of anti-
| monarchy or anti-their-monarchs viewpoints)
| [deleted]
| nullc wrote:
| I believe banishment was a much more common punishment in
| feudal kingdom than execution.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Apparently some jesters were used as messengers during
| campaigns / sieges and if the recipient didn't like the
| message they would be trebucheted back to whomever sent
| them.
| nyolfen wrote:
| maybe peasant is a better allegory; he works the lord's lands
| solely at the lord's discretion, keeps a tiny share of what
| is produced and is ejected at will
| muststopmyths wrote:
| Has anyone actually seen the video and not just read the lyrics
| on genius ? Maybe the video itself is what actually caused the
| ban ?
|
| I haven't been able to find it myself but maybe worth
| considering.
|
| Ew. I just defended YouTube.
| fortytwo79 wrote:
| Watched it here:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/Saint_BTC/status/1451559663753859...
|
| Mostly just the rappers waving their hands around and showing
| their guns.
| [deleted]
| jimmar wrote:
| Try to spot medical disinformation:
| https://crownlyric.com/2021/10/19/loza-alexander-lets-go-bra...
| miked85 wrote:
| This is actually a different rapper, the article is referring
| to Bryson Gray. Either way, I don't see the medical
| misinformation.
|
| https://genius.com/Bryson-gray-lets-go-brandon-lyrics
| wodenokoto wrote:
| > Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I
| remember) How you woke, but you haven't opened your eyes?
| (You ain't see)
|
| I mean, I know there are pockets of people who believe that
| saying vaccines don't work is telling the truth, but broadly
| speaking, saying that vaccines are fake and don't work is
| considered misinformation related to medicine.
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| He didn't say they didn't work? He said it was lies that
| they stop the spread.
|
| We now know of vaccinated people dying of covid, some right
| after being vaxxed, some months after, some after getting a
| second dose.
|
| The lyrics can be interpreted a few ways. Was the vaccine
| then supposed to _absolutely_ stop the spread and give
| _absolute_ protection to a vaccinated person?
| [deleted]
| jfrunyon wrote:
| How is saying that "it was lies that they stop the
| spread" different from saying "they didn't work"?
|
| He said vaccines don't work. You also said vaccines don't
| work. And that's just simply not true.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| In some cases, they do not.
|
| But they work often enough and to a high enough degree of
| efficacy that we still should bother.
| dazilcher wrote:
| > saying that vaccines are fake and don't work
|
| But that's not what he's saying, is it?
| JasonFruit wrote:
| "I do not think about things that I do not think about!"
|
| -- Matthew Harrison Brady in _Inherit the Wind_
| furgooswft13 wrote:
| The jab does not stop the spread though. I cite the news
| for the past 3 months. I'm sure you've seen it. More cases
| now than same time last year, when there was no vaccine?
| Clearly the jab did not stop the spread. Oh it's the "delta
| variant"? Still didn't stop the spread. It was lies (I
| remember).
| miked85 wrote:
| I think it has been established that the vaccine acts more
| as a therapeutic and does not prevent one from catching or
| spreading the virus.
| jimmar wrote:
| Oops. You're right about me linking to the wrong song. I
| didn't realize how popular that song title has become.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| You really need this help, champ?
|
| > Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
|
| That's medical disinformation.
| henrikschroder wrote:
| No, you're wrong. Vaccinations slow the spread, they don't
| stop them.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| I'm sorry you struggle this way with casual english
| merpnderp wrote:
| Show me how any of the vaccines stop the spread. Go ahead and
| show the study that shows any of them stop it. And make sure
| you pay close attention to the word "stop" because I believe
| that's where you're getting confused.
| ofou wrote:
| So, now you cannot make even art with dissident ideas.
|
| Welcome 1984!
| undersuit wrote:
| The art was made without issue. Distribution is not a right.
| DenverCoder99 wrote:
| What classifies as distribution?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| YouTube hosting the art. YouTube gets to decide what
| YouTube shows to its users.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| So they are they a publisher?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| No? They're a platform, the artist is the publisher.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| YouTube makes opinionated decisions about what gets in
| their search results. They edit their search results and
| have a team that decides that goes on the front page.
| That's editing. YouTube is a publisher.
| irl_chad wrote:
| A publishing house publishes a book that an author
| writes.
|
| Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want
| to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor
| recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while
| also retaining their platform protections.
|
| The libertarian stance on this issue is completely
| untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can't perform
| gymnastics that well.
| matthewmarkus wrote:
| The libertarian stance would be to repeal CDA 230. I
| don't know any libertarians that prefer statutory law to
| common law.
|
| "Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and _state
| power_ , but some libertarians diverge on the scope of
| their opposition to existing economic and political
| systems."
| ofou wrote:
| Just to provide context "NIH admits Fauci lied about funding
| Wuhan gain-of-function experiments" [1] If there's no one
| even making art with borderline lyrics, nobody may realize
| there's something besides the status quo. I'm not saying that
| I agree with all dissidents opinions, but I strongly disagree
| with messing with art. It's music for god's sake.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972283
| unclebucknasty wrote:
| This "art" is not being produced in a vacuum.
|
| YouTube is fighting a problem with disinformation that has
| significant implications on a public health crisis.
|
| I don't see why they should respond any differently, simply
| because someone is singing the disinformation.
| DenverCoder99 wrote:
| How do you know that Youtube is always going to be
| correct when they take down anything for disinformation?
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Who cares? Whatever they take down, they can always put
| back up.
| DenverCoder99 wrote:
| What would you say if Youtube did that to you?
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| That depends. Am I spreading misinformation?
| teddyh wrote:
| "I didn't think leopards would eat _my_ face!"
| DaniloDias wrote:
| I would welcome a national separation if it means that
| people who think like you are on the other side of the
| border. This is pitiable logic.
| op00to wrote:
| It's always something.
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| Tech companies, controlling the distribution, now determine
| what is or isn't dissidence.
|
| It may not be 1984, maybe something from Neuromancer or Snow
| Crash (I forget which) where big corps control the
| information that is considered acceptable for the plebs.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| you sound silly stubbing for fox lies this way and trying
| to pretend it's ethically pased
|
| neither of those cover this. nobody takes neal stephenson
| seriously that way. take a class
| psyc wrote:
| I disagree that we're talking about rights at all. I think
| the issue is really norms and expectations. Do we really need
| to invoke the heavy hand of law and government as the
| ubiquitous standard for what is acceptable?
| iab wrote:
| Where is law/government involved here?
| bloaf wrote:
| The specific claim is that because the law does not
| prohibit something, it is therefore ok.
|
| As Chesterton argues to the contrary "To have a right to
| do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing
| it."
| ipaddr wrote:
| Distribution in platforms or platforms themselves. If
| platforms abuse their power the government can enforce
| standards on platforms or disallow them from their
| country/region. Distribution is not a right for either party.
| ResearchCode wrote:
| If you have a monopoly and your spy platform is essentially
| infrastructure then yes, of course it is.
| [deleted]
| MiguelX413 wrote:
| Thank god there's 20 alternatives to YouTube then. Daily
| reminder to use Peertube and that being able to reach
| people, centralization, and ad monetization are
| incompatible with freedom. Use Peertube, you can't have
| freedom and reach+monetization.
| DenverCoder99 wrote:
| I've grown pessimistic about distributed networks and the
| Fediverse. The Pareto distribution is this neverending
| bastard of a phenomena that creeps up into everything we
| touch.
|
| If a distributed network ends up displacing Youtube,
| what's going to inevitably happen is one section of the
| network is going consume the vast majority of the
| viewership and content, and they're going to start
| repeating the same shit that Youtube is doing right now.
|
| I'm not saying we shouldn't promote alternatives, but I
| am saying we haven't really figured out how to properly
| integrate social media into our society without it
| disintegrating into what we're seeing now (or worse).
| brighton36 wrote:
| I was sympathetic to this ethos, until parler was taken off
| the internet. Youtube is probably monetizing what would
| otherwise be public utilities. If its not a right, then maybe
| the citizens should be regulating youtube, instead of the
| other way around.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Well done. The song is just stupid political publicity Qmamon
| style without one single smart line. Nothing valuable is lost
| downandout wrote:
| It's called censorship. It rarely ends well for society.
| yesbut wrote:
| We have a legal system to deal with free speech issues. We
| already decided not to hold public platforms accountable for
| what its members publish on their platforms, outside of a few
| narrow areas. These platforms shouldn't also then censor
| content, whether you agree or not with the content, once they
| are already benefitting from the legal protections.
|
| The solution to bad speech is good speech. Never censorship.
| theHIDninja wrote:
| Let's be real. Youtube deleted this because it had a political
| message that goes against their's. It had nothing to do with one
| lyric even tangentially being misinformation about the Chinese
| Virus.
| lazyjones wrote:
| I'm expecting this to disappear from HN as well, unfortunately.
| batch12 wrote:
| And your expectation came true. Front page then no page.
| lazyjones wrote:
| Very sad... I guess this kind of censorship / denialism is
| becoming an accepted practice in certain circles. I would
| have thought the moderators here are bigger than that.
| tom_ wrote:
| It's typically due to people like me flagging it, as we've
| found from experience that the discussions are usually
| pretty tedious.
|
| This place is no democracy, though, so dang sometimes
| brings them back. And that's ok.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| HN is mostly young San Francisco folks. Children act like
| children after all. :-)
| sampo wrote:
| Now 7 hours later, this is #11 on the front page.
| Proven wrote:
| Thanks for telling us about the video. Let's go, Brandon!
|
| https://rumble.com/vnxsm5-lets-go-brandon-rapper-loza-alexan...
| undersuit wrote:
| I'm out of the loop, but I've been seeing "Let's Go Brandon"
| posts on a certain subset of the internet that I keep my eye on,
| so this headline and source doesn't surprise me.
|
| I think I'm better off judging this book by it's cover and not
| telling Youtube how to run their house.
