6 ms·

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

97 points by davidbarker 6y ago

chovyfu 6y ago
Alex Jones been spewing the same hate and misinformation as well too.
insickness 6y ago
Meanwhile, Kathy Griffin re-shares her beheaded Trump photo. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kathy-griffin-re-shares-beheaded-trump-photo-amid-delayed https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kat...
- senectus1 6y ago
  there is a big difference between an artist showing a picture of obvious art... and a political operative saying that he would put the heads of federal officials on pikes to warn other political operatives off... Bannon needs jail time, he's practically begged for it.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Well, based on the 'We Build The Wall' fraud scheme, it's a distinct possibility that Bannon may end up behind bars for 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Build_the_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Build_the_Wall
    - jungletime 6y ago
      The OTHER SIDE of Bannon and Kolfage's Fraud Indictment https://youtu.be/6PsqpghrEOo https://youtu.be/6PsqpghrEOo
    - 1-more 6y ago
      What I hate about this is that collecting money to fund your embezzlement boat is a lesser evil than building a wall through the desert.
  - insickness 6y ago
    Gimme