| poorjohnmacafee wrote:
| "I'm okay with youtube censoring memes that make fun of the
| president"
| brewdad wrote:
| Youtube could pivot to nothing but cat videos tomorrow and
| they would be perfectly in the right to do so.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| And that would be perfectly fine, but only if Youtube's CEO
| stops giving speeches about free speech being a core value
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28683575
| roenxi wrote:
| There are many extraordinarily biased US media companies
| out there. In theory, YouTube can become one more. And that
| is fine.
|
| But these companies aren't are a lot less respectable than
| YouTube has been to date, and people know what they are
| getting.
|
| The issue here is YouTube's standards are changing and that
| deserves to be discussed. And condemned, it is change for
| the worse (even if in some sense it is probably
| inevitable).
| robocat wrote:
| Lyrics:
|
| [Intro: Joe Biden & Bryson Gray] The various shots the people are
| getting now cover that They're-, they're-, they're okay You're
| not gonna-, you're not gonna get COVID if you have these
| vaccinations Somebody gotta do it Ayy
|
| [Chorus: Bryson Gray] Let's go, Brandon I keep a drum like I'm
| Nick Cannon, ayy, ayy, ayy, ayy (Brrt, brrt) Let's go, Brandon
| Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just
| planned it) Let's go, Brandon When you ask questions, they start
| bannin', ayy, ayy (Facts) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's
| go, Brandon) Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Ayy, let's go, Brandon)
| Let's go, Brandon I keep a drum like I'm Nick Cannon, ayy, ayy
| (Pow, pow) Let's go, Brandon Pandemic ain't real, they just
| planned it, ayy, ayy (They just planned it) Let's go, Brandon
| When you ask questions, they start bannin', ayy, ayy (Facts)
| Let's go, Brandon, ayy, ayy (Let's go) Let's go, Brandon, ayy,
| ayy (Ayy, let's go)
|
| [Verse 1: Bryson Gray] Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was
| lies (I remember) How you woke, but you haven't opened your eyes?
| (You ain't see) These politicians are demons, just in disguise
| (Facts) Look at Kyrie Irving and Nicki Minaj (Let's go) Look at
| Australia, that's what's comin' next if we don't stand up Stop
| complyin' with them takin' our rights, it's time to man up
| 'Publicans votin' for red flag laws, that's just what I can't
| trust If you ask questions 'bout the vax, then they gonna ban us
| (It's true) Ayy, this is 'bout control, everybody knows Everyone
| complies weigh the cons and pros I don't need a plane, I just hit
| the road I do what I want, I can't sell my soul Market 'bout to
| crash, this is what you chose Ruinin' the country, I think that's
| the goal You gon' take the mark, I take narrow roads I'm a man of
| God, I can never fold
|
| Disclaimer: I am not supporting either side here - and the lyrics
| are not really the issue in this situation imho - it is more meta
| than that.
| anm89 wrote:
| That is... hard to read.
| gfosco wrote:
| easier to just watch it:
| https://tv.gab.com/channel/realbrysongray/view/lets-go-
| brand...
| glhfgg wrote:
| Lol yup. Banning is right.
|
| Fuck dang.
| collegeburner wrote:
| You want to see worse? Youtube has shadowbanned this song from
| search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr_F_XQrukM
|
| Search "Let's go brandon" and it should be the number 1 result,
| it's #23 on trending for music still, it was #1, and it peaked at
| #1 on itunes hiphop charts for US. But you don't get it unless
| you search for "let's go brandon song", which makes me think
| somebody messed with it.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Youtube instantly demonetized, put behind triple community
| warnings, and removed from search the video "The CIA is a
| Terrorist Organization" (
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI ) which was sourced
| only from things the CIA / US Government have formally admitted
| on the record as having done in the past.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Videos like this are only accessible in some countries if you
| provide YouTube with a government ID. In my country YouTube
| blocks a number of videos from public broadcasters this way.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| Let me introduce a temporary workaround to you
| https://www.youtubeNSFW.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI
| EastOfTruth wrote:
| When I search for "Let's go brandon" (no quotes), it is number
| four in the search results... but with quotes, with or without
| apostrophe, I'm not sure because I don't see it... went down
| about 100 results...
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| yesterday I too had it as a front page result. Now it is a
| large number of pages down.
|
| Censorbeast hit again.
| glhfgg wrote:
| We have a treasure trove of the last few years of the internet
| (thanks to archive.org) showcasing that the majority opinion of
| HN and others is "someone I don't like is being censored,
| therefore it's OK."
| convery wrote:
| Combined with the usual "it's not censorship if it's a private
| company doing the censoring" but getting really upset when
| someone doesn't want to bake a custom cake..
|
| Sadly even reasonable opinions are quickly squashed on this
| site. e.g. from this thread: https://i.imgur.com/e5i9BzE.png
| Jotra7 wrote:
| Wow, so many chuds in this thread. I for one love vax
| misinformation, it is a good way to get rid of a mentally
| defective portion of the population.
| mimikatz wrote:
| https://variety.com/2021/music/news/youtube-will-not-ban-yg-...
|
| When songs promote robbing Asian people YouTube says " In a memo
| to staff explaining the rationale for not barring the YG video,
| management wrote: "We'll start by saying we find this video to be
| highly offensive and understand it is painful for many to watch,
| including many in Trust & Safety and especially given the ongoing
| violence against the Asian community. One of the biggest
| challenges of working in Trust & Safety is that sometimes we have
| to leave up content we disagree with or find offensive...
| Sometimes videos that otherwise violate our policies are allowed
| to stay up if they have Educational, Documentary, Scientific or
| Artistic context...
|
| "In this case, this video receives an EDSA exception as a musical
| performance," YouTube's memo to staffers continued. "While EDSA
| is not a free pass for any content, there are likely thousands of
| music videos that would otherwise violate policies including Sex
| & Nudity, Violent or Graphic Content and Hate Speech were it not
| for these sorts of EDSA exceptions. As a result, removing this
| video would have far-reaching implications for other musical
| content containing similarly violent or offensive lyrics, in
| genres ranging from rap to rock. While we debated this decision
| at length amongst our policy experts, we made the difficult
| decision to leave the video up to enforce our policy consistently
| and avoid setting a precedent that may lead to us having to
| remove a lot of other music on YouTube."
| [deleted]
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Ah, so what's good for the goose is actually _not_ good for the
| gander. Interesting...
| nullc wrote:
| Assaulting Asian people isn't incompatible with an explicit
| whitehouse policy initiative and in that example the artist
| wasn't wearing an "impeach biden" shirt.
|
| Edit: People keep responding to this comment claiming that the
| video didn't feature an impeach biden shirt, then deleting
| their comments when they realized what they saw was a video
| using the same name exploiting the fact that the real video is
| hidden. :) If you feel the urge to make that reply, instead
| just update this counter instead:
| [deleted]
| bitwize wrote:
| YouTube has a very clear policy that only one opinion on
| COVID-19 is allowed on their platform. They are enforcing that
| policy.
| ResearchCode wrote:
| And govt. totally didn't push for that exceptional "policy",
| it arose from the first principles of free market
| competition. Any apparent similarity to moderation on Weibo,
| TikTok or Bilibili is purely coincidental.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Lyrics about the pandemic being planned. And this is a "free
| speech" cause celebre now? It's trash, and it is toxic trash
| during a crisis that has at every turn exceeded the dangerousness
| that sober, informed people has said about it. Throttling the
| stupidity is itself a form of speech that needs to be defended.
| miked85 wrote:
| So preventing free speech which you don't agree with is itself
| free speech. Got it.
| cudgy wrote:
| Perhaps your opinion should be throttled, since you are
| espousing other's opinions to be throttled?
| Zigurd wrote:
| Some things are not a matter of opinion. The "plandemic"
| reality you have constructed in your head is not actual
| reality. What the horse paste eaters are doing is like having
| an opinion against gravity and jumping from a height to show
| their faithfulness to an unreality.
| blast wrote:
| Sure, but that's not an argument for censoring it,
| especially when you consider all the lyrics out there that
| don't get censored.
| undersuit wrote:
| If you'd like those lyrics to be censored you may also
| make a stink about it. Youtube has a report
| functionality.
| loonster wrote:
| It's much simpler to just not watch it. Deprive them of
| the ad revenue.
| mc32 wrote:
| No, it's not because that. It barely has a "verse". They just
| don't like the traction it's getting and the anti narrative it
| promotes.
|
| If it were F@ck Donald (whatever) and everything else the same it
| would still be up.
|
| The rest is nothing but naked excuse.
|
| There are so many medically misleading things on YouTube --just
| look at dieting. They cause harm. Let me see them pull those.
|
| Nah, they won't.
|
| Honestly, I think "Pravda" would be proud of the gall.
| DaveExeter wrote:
| Meh. It's a private platform. They don't have to give any
| excuses for blocking a video.
|
| Is it de facto censorship? Maybe. But I think we as a society
| agree that social media platforms have a responsibly to censor
| harmful content in order to protect the public.
|
| Would we have wanted social platforms to give a voice to the
| "American First" movement of the 1930s? [1]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4GyYPLHlwA
| nvelty wrote:
| They may have a right to do so, but given the importance of
| social media this gives those companies immense power. For
| right-wing Americans, simply shrugging off blatant targeting
| like this is politically suicidal. At this point, their only
| recourse is to use government power to push back, so we
| shouldn't be surprised if moves like this push red Americans
| further from libertarianism into more authoritarian views of
| government. To not do so is untenable.
| [deleted]
| someperson wrote:
| > Would we have wanted social platforms to give a voice to
| the "American First" movement of the 1930s?
|
| Of course, it's part of democratic debate. Remember America
| stayed out of World War 2 until Pearl Harbor. Lindbergh's
| argument from the video you link is completely reasonable.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| I don't know a gentle, polite way to point out that you've
| hit every platitude in its most thoughtless, vacuous form:
| - You can still disagree with a private company - We
| as a society are thoroughly divided on that, and many
| disagree that issues of rights and morality are decided
| democratically - Political speech you disagree with
| has value
| DaveExeter wrote:
| I have certainly not hit "every platitude"!
|
| I left out the "protecting our children" platitude. Thought
| it might be a little bit over the top. ;-)
|
| In any case, I think Glenn Greenwald has the best take on
| internet censorship:
|
| https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-
| not-...
| miked85 wrote:
| > _Would we have wanted social platforms to give a voice to
| the "American First" movement of the 1930s?_
|
| Definitely. Just because you disagree with something doesn't
| mean it should be censored.
| catawbasam wrote:
| I used to work hard to assume the best about right-wing
| narratives. That started to change when they refused to
| accepted the election results even after bringing it to SCOTUS.
|
| Since January 6th I assume the opposite: Many of these people
| are working to destabilize our democracy. I have zero interest
| in accommodating them.
| findalex wrote:
| Why assume anything?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Because it's the basis of doing literally anything. Why did
| I walk out and get in my car? Because I assumed it would
| start and be capable of driving me somewhere.
| finite_jest wrote:
| I mean, it is "their" democracy too. Also, advocating for
| corporate censorship is not helping to stabilize democracy,
| it is eroding one of its foundations: the ability of citizens
| to freely express themselves.
| catawbasam wrote:
| My point is that those working to undermine or overturn
| democracy are using freedom to expression to undermine that
| very freedom. That is outside the bounds of toleration.
|
| A case in point is Christina Bobb, who works as a
| propagandist for OANN under 1st amendment journalistic
| protections, but showed her true colors on Jan 6 by working
| with Rudy G and John Eastman at the Willard to overturn the
| election result. At that point I think she is no longer
| entitled to legal protections afforded journalists.
| furgooswft13 wrote:
| Democrats have formally disputed every presidential
| election they have lost since 2000 (before, during, and
| after the official electoral tallying). Leftist mobs were
| rioting through every major city last year _and_ storming
| plenty of government and federal buildings (even in DC).
|
| If that is not working to overturn democracy, then
| neither are a handful of people running past the
| barricades at the Capitol building, who harmed nobody.
| catawbasam wrote:
| Hundreds of cases of Assault on Police Officer occurred
| there, bud, many captured on video. Many already charged,
| many more to come. Those assaults won't be forgotten.
|
| Wrt to the rioting around the Floyd protests: what
| Federal building in DC was stormed? Crowds/mobs were
| close to the White House, but not into the actual
| grounds.
| mc32 wrote:
| You're honest. YouTube isn't.
| mStreamTeam wrote:
| OK, that has nothing to do with YouTube censoring content and
| proving a false excuse why...
| catawbasam wrote:
| It does though. The election fraud narrative and covid
| anti-vaxx efforts are being driven by many of the same
| forces. One public point of nexus is "Faith and Freedom"
| and "Health and Freedom" Conferences which overlap each
| other and "Stop the Steal"/Jan6.
| mStreamTeam wrote:
| You're other comment already got flagged for being off
| topic. And now your posting conspiracy theories...
| catawbasam wrote:
| See for yourself: https://www.americasfuture.net/all-
| events/ Click the Health and Freedom links.
| catawbasam wrote:
| Google up marketing posters. You will see many of the
| same names and faces, a prominent example being Michael
| Flynn.
| loonster wrote:
| Its a bad song and I don't want to listen to it to get all the
| lyrics. [0]
|
| >Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it, ayy, ayy (They just
| planned it)
|
| >Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
|
| That is all I can see as far as "medical information" goes.
| What a joke. This song is bad, it would have fallen off the
| charts if they just let things go.
|
| [0] https://mychords.net/en/bryson-gray/157414-bryson-gray-
| lets-...
| makomk wrote:
| >Biden said the jab stop the spread, it was lies (I remember)
|
| Thing is, if I remember rightly Biden did spread outright
| misinformation that falsely claimed the vaccine was a lot
| more effective than it actually is using his platform as
| president, and got checked on it by the BBC (though maybe not
| the mainstream US media)...
| loonster wrote:
| I also remember during the debates Trump was talking up the
| vaccine and Bidens says something like "And who is going to
| take it?"
|
| It was rather cool to be anti vaccine 1 year ago. Now its
| verboten.
| gkop wrote:
| Boy am I tired of partisan politics.
| bobmaxup wrote:
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-
| biden/...
| nostrebored wrote:
| This aged poorly given information we have about
| breakthrough rates.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| All they had to do was sit tight, leave it alone and let it
| be forgotten. Countless others and I would never have seen
| it. Thanks to Google's censorship, people will now know about
| this song.
| iab wrote:
| anyone who thinks this is planned can never have been
| involved in any form of government
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| Right? We (the US) have enough trouble planning meaningful
| infrastructure in our communities, let alone a global
| conspiracy in order to bring about some new world order,
| apparently coordinated with every other world government.
|
| But, I've heard the "planned" argument levied against the
| CCP, and that it was a bio weapon, and this was a planned
| release. That argument, while still far fetched, is at
| least in the realm of possibility for me.
| l33tbro wrote:
| I see this argument a lot. The counter-argument is surely
| that not everybody involved in malfaescence / corruption /
| conpsiracy has to be in on it [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
| skulk wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NVxdD_qwJ8
|
| Check this song out, it gives practical advice for carrying
| out burglaries. People have screamed and kicked but YouTube
| won't remove the song.
| barbarbar wrote:
| Given that their ai have spotted this that is actually quite
| good. But yes it is a joke.
| ameminator wrote:
| You don't have to listen to the song. You don't get to tell
| others what they can or cannot listen too.
| causi wrote:
| Yeah they're about to feel the full Streisand Effect.
| [deleted]
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| Uh. The video that says vaccines don't work on covid, and talks
| about Joe Biden's death conspiracy?
|
| Why are ... why are we quoting Fox News credlously again?
|
| Has HN not learned, yet?
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Honestly, I support the right of YouTube to not host content
| they don't want to host, given they own the data centers. This
| dude is free to get a record deal, play live on the street, or
| distribute music in any of the other thousands of ways that
| don't require uploading to YouTube.
|
| But this is still silly. It's a _song_. Rage Against The
| Machine has a song claiming the FBI staged the murders of
| Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and it 's the most popular
| song from The Matrix soundtrack. And an iconic, great song that
| I love, for what it's worth, even though I doubt the truth of
| that claim.
| jlawer wrote:
| No, it says it was a lie that vaccines would stop the spread.
|
| I see that for shorthand that the whole response wasn't managed
| properly as the "spread" still happened.
|
| I don't think it's a fair criticism of Biden, but it's a rap
| song, which tends to encourage a bit of hyperbole.
| herbstein wrote:
| You're ignoring this line. Not exactly subtle what is being
| said.
|
| > Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it
| throwbigdata wrote:
| Do we really know this is false? I think it is but don't
| know so. It's quite unlikely but not impossible.
|
| Banning alternative points of view is a slippery slope.
| analogdreams wrote:
| thank you, google/youtube, for helping me to keep my mind closed
| and comply.
| 0des wrote:
| Were there other lyrics besides "Let's Go Brandon"? If those
| contained disinfo, perhaps that is why.
| kuroguro wrote:
| > Pandemic ain't real, they just planned it
|
| probably that part?
| trident5000 wrote:
| In what oppressed world should you not be able to say that.
| ajvs wrote:
| YouTube's bar for "medical misinfo" ladies and gentlemen...
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| What is the substance of your argument: that the "pandemic"
| is not a medical matter, or that "ain't real" is not
| misinfo?
| [deleted]
| fortytwo79 wrote:
| I think the full lyric here is actually "pandemic ain't
| real, they just planned it."
|
| The meaning and intent of the lyrics are open to
| interpretation, but I think the latter part of the lyric
| implies political commentary rather than medical
| commentary.
|
| Also, I think we need a tighter definition of "medical
| misinformation." Is it to promote anything that is
| medically harmful? Well, then why can musicians sing
| endlessly about drugs and unsafe sex? What about videos
| on non-fda regulated vitamins and minerals, or weight
| loss solutions? Surely most doctors wouldn't advise
| taking recreational drugs, or jumping on to the latest
| weight loss magic pill.
|
| And yes, YouTube is a private enterprise. But we can
| still, as a society, openly dialog on what we think is
| wrong with their practices.
| pfortuny wrote:
| That it does not even qualify as "info"...
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| It's a song, not a scientific journal article.
| bloopernova wrote:
| People spread misinformation through memes or image
| macros. Why should songs be considered differently?
|
| There's a segment of the US population that believes and
| spreads the harmful misinformation in memes and YouTube
| videos. That's all well and good when talking about
| aliens building pyramids or whatever. But currently we
| have this same segment of the population refusing to get
| vaccinated, mask up, wash their hands, etc etc. Those
| actions are harmful to society as a whole and should be
| treated like the attacks they are.
|
| As someone with lung issues, it angers me deeply that
| there's millions of Americans who couldn't give the
| tiniest shit to take actions that might save my life.
| h2odragon wrote:
| I could argue that this "pandemic" is not of actual
| severity sufficient to require the responses; and "it
| ain't real" is an opinion being voiced, which is more
| important than a duty to "protect the public from
| misinformation".
|
| But I'm not. The proper counter argument to this
| Stalinist "you can't say that," bullshit is to keep
| saying it, louder.
|
| I would also like to quote NWA: "Fuck the Police"
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > this Stalinist "you can't say that," bullshit is to
| keep saying it, louder.
|
| So you don't dispute that it is disinformation. Is idea
| that is that someone refusing to host disinformation is a
| good reason to disinform, louder?
| h2odragon wrote:
| I dispute that disinformation or not is a reason for
| censoring it.
|
| _And_ I dispute the repute of those labeling things
| "disinformation", specifically.
| squarefoot wrote:
| It's all about the effects of what is said. Fight the
| Power and Fuck the Police were published when there were
| no social networks around; The post-2K Web changed
| everything, and the chances of having more people rioting
| because some rapper want to become their idol (gigs,
| books, TV appearances, etc) isn't that dim.
|
| If I wrote a rap song with "stick an artichoke in your
| butt" and magically a hundred people follow the advice
| and hurt themselves, someone for sure will at least
| attempt to censor my song. The imitation problem has been
| with us for thousands years, but social media made it a
| lot worse by dramatically augmenting the audience, then
| moving a lot faster than laws, and allowing some grey
| zones where a law prohibiting this and that would be too
| draconian and no law makes similar scenarios very
| possible. That's where we should be the ones who censor
| ourselves when we suspect that someone could be damaged
| by our words. That rapper didn't, because he pursuits
| fame and money, and Fox News by jumping in his defense
| acted exactly as one would expect from a source that has
| nothing to do with journalism.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| I think it's childish to act like you're being wronged,
| and threatening a defiant tantrum "this is Stalinist
| bullshit, keep saying it, louder" in response to someone
| else deciding not to host some disinformation. Are you
| truly the victim today, in this pandemic?
| Levitz wrote:
| He _is_ being wronged, as are you. Each and every time a
| company takes freedom away from their users they are
| being wronged, and when the company is as big as Youtube
| then we _all_ get wronged. The "defiant tantrum" is
| simply taking the stance that that is not admisible, how
| you consider that to be childish behavior I don't even
| know.
|
| >Are you truly the victim today, in this pandemic?
|
| So give up freedoms, for the common good. Now that's
| rich.
| bloopernova wrote:
| You don't have the freedom to murder, enslave, or kidnap.
| I don't think you should have the freedom to spread a
| deadly disease.
|
| Especially since COVID-19 spreads without symptoms, we
| have to prioritize prevention.
|
| Besides, we've had our freedoms eroded time and again
| since the World Trade Centre attacks. Why are some
| Americans choosing now to draw a line in the sand?
| Because previously the laws were targeting brown skinned
| people. And now there's a Democrat in charge, so
| Republicans want to cause strife and division to get
| elected in 2022 and 2024.
| 0des wrote:
| I'd also like to add Public Enemy's "Fight The Power!" as
| a timeless classic
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmo3HFa2vjg
| trident5000 wrote:
| Categorizing something this broad and nonchalant from a
| joke rap video as medical misinformation is an obvious
| wrong-think power grab.
| louloulou wrote:
| I only get my medical advice from rap music, so I for one
| am glad youtube has provided me with this safety net. I
| hope they target the misinfo on how to safely fuck hoes
| next - that could also use some correction.
| 0des wrote:
| I'm not much of a modern rap music person, however, by the
| 90s rap standards this doesn't seem that inflammatory.
| whymauri wrote:
| Exactly what I thought. I disagree with the video and
| lyrics, but there's bigger rappers that have been peddling
| conspiratorial, third eye awakening wish-wash for at least
| 20 years.
|
| This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's
| bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation. Mostly
| that the most dangerous misinformation is that which can
| actually convince people to believe untruths, something I
| doubt this video can do (it seems to preach to the choir).
| But who am I to know how their algorithm works?
|
| The irony is that the incoming Streissand Effect will
| generally be meaningless. The increased exposure to this
| song is unlikely to convert people (there's really only one
| verse about COVID) and the outrage from the Right is
| unlikely to budge YT policy because there's a strong
| argument for it being misinformation. So it's pointless,
| circuitous outrage.
| slowmotiony wrote:
| "This is a weird video to target, and I feel like there's
| bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation."
|
| How about I listen to what I like and you fry your fish
| elsewhere?
| gkop wrote:
| > but there's bigger rappers that have been peddling
| conspiratorial, third eye awakening wish-wash for at
| least 20 years.
|
| > This is a weird video to target
|
| So we can all agree that YT isn't arbitrarily censoring
| anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories, but is
| specifically censoring conspiracy theories related to
| COVID? This seems like a good thing, that they are
| casting a narrow net, no? Would you prefer they censor
| ALL anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories?
|
| Of all the scenarios where censorship could be called
| for, fighting misinformation harmful to public health in
| a global pandemic seems like a reasonable fish to fry.
| whymauri wrote:
| No, I think targeting COVID conspiracies makes sense. I
| think this video _specifically_ is small fry compared to
| some with 100k-1M views peddling the same nonsense in
| prettier packaging. I'm thinking about podcasts, radio
| show recordings, stuff like PragerU -- that are arguably
| not art or open for interpretation, but directly trying
| to convince viewers to believe bullshit surrounding the
| vaccine, safety, and COVID.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > This is a weird video to target, and I feel like
| there's bigger fish to fry w.r.t. harmful misinformation.
| Mostly that the most dangerous misinformation is that
| which can actually convince people to believe untruths,
| something I doubt this video can do (it seems to preach
| to the choir). But who am I to know how their algorithm
| works?
|
| It's really simple. They took down the video because it's
| critical of Biden and the guy is wearing a MAGA hat.
| Someone at YT probably saw the video, said to themselves
| "fuck this guy", and then looked through the lyrics to
| find one offending word or phrase, and used that as an
| excuse to ban the guy.
| will4274 wrote:
| Didn't Eminem rap about wanting to kill the president?
| jollybean wrote:
| It's a pandemic. We're in a Public Health Crisis in which
| 700 000 people have died. We have medicine to give people
| which is safe, and almost guarantees they won't die, and
| material chunk of the population won't believe it, due to
| information like this.
|
| I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information
| clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter
| factual during the emergency.
|
| If they were taking down information about a doctor
| challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner,
| that would be something else.
|
| And of course, we have to make sure that we do come out of
| this 'crisis' and that institutions don't use it as a means
| for perennial control, but I'm not really worried about
| that. We're all sick of this and as COVID passes out of
| reality, people just won't care what people have to say
| about it, just like any other mundane subject.
|
| So once COVID has passed, we can sing dumb songs about dumb
| things, if they take them down then, I suggest that would
| amount to undue censorship.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public
| information clearing houses suppressing anything that is
| counter factual during the emergency.
|
| That's precisely the problem though. The rule at Youtube
| is any content that goes against CDC/WHO guidelines is
| considered "misinformation". So to your point:
|
| > If they were taking down information about a doctor
| challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific
| manner, that would be something else.
|
| Yeah unless that doctor comes to the exact same
| conclusion as the CDC, and parrots the exact same info,
| that doctor is spreading misinformation according to
| Youtube. I've even seen instances where the CDC would say
| something, Youtuber would cover it, the next week the CDC
| reverses that policy and Youtube will hit the Youtuber
| for "misinformation".
| jollybean wrote:
| The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing
| science.
|
| If someone went on YouTube to articulate the current
| scientific consensus of Ivermectin, which is that "There
| is no evidence to support it as a therapy for COVID, but
| that there are currently studies in progress which could
| yield important information, and in the meantime, people
| should definitely not be taking it as it can be dangerous
| unless administered by Health professionals" - I'm
| doubtful such a video would be taken down.
|
| Anyone talking about COVID 'cures' in public forums for
| which there is no scientific consensus, during a
| pandemic, should definitely come under heavy scrutiny.
| [deleted]
| hihihihi1234 wrote:
| > If they were taking down information about a doctor
| challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific
| manner, that would be something else.
|
| YouTube has already done exactly this:
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-
| senate-...
| jollybean wrote:
| If YouTube did take down such information, then I would
| be inclined to agree they made a mistake.
|
| But the example you gave doesn't help make your case,
| just the opposite, Dr. Kory's information indicating that
| Ivermectin is helpful in treating COVID is not scientific
| and the net result of his communication is de facto
| misinformation, and can definitely cause harm.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| In that video, Pierre Kory uses his credibility as a
| medical doctor, to claim "mountains of data have emerged
| from all, from many centers and countries around the
| world, showing the miraculous effectiveness of
| ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this
| virus. If you take it, you will not get sick."
|
| Later, Pierre Kory himself contracted Covid, from his
| daughter. Both of them had been on Ivermectin, obviously.
| He doesn't mention this publicly. Only thanks to someone
| who was watching closely do we now have proof this even
| happened.
|
| So no, this isn't "in a very scientific manner." He
| creates a good illusion of being scientific, but he's
| not.
|
| These are dangerous falsehoods, that are used by millions
| as part of their justification for not getting
| vaccinated, which allows the virus to continue spreading.
| YouTube isn't perfect, but they are making an attempt to
| compensate for all the lies that are spread on their
| platform and others. This is important during a crisis
| that has already killed 700,000 Americans. I get the
| "freedom of speech" thing, I really do. But Americans are
| still dying at a rate of 2 fully loaded 747s a day
| crashing, and YouTube would prefer not be contributing to
| that.
|
| So I support YouTube's decision on that one.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| What is your opinion on Dr Li Wenliang, who publically
| contradicted official health guidelines that they were
| certain that there was no new SARS variant spreading in
| Wuhan and encouraging mask usage was spreading a public
| panic?
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| Well there is the crowd chant which sort of kind of sounds like
| "Let's go Brandon" if you have hearing problems, but insofar as
| I can tell they don't also say "horse paste."
| 0des wrote:
| I had to look up what the "Let's go Brandon" chant was;
| forgive me for being crass, English isn't my first language
| but it sounds like they're saying "Fuck Joe Biden". Judging
| by the comments in the video I saw, I think that is what
| they're actually saying rather than encouraging the young man
| being spoken to by the person with the microphone.
| h2odragon wrote:
| You heard correctly. A reporter said it was "Lets go
| Brandon" in stark contrast to obvious reality, and the
| originally Ironic and now more widespread adoption of that
| has confused the situation further.
| miked85 wrote:
| The "Let's go Brandon" thing was an almost comical attempt
| by the news reporter to try to cover up what the chant was.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Yes, people said the reporter was "misreporting" the
| chant but she was barely containing her laughter and it
| was clearly a joke. Everyone knew what the crowd was
| chanting.
| mc32 wrote:
| You got it right.
| 0des wrote:
| That young man must feel so bad for this to be his
| moment. I hope it doesn't overshadow his other
| accomplishments.
| treeman79 wrote:
| The reporter? He's shown himself to be dishonest. In a
| similar style to Baghdad Bob.
|
| When reporters lie then there careers should be over.
| katbyte wrote:
| *she. the reporter was a women.
| [deleted]
| chucksta wrote:
| No, the guy who won the race and had the moment
| completely taken over, and will probably be the most
| notable in his career.
|
| *edit- he doesn't seem to mind though
| To all the other Brandon's out there, You're welcome!
| Let's go us -- Brandon Brown (@brandonbrown_68)
| October 6, 2021
| furgooswft13 wrote:
| > When reporters lie then there careers should be over.
|
| hahahahaha ... no but really, were you born yesterday?
|
| I am kind of curious what the reporter who covered for
| dear leader thinks of all this, if she's even aware of
| anything (they rarely are).
| mynameishere wrote:
| The actual Brandon thought it was funny, as the chant
| probably aligned with his personal feelings.
|
| In case anyone else doesn't get the joke, the reporter
| (as most reporters do) was covering for Biden when she
| pretended his noisy opposition was something else [1]. In
| other words, it was an unusually obvious attempt at a
| tawdry cover-up. Thus, the mockery in calling Biden
| "Brandon".
|
| [1] It might remind some of this classic scene:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kpb8eu1pEY
| [deleted]
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > The single line referencing COVID is this: "Green light,
| mandate
|
| Inaccurate. The line "Pandemic ain't real, they just planned
| it" is also referencing COVID, and pushing a false and
| dangerous conspiracy theory about it.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Perhaps instead of censoring the song, YouTube could
| require that the uploader include at the end of it an
| explanation of what it means for a pandemic to not be
| "real". Does it mean that COVID doesn't exist, and people
| are just pretending to have symptoms? Is that what "they"
| planned?
|
| By actually getting people to talk through their beliefs,
| and state them clearly, society might be able to consider
| all opinions and have a conversation, rather than accepting
| the idea that our technological gatekeepers can be trusted
| to evaluate them correctly on our behalf.
| skulk wrote:
| Something's wrong when the jester is found to have played a huge
| part in electing a leader of a leading world power.
| theHIDninja wrote:
| What are you going on about?
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Outrageous that social media was used by people who elected the
| _wrong person_!
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell.
|
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972291.
| rhexs wrote:
| How dare the lowly jester, part of the serf class, have any say
| in electing a leader. Only divine right and having went to
| Harvard should qualify a leader!
| andrekandre wrote:
| > Only divine right and having went to Harvard should qualify
| a leader!
|
| basically it used to be like that!
|
| in the old days, you had to be:
|
| 1. a land owner 2. white* 3. male
|
| in order to vote at all... we've come a long way...
|
| *in those days that was very specific and didn't include
| italians, irish etc
| a_t48 wrote:
| Let's ignore the wealth said "serf elected" leader was born
| into, eh?
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| I might be obtuse, but I'm missing your reference. Could you
| explain?
| jayski wrote:
| i disagree with censoring. but i want to pose a question.
|
| if i have q WordPress blog on a $5vps, and you post a comment
| saying my blog post is stupid. its my vps,im paying for it, i can
| delete the comment if i want right?
|
| where do you draw the line? how big exactly does my blog have to
| get before this is considered big tech censorship?
| shlurpy wrote:
| A lot of "rights" should scale inversely with power, to
| counteract how their effectiveness scales positively with
| power. The idea behind universal Democracy is that you should
| have collective power over everyone who has meaningful
| authority over you.
|
| The power weilded by a government should be kept in check
| democratically by their constituents. As your blog grows into
| YouTube, you gain more and more power over people's lives and
| livelihoods... more political and economic reach with your
| decisions. That power should thus grow proportionally more
| limited by mechanisms of user empowerment, rights, and direct
| control.
|
| There isn't a cutoff... there should instead be a sliding
| scale.
| ls15 wrote:
| > where do you draw the line?
|
| When you have lobbyists working for you.
| iab wrote:
| That's a pretty good line IMO
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Huh, yeah, as far as standards for increased regulation go
| that's a pretty good one.
| golemiprague wrote:
| Youtube in my eyes is no different to utilities and it is even
| more of a monopoly than many other utilities. Your blog is
| curated because you are the editor and as such it is just like
| any other publication.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| You draw the line when you have a monopoly company with a
| trillion dollar market cap.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Are they a monopoly? They seem to have plenty of competition.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Just create and apply better anti-trust laws and break up the
| monopolies. (Specially since most platforms got their almost
| monopolies by creating anti-competitive walled gardens with
| no inter-operation with other similar platforms a la
| Fediverse / ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica)
|
| Or better yet, promote counter-anti-desintermediation:
| https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-
| Disintermediatio...
|
| > The idea of disintermediation was central to the
| emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today
| is more mediated than ever before. If we are to understand
| the consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we
| need to start by addressing the root cause of this
| concentration. Centralization is required to capture profit.
| Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated
| by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications
| systems be designed to capture profit.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Trillion dollar company won't allow better antitrust laws
| to happen, because they are allied with the currently
| ruling party.
|
| This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no laws
| that harm the Company are passed, and Company will stop the
| spread of any information harmful to the Party.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > This is a true symbiosis: the Party will see that no
| laws that harm the Company are passed, and Company will
| stop the spread of any information harmful to the Party.
|
| Probably no relation with the 2014 Princeton study
| published on the Cambridge University Press that
| determined the United States of America to be an
| Oligarchy rather than a Democracy.
|
| https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
| poli...
|
| > But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by
| powerful business organizations and a small number of
| affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a
| democratic society are seriously threatened
| adventured wrote:
| If the Presidency were an oligarchy, neither Bill Clinton
| nor Barack Obama could have become President. And Trump
| could have never won, since most of the power groups were
| overwhelmingly against him winning, and he won solely due
| to his populist voter base - democracy in action in fact.
| Trump also raised drastically less money than Hillary
| Clinton did; if there's an oligarchy trying to pick
| presidents it was against him, not for him. His win
| partially invalidates the Princeton premise.
|
| Neither Bill Clinton or Obama came from or had money.
| Neither had fathers in their lives or immediate great
| families of consequence. Neither had long-tenured
| national political experience. Oh yeah, and Obama is half
| black. The oligarchy chose Obama over Hillary Clinton?
| They had no choice is what actually happened.
|
| Just because the study came from Princeton, that doesn't
| mean it's not idiotic.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Executive power is different from legislative power and
| the later is the one most involved in policy-making.
|
| Additionally it is a very weird presidentialist take to
| criticize a study on only the presidential election
| outcomes of a two-party state.
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| When you say "just do x," you make it sound so simple.
| You're missing out "just do all of this keeping in mind
| you're trying to change the law using lawmakers who are
| personally invested in these companies that have more
| resources than many nation states."
| fabianhjr wrote:
| I mean in opposition of legislating on what "big tech"
| specifically can or cannot remove or host on their
| platforms in comparison to small blogs like the example
| up thread.
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| I understand. I agree that yes, that would be similarly
| fruitless. What is to be done?
| geofft wrote:
| The most coherent plans in recent times to do exactly that
| came from Elizabeth Warren. It would have solved the
| problem elegantly. But people are too partisan (and too
| fractally partisan _within_ their parties) to listen to a
| good idea from a person they don 't like.
|
| https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-
| big...
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| Actually,
|
| Many of us on different spectrums (libertarian here) did
| listen to what Elizabeth Warren said, and we agree with
| it.
|
| I think there is a great deal of truth in what the anti-
| monopolist economic crusaders on the left
| (Sanders&Warren) have said. While I may not agree with
| everything they said about economics across the board, I
| do think they are correct in that we have permitted
| bigtech to become a monopoly. AND, I agree that overly
| favorable tax jurisdiction shopping is a massive problem.
|
| We need to re-empower the DOJ to pursue antitrust again,
| and we need it now.
| unclebucknasty wrote:
| The idea of treating as a monopoly problem is interesting,
| but I'm not sure how you prevent centralization like this
| from repeating itself in the future, given that it is built
| on network effects.
|
| At the end of the day there will be a concentration of
| audiences _somewhere_ , so I don't think this problem goes
| away.
|
| What I wonder is whether at a certain point we actually
| need to protect people from themselves. I get how ominous
| that sounds, but OTOH if large swaths of the population,
| say, fall prey to senseless conspiracy theories, do we just
| watch it play out?
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > given that it is built on network effects.
|
| Network effects can happen in a federated or
| decentralized way:
|
| - Email is useful regardless of the software, OS, server
| or owner of the address you are sending emails to.
|
| - The fediverse benefits from network effects and
| interoperability between instances with both different
| software and different communities.
|
| I would even go further and argue that centralized
| "network effects" are in reality "captive costs" of "not
| being inside the walled garden" rather than a true
| network to begin with.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Look at the effects of email and "the fediverse" versus
| these giant social media platforms. Which is greater?
| josephcsible wrote:
| You're falling victim to the sand heap fallacy. Sure, some
| sites would be gray areas, but it's obvious that a personal
| blog that can run on $5 per month is on one side of the line
| and YouTube is on the other.
| m0zg wrote:
| It was a shit song anyway. This one is great:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB_T54wg9KI. No "Brandon" just
| straight facts, expertly delivered from the standpoint of working
| poor. YT is still trying to figure out how to take it down.
|
| Also iTunes Hip Hop top 100 had 5 "Let's go Brandon" songs in it
| a couple of days ago, including #1.
| mancerayder wrote:
| Apparently the 'misinformation' trope has extended into art.
|
| Many of you defending censorship in the last few years (and very
| much so on HN) on political grounds are going to be changing your
| minds in the coming years due to stuff like this.
| [deleted]
| bserge wrote:
| This better not get to hosting providers or it all goes to
| shit.
|
| Sure, big platforms censoring stuff is bad, but people still
| have the choice of renting a server and hosting whatever they
| want.
|
| If your website, hosted on a dedicated machine that you rent
| from OVH or whatever (and probably Amazon, but I wouldn't trust
| them) or co-locate in a datacenter, can be taken down on claims
| of misinformation, that's it, RIP free Internet. It was nice
| knowing you.
| Levitz wrote:
| What about GoDaddy?
|
| https://gizmodo.com/godaddy-is-giving-texas-abortion-
| snitchi...
| bserge wrote:
| You got me with this one. Actually threatening someone
| directly is worse than being an antivaxxer... Guess that's
| my cutoff point? Just shoot me in the head, I'm sick of
| this world.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| People can't have too much freedom and these big
| corporations do the bidding for ruling political class.
| They are deep in tax avoidance and they don't want
| government to order IRS to start looking.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Isn't that exactly what Amazon did to Parler already?
| bserge wrote:
| Yeah, like I said, wouldn't trust them.
|
| Why Parler didn't use a "normal" hosting provider, I don't
| know.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Censorship, to me, would be the government forcing these
| platforms to host content that isn't in their business
| interests, because it would be compelling speech. That's a
| _much_ worse problem, in my mind, than private organizations
| removing content from their platforms.
|
| I would rather live in this world than the alternative.
| benatkin wrote:
| > Many of you defending censorship in the last few years
|
| It's beyond parody. If this was twitter, I'd be bringing out
| the clown emoji.
| psyc wrote:
| I don't expect many minds to change. I predict the "'private'
| [misnomer] companies can do what they want [broadly false]"
| crowd to dig in and rationalize why art is not a special case.
| My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the
| corporations, e.g. they are entrepreneurs or might want to
| become entrepreneurs someday.
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| Honestly I don't think it's that they identify as
| entrepreneurs or business owners, I think it's just that they
| identify as progressives, and there is an incredibly
| prominent pro-censorship current in modern progressive
| ideology. I say this because I've definitely interacted with
| many people in real life who are not the "entrepreneur" or
| "pro corporate" types yet happily cheer on the censorship
| being practiced by big tech and the like
| glogla wrote:
| Progressives are not necessarily for censorship (though
| some are). But this "private censorship" is a consequence
| of not regulating new media industries.
|
| So seeing some people complain about censorship after being
| against regulation has very much "you wanted this, serves
| you right" vibe.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| I agree but would like to posit that that attitude is yet
| another issue of the current political landscape. The
| "your previous idea has turned out poorly, both this is
| your fault and I can now justify slightly this bad thing
| because it's happening to you" I probably phrased that
| poorly but I see lots of people who are against things,
| no longer being so strongly against that thing when it
| starts to hurt their 'enemies'. It's like a rule change
| in sport, I'm against it until it starts to give me a
| competitive advantage.
|
| Which really just goes back to the two party, my enemy or
| my friend trope. Tribalism etc.
| glogla wrote:
| What do you think the people who now shout "censorship" would
| say if few years ago, someone sugested "the tech giants
| should be regulated with regards to what content they host
| and follow due process when removing content"?
|
| The tech giants are unregulated. They can do what they want.
| They want this for some reason, so they do it.
|
| What is the alternative?
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Doing what random HNer's want, apparently. Disrupting
| industries by straight up breaking the law: totally ok.
| Choosing what content your website will and will not host:
| absolutely monstrous. That's tech culture in a nutshell.
| glogla wrote:
| I mean, "the tech giants have enormous control over
| society, monopolistic positions and levels of vertical
| integration and trilions of cash at hand that make it
| impossible to fight them in market, can we do something
| about it?" is definitely a good discussion to have.
|
| Not sure if "they should be hosting dangerous antivaxx
| content during global pandemic" (that some people claim
| doest actually exist because of previous content) is a
| good way to kick that discussion off.
|
| (I realize this particular video possibly isnt that
| dangerous.)
| intricatedetail wrote:
| > My own hypothesis is they personally identify with the
| corporations,
|
| I used to be like that and I remember defending YT censorship
| as I thought I would probably wanted to be able to do the
| same had my project took off. It took me a long time to
| realise I was wrong.
| csours wrote:
| We're in the baby years of social media. I have some hope that
| humanity will figure some it out.
|
| I also have a great deal of dread that we will not. We are not
| guaranteed to have nice things, and a few bad actors can do
| quite a lot of harm.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I am 100% okay with this. YouTube has no obligation to be a
| champion of free speech. And promoting anything other than
| getting vaccinated, distancing and wearing masks where
| appropriate lead to unnecessary covid deaths. So... the math
| adds up for me -- take down content that needlessly leads to
| death.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| Silencing people and pretending it's OK is not going to work.
| It's a double edge sword. Because one day they're going to
| silence you. The math doesn't work out long term.
| zuminator wrote:
| Deplatforming isn't the same as silencing. At no point in
| history before the 21st century did the average person
| think that they had a right to have their speech carried to
| the entire human race. We have a basic right to generally
| not be prevented from speaking, yes. (A right which does
| not extend to defamation, fraud, violent threats and other
| grossly harmful things) But have we ever had a basic human
| right to oblige any information channel of our choosing to
| carry our speech? Regardless of the import of our words?
| No.
|
| And -- if I am similarly deplatformed for harmful speech,
| that's a good thing. Bad personal consequences are a just
| outcome of bad personal behavior, made more just if the
| same applies to everyone, friends and foes alike. It's an
| intrinsic aspect of the social contract.
|
| As always, I invite people to look at Usenet as an example
| of what happens when a platform carries everything. People
| stopped going there because after the advent of bots, it
| was completely overrun with V1AGR4 ads. Try getting your
| speech heard when there's 99.999% noise to signal. It's
| silencing of a different sort.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| "Deplatforming" is just a roundabout way of saying
| "you're not welcome here because we don't _agree_ with
| your speech ".
|
| YouTube's criteria of what is and is not harmful is the
| issue.
| roenxi wrote:
| > It's a double edge sword. Because one day they're going
| to silence you.
|
| This is true, but it is an important topic so here is
| another angle to consider:
|
| YouTube doesn't have any tools to sift right from wrong
| that we don't already have, and their censors are probably
| only marginally more intelligent than average.
|
| They are going to get stuff really wrong from time to time,
| and eventually are going to censor important information -
| if they haven't already, it is hard to tell.
|
| Case in point, censors generally aren't bought in to hit
| stuff that is obviously wrong. Everyone knows that sort of
| content is garbage and only watches it for a laugh (think
| flat earthers). They are coming in for stuff where the
| available evidence makes it difficult to tell what is true
| or not (eg, ivermectin). They're going to make some
| horrible mistakes playing at that game, because by nature
| of what they are targeting, some of it is going to be
| factual content.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| Deciding what is right or wrong is the issue. YouTube
| isn't transparent nor consistent about this. Social Media
| are publications due to their extreme efforts in curating
| content and speech topics. They need to be regulated as
| such.
| tw04 wrote:
| Rewind 100 years: what was your avenue for "being heard"?
| The radio and newspapers had no obligation to regurgitate
| your thoughts.
|
| Nobody is stopping him from touring the country to spread
| his message. Same as it always was.
|
| I personally post 0 on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube and I
| manage to get by in life just fine.
| repsilat wrote:
| Sure, "no obligation", I think their critics agree with
| you there. This isn't a conversation about rights, it's a
| conversation about values. This action shows that Youtube
| doesn't strongly value being a neutral platform, and
| people are disappointed.
| dolni wrote:
| Radios and newspapers also did not present themselves as
| a way for the average person to make themselves heard.
| But you are onto something here - the problem is that
| there is a massive disparity in the power of an
| individual's discourse versus a radio or newspaper.
|
| Now look at YouTube and Twitter. They amplify the voices
| of many average people, but only those who tow their
| political line. This makes it appear as though some ideas
| are more widely supported than they actually are. It's
| the same problem as with radio and newspapers, but it is
| exacerbated more than 1000 fold.
| repsilat wrote:
| I don't know. I agree that refusing to do business with
| someone is a finite source of political power, but the cost
| is short-lived. The video gets taken down, but once the
| news cycle completes the creator will upload to Youtube
| next time around, and the positive economies to scale
| (network effects) make limited, repeated application of
| this power sustainable.
|
| I think it's counter-productive because of my politics, but
| I don't think it's ineffective or futile.
| [deleted]
| robbrown451 wrote:
| Well we have some serious short term issues.
|
| To me, the internet is to the First Amendment as nuclear
| weapons are to the Second. Neither were anticipated when
| the Bill of Rights was written.
|
| In the 18th century, no one knew people might invent
| weapons that could kill on such a scale and at such
| distance. No one knew people could make a beheading video
| and instantly share it with millions. No one anticipated
| algorithms that could amplify the worst human impulses to
| such a degree.
|
| I'd love to see these problems solved in a better way. Here
| at Hacker New we have a half decent algorithm for promoting
| quality content based on upvotes and downvotes and flags
| and karma and such. When that fails, we have Dang's good
| judgement as a backup. That's censorship too, and it makes
| this a better place.
|
| YouTube is at a much larger scale, but they have a right to
| do something. Presumably you are ok with them disallowing
| beheading videos. What about videos encouraging suicide and
| providing "help"? What about videos telling people how to
| make chemical weapons? What about videos planning
| government overthrows? Where do you draw the line?
|
| I don't necessarily have a long term solution, but I
| support them taking some short term measures.
| Abroszka wrote:
| In Europe, in many places it's illegal to deny the
| holocaust.
|
| Sometimes it's more important to remember what happened
| than our right to free speech.
| gfodor wrote:
| And they say satire is dead.
| ncxkvnxck wrote:
| Should they remove all videos of cars driving over the speed
| limit too?
| ChrisClark wrote:
| Ok
| BTCOG wrote:
| Sure... keeping all the rap that promotes murder, gang
| membership, robbery, crack and heroin dealing literally
| numbering into the hundreds of thousands of tracks on
| Youtube, and millions of other videos promoting the same and
| worse are totally fine to stay up there and this censoring
| totally has nothing at all to do with politics, right? I'm
| not for censoring any of the available music on Youtube but
| you cannot try and sit here and tell anyone that removing a
| track like this one, has anything to do with "reducing harm."
| This is silencing political free speech and I'd bet a ton of
| money the United States government has a line of
| communication with, and has told Google to remove content
| like this. "HackerNews" should consider changing the site
| name to something more along the lines of
| "LiberalGroupthinkingProgrammerNews"
|
| /kill fake hackers.
| bserge wrote:
| They also take down content of people who threaten to kill
| themselves. Out of sight, out of mind, amirite?
|
| When they come for _your_ honest thoughts, no one will be
| there to save you.
|
| Platforms _should_ be neutral. But it 's kinda nice they
| aren't. Fuck them, hopefully new ones will gain traction
| thanks to their actions.
| [deleted]
| seaman1921 wrote:
| ironic that people are silencing your comment by downvoting
| it, haha
| antihipocrat wrote:
| It would be ironic if it were deleted by HN. The comment is
| still there and is generating a lot of healthy debate.
|
| I've listened to the song and it's primary (only?) message
| is to call out a blatant lie from the news media and that
| we should all be critical consumers of that media.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I'm not sure if you're being hyperbolic or not, but the
| post/video does not mention anything about the vaccine.
| That's the whole point.
| paulpauper wrote:
| how about removing videos showing people smoking, because
| that too is bad for health
| pessimizer wrote:
| > YouTube has no obligation to be a champion of free speech.
|
| Unless we decide that they do, notwithstanding your
| declaration. I understand that you like censorship that you
| agree with, so it would probably be better to ask you about
| this when they start censoring things that state legislatures
| interpret as "critical race theory," or for claiming that a
| government official is being dishonest.
| krapp wrote:
| >Unless we decide that they do, notwithstanding your
| declaration.
|
| No, they're a private company. "We" don't get to decide
| what their obligations are.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| Oh yes we do. We are the People. Legislation for social
| media is eventually going to happen.
| krapp wrote:
| Sorry... I thought property rights, freedom of speech and
| freedom of association were inalienable, or at least
| important. My mistake. I keep forgetting to read the
| room.
|
| Let me rephrase.. we _shouldn 't_ if we care about our
| principles. But I agree with you, inevitably we will
| abandon those principles, repeal the First Amendment
| (which is what such legislation would amount to) and cut
| off our nose to spite our face. The momentum and fury
| behind this new Red Scare is just too great to stop at
| this point. When the dust has settled and the government
| regulates all speech on the web the way the FCC does
| television, we'll regret it, though.
| [deleted]
| andrew_ wrote:
| This is precisely the kind of myopic justification that the
| parent was speaking towards.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| When conservatives gain power again, we're going to push back
| and lock the door shut. We're going to take back the
| institutions and rebalance them.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| You had power. You sued for the right to do what these
| platform providers are doing, and the courts agreed.
|
| Congratulations.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| Patience little one, it'll happen.
| ChrisClark wrote:
| Why would the Conservatives suddenly change in the next
| administration? The past one made sure censoring was
| possible and legal. Why the sudden change of heart and
| wanting to undo what they just did?
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| Do you have any evidence of this? Have you been paying
| attention or just listening to what media has been
| telling you what to think?
|
| Did I trigger you?
| bserge wrote:
| I'm not into politics, but really? When "conservatives" get
| into power? It's such a huge group that they're no better
| than the other side. I don't think anyone in such a huge
| party even gives half a fuck about the average citizen.
|
| You say "we", but you're _nothing_ to them. You support some
| huge party, does anyone there even know your name?
|
| Fuck that kind of shit, might as well vote for some fringe
| group really.
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| Whoa that really set you off. ;-)
|
| I don't feel safe now should I report you?
| calsy wrote:
| In most cases, well publicised censorship of art backfires and
| provides more notoriety and fans for the artist.
| adrr wrote:
| Youtube doesn't care. It can't have antivax stuff on their
| platform because advertisers don't want their ads on
| controversial content.
| Snetry wrote:
| advertisers don't care as long as no one points it out
| poorjohnmacafee wrote:
| I think that's changing as challenging the vaccine efficacy
| or risk profile has become less controversial in the last
| month. Been sent about half a dozen videos in last week with
| high viewership and they haven't been removed. This is
| probably because all of Northern Europe has essentially
| banned Moderna due to myocarditis risk, and data from many
| countries, even the CDC's own, show the vaccinated now
| getting infected at similar rates as unvaccinated (i.e.
| antibody drop off or virus mutation).
| inside65 wrote:
| Any links I can read more about this?
| _fat_santa wrote:
| At this rate Youtube is going to have a rule soon: "saying you
| will vote for anyone but Biden in the 2024 election
| misinformation"
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| Social media cannot embrace the immunity and authority, but none
| of the responsibility.
| downandout wrote:
| The CDA as we know it definitely needs to be abolished. It was
| written long before Facebook and YouTube became the arbiters of
| truth for many people.
| deadalus wrote:
| Youtube Alternatives : Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute,
| Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii, DLive, Triller, Gab TV
|
| Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
| bestcoder69 wrote:
| Also, spin up a VPS - even if it has to be on a infra provider
| also used by Parler or whatever. The key insight IMO is that
| this isn't about free speech it's about maximizing your reach
| by any means necessary. YouTube is a good place for that, but
| failing that, so is getting written about at Fox News. Rumble,
| et al... not so much.
| [deleted]
| ionwake wrote:
| Lol Streisand effect
|
| Have no idea what this Brandon song was about. Watched it
| couldn't understand lyrics. 2 weeks later it's on HN. Read
| comments, people saying it should be banned. Saying it should be
| number 1 - that it was - but now is 23 and shadow banned. Don't
| believe a word. Someone posts lyrics saying pandemic was planned
| and not real "or serious"
|
| Realise it's a political Comment. Suddenly understand all the
| above is probably true and that it was shadow banned.
|
| I love the way communities seem to learn more about the real
| narrative by shadow bans than otherwise.
|
| Not that I'm right.
| afpx wrote:
| Streisand effect with a dab of weaponized autism.
| egman_ekki wrote:
| You see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?!
| BTCOG wrote:
| This is gold.
| downandout wrote:
| I wonder if they will ban videos about them banning this. This
| seems like a uniquely stupid hill to die on, regardless of how
| biased they are toward Biden.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| I wonder if Google will eventually have an Offical Party Line
| on everything. Then they'll just censor straight down the line.
| downandout wrote:
| That would probably be more acceptable than the way they are
| doing it now, at least in my view. If they had come out and
| said "we are pro Biden and used our platform to get him
| elected, and we have deleted this video because it insults
| our buddy," I'd be much happier with that. It's the false
| labeling..."medical misinformation" in this case...that I
| have a huge issue with.
| convery wrote:
| Wow, that's a lot of flagged comments and banned users simply
| saying censorship is bad. No narrative being pushed here at all,
| move along..
| krapp wrote:
| > Wow, that's a lot of flagged comments and banned users simply
| saying censorship is bad. No narrative being pushed here at
| all, move along..
|
| As of writing this I count one banned user who was clearly
| banned a long time ago, and the majority of flagged comments
| not saying that at all. Some flagged comments even take the
| opposite side.
| dang wrote:
| I'm not sure exactly what you think you're seeing, but FWIW we
| turned off the flags on this thread. Individual comments that
| break the site guidelines still can and should be flagged, of
| course.
| [deleted]
| twofornone wrote:
| Tech bros are now the gatekeepers of information for hundreds of
| millions of eyes (not just youtube, also google search
| manipulation, facebook algos, arguably outlets like
| netflix...maybe not Amazon yet) and here about half of the
| western world is cheering on the suppression.
|
| How can someone place so much trust in this suppression without
| even seeing what's being censored? Is it just a deliberate
| blissful ignorance? Are these people really so naive from the
| comforts of modern western living?
| paulpauper wrote:
| it is management doing this, not the lower level coders
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| That's like saying KGB officers are just following orders.
| They're complicit implementors.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Well, it's not tech bros so much as it's the people failing to
| know where to get their information. Tech bros gon' tech bro,
| why would you try to get your news from them?
| CheezeIt wrote:
| It's not the "bros" who are doing this.
| glhfgg wrote:
| Based HN losing their shit over a rap track while the kikes
| collude further. Masters of misdirection plays.
|
| You still trust him, you dumb fucks.
| jaspergilley wrote:
| Get Fox News links off of HN. Even this seemingly innocuous
| article is pure manipulation
| loonster wrote:
| All news is manipulation. The only difference is how you are
| being manipulated and by whom.
| jaspergilley wrote:
| That's such a nihilistic false equivalence. Get a
| subscription to The Economist - their business model
| disincentivizes manipulation
| loonster wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group
|
| Owners: Agnelli families (43.40%) Rothschild, Cadbury,
| Schroder Layton
|
| This is supposed to be a group that abhors manipulation?
| fidesomnes wrote:
| I get all my medical information from rap songs. This is a
| violation of my civil rights.
| kadoban wrote:
| Article goes out of its way to avoid saying what's actually in
| the song or video.
| syspec wrote:
| That seems to be a really common thing! It's incredibly
| frustrating when reading some articles about someone being
| cancelled or the like.
| kadoban wrote:
| It's a speciality of Fox News. It promotes the outrage well
| when you leave out the actually objectionable part. Others do
| it as well of course.
| Fellshard wrote:
| This is not isolated to Fox News, whatever other problems
| it certainly has.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Like news shows local or national. Dislike the dropping of
| race when describing suspects at large but identifying
| gender.
| Quekid5 wrote:
| Local news in the US is largely owned by Sinclair and/or
| ClearChannel. (Maybe the latter is only billboards and
| such. It's hard to keep up with the obfuscation.)
| bashonly wrote:
| ClearChannel got out of the television game years ago
| (and has since changed its name to the even-more-awful
| IHeartCommunications).
|
| And Sinclair really doesn't hold a candle to Nexstar and
| Gray Television, who have managed to buy up the vast
| majority of local affiliates over the past several years.
| loonster wrote:
| In this instance, showing the lyrics that were censored
| would have increased the outrage.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Does it really matter? Clearly it would be in the realm of
| satire or political humor, things liberals have historically
| been very vocal about protecting.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I mean, obviously it could matter.
|
| The difference between lying and joking is always in context.
| If I dress as a police officer for Halloween it's fine, if I
| lead you to believe I actually am a police officer it is a
| crime. There's also a middle ground where someone could
| mistake my costume for impersonation.
|
| I don't know what aspect of this video violated the terms of
| service, but I think political videos on all sides regularly
| make statements that aren't supported by 'mainstream' fact
| checking sources and therefore might fall outside the
| policies of services like Youtube.
|
| If you want to argue that all speech with 'political intent'
| should be protected I am open to that conversation! But that
| is not the standard held by most services, including Youtube,
| which Bryson Gray agreed to when he uploaded his song.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| youtube has rules, champ
|
| lying about vaccines is against them, no matter what you want
| to say about politics
| hobomatic wrote:
| you know, sport, it isn't necessary to call everyone you
| disagree with 'champ'.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Who's lying? Satire and humor are not lies.
| lookalike74 wrote:
| Satire and humor both have definitions, neither of which
| described anything happening here.
| pkulak wrote:
| Why are you so convinced it's satire?
|
| Regardless, YT doesn't want that anti-vax shit on their
| platform, so they removed it. There's absolutely no
| controversy here.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| Why are you talking down to previous poster, rather than
| just disagreeing? This seems inappropriate for HN.
| Personally, I come here for differing viewpoints, expressed
| with a bit of maturity, or at least without toxicity of
| that sort.
| iab wrote:
| Ok - can someone explain to me how this is funny? Use small
| words please, I want to understand
| jwond wrote:
| Humor is subjective
| will4274 wrote:
| Nascar is a sport where people drive cars in circles really
| fast. A reporter was interviewing a driver after he drove
| the fastest. The drivers name was Brandon. The crowd was
| chanting so loud it was louder than her interview. The
| reporter said that the crowd seemed very supportive because
| they were chanting "Let's go Brandon." The crowd was very
| obviously not chanting "Let's go Brandon." The crowd was
| chanting "Fuck Joe Biden." This reporter works for a news
| network that has a certain reputation for political bias.
| This event was seen as an obvious attempt to dissemble.
| This video went viral and had significant publicity.
|
| One type of humor is known as "trolling". The basic idea is
| to see how much of a reaction you can get from something
| pointless and stupid. Now many people are making songs with
| the lyric "Let's go Brandon" and they are receiving hate
| mail, being banned, being demonitized, etc. This reaction
| is seen as outsized for a reference to a fairly well known
| piece of pop culture. Thus, to those who find outsized
| reactions funny, this is funny.
| tyingq wrote:
| I'm curious if it was substantially different than other
| variations on "Let's Go Brandon" songs, like this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DClYso2FA
|
| Note: Just curious. Didn't even know about this "Let's Go
| Brandon" thing until now.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| "Biden said the jab stopped the spread, it was lies. How you
| WOKE but you haven't opened your eyes?"
| chroem- wrote:
| Are you implying that the lyric is wrong and the pandemic is
| over?
| yesbut wrote:
| Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination
| across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
|
| If I recall correctly, the Biden administration and the CDC
| both made public statements telling everyone that they would
| no longer need to continue wearing masks once they were
| vaccinated.
| gzer0 wrote:
| Did you not read the first sentence of the very study you
| cite?
|
| _Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to
| combat COVID-19 around the world._
|
| The lack of critical thinking in this thread is concerning.
| yesbut wrote:
| Yes, vaccines prevent you from ending up in the ICU, but
| they aren't preventing the spread.
|
| Did you think the vaccines would prevent you from
| contracting covid?
|
| Wear your masks people.
| gzer0 wrote:
| _Yes, vaccines prevent you from ending up in the ICU, but
| they aren 't preventing the spread._
|
| This portion of your comment in particular is false.
|
| People who receive two COVID-19 jabs and later contract
| the Delta variant are less likely to infect their close
| contacts than are unvaccinated people with Delta.
| Relevant Nature article (October 5, 2021).
|
| However, good job on the masks part, please keep wearing
| them! :-)
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
| yesbut wrote:
| Less likely != prevent
| gzer0 wrote:
| They are helping to prevent. You are truly grasping at
| straws here.
| u801e wrote:
| You could make the same argument about any commonly
| administered vaccine if only 58% of the population are
| vaccinated. There were a number of outbreaks of measles
| several years ago when the localized percentage of people
| vaccinated dropped below 95%.
| yesbut wrote:
| In regards to covid in particular:
|
| > Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of
| vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the
| United States
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/
| chroem- wrote:
| Flagged for some reason, so I will post it again:
|
| Are you implying that the pandemic is over?
| city41 wrote:
| The vaccination has been thoroughly shown to work. The
| pandemic isn't over because only about 50% of Americans are
| fully vaccinated. We should be at herd immunity by now and
| moving on, but yet here we are.
| ggdG wrote:
| > The vaccination has been thoroughly shown to work
|
| How has this been shown?
|
| Countries with a high vaccination rate don't have a lower
| infection rate than other countries:
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-0080
| 8-7
|
| And after 3 months of being fully vaccinated, whatever
| level of immunity you had is completely gone by then:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
|
| > Unfortunately, the vaccine's beneficial effect on Delta
| transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time.
| In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine
| developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca,
| both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close
| contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later,
| that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with
| the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread
| the virus.
|
| The only thing that remains, is some protection against
| symptomatic disease.
| exporectomy wrote:
| Italy is at 80% and they still see the need to ban
| unvaccinated people from places. New Zealand is planning
| to ban unvaccinated people form places after we reach 90%
| of over-12-year-olds. So even with a massive 80%
| vaccinated, the vaccine doesn't stop the spread. Maybe it
| would at 90%? 95%? Who knows.
|
| In New Zealand, the unvaccinated are largely the
| indigenous Maori, not stereotypical anti-vaxxers.
| hackflip wrote:
| The media really wants to paint the average antivaxxer as
| white rednecks, when white people are among the most
| heavily vaccinated demographics.
| chroem- wrote:
| But is the pandemic over? It's clearly not, and that was
| the point of the lyric. Countries with 90%+ vaccination
| rates are still having lockdowns because of breakthrough
| cases.
| city41 wrote:
| You're adding things that aren't there. The lyrics are
| just "the jab stops the spread." That is true.
| chroem- wrote:
| I was unaware that we interpret poetry literally in 2021.
| city41 wrote:
| You're acting as if your interpretation is the only valid
| one. Since not everyone will interpret "the jab stops the
| spread" as "the pandemic is over", the best we can do is
| interpret "the jab stops the spread" as ... wait for it
| ... "the jab stops the spread".
| jakeva wrote:
| My interpretation would be closer to "the jab slows the
| spread".
| city41 wrote:
| Yeah, to be fair that is probably a more accurate
| statement.
|
| Edit: and while we're here, here is politifact's take:
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/14/joe-
| biden/...
|
| Concluding it's "half true" fits this thread well :)
| jjulius wrote:
| >The lyrics are just "the jab stops the spread." That is
| true.
|
| I say this as someone who's vaccinated; that is not true.
| It can limit the spread by reducing the viral load you
| give off, but you can still be vaccinated, get the virus,
| be asymptomatic (or not) and transmit it.
| bmarquez wrote:
| You're probably getting flagged because the parent
| commentator is quoting the lyrics of the song (in quotation
| marks), as a response to someone asking what was in the
| video.
|
| Your question should be directed at the creator of the
| video, not the HN user.
| chroem- wrote:
| We're posting in a thread discussing why YouTube took
| down the song. The GP asked for what was objectionable
| about it. Your comment does not make sense.
| [deleted]
| franga2000 wrote:
| The quote is calling the statement "the vaccine will stop
| the spread of covid" a lie. That statement can be a lie
| only if the vaccine can not stop the spread. An overly
| optimistic prediction wouldn't be a lie, so the quote must
| be calling the vaccine ineffective at best.
|
| Regardless of whether the pandemic is over or not, the
| statement isn't a lie and therefore the quote is incorrect.
| The vaccine significantly slows ths spread and from both
| theory and past experience can fully stop it, given a high
| enough vaccination rate. At best it hasn't come to fruition
| yet and at worst it won't not because the statement is a
| lie but because people actively prevented it from coming
| true, despite all reason and logic.
| chroem- wrote:
| If this is the standard that we go by, are other
| lyricists _literally_ commanding me to rob banks and
| abuse women?
| ggdG wrote:
| > The vaccine significantly slows ths spread
|
| Based on what data do you come to that conclusion?
|
| The vaccination rate of a country is not correlated with
| its covid infection rate:
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-0080
| 8-7
|
| And after 3 months of being fully vaccinated, people are
| just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated
| people:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
|
| From the article:
|
| > Unfortunately, the vaccine's beneficial effect on Delta
| transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time.
| In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine
| developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca,
| both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close
| contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later,
| that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with
| the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread
| the virus.
| kpommerenke wrote:
| Thank you for the links. I followed them and came to a
| different conclusion:
|
| 1) "The vaccination rate of a country is not correlated
| with its covid infection rate". From the article: "The
| lack of a meaningful association between percentage
| population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is
| further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of
| Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of
| their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19
| cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam
| and South Africa that have around 10% of their population
| fully vaccinated." You can interpret this as either the
| vaccine not working (unlikely) or that high-income
| countries such as Iceland and Portugal test a larger
| share of their population than low-income countries such
| as Vietnam and South Africa (very likely), thus
| confounding the relationship between vaccination levels
| and reported Covid cases.
|
| 2) "And after 3 months of being fully vaccinated, people
| are just as likely to spread the virus as unvaccinated
| people". From the article: "The risk of spreading the
| Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab
| [Pfizer] was 42%, but increased to 58% with time." Your
| quote shows that the AstraZeneca vaccine loses
| effectiveness over time. However, the chance of an
| unvaccinated person passing on the virus is 67%, which is
| significantly higher than the 58% for a person who
| received the Pfizer vaccine.
| briane80 wrote:
| Only government approved rap lyrics should be allowed on
| YouTube, such as making dolla, shooting my *** and slapping my
| *** etc
| gruez wrote:
| sibling comment further down:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28972609
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-23 23:01 UTC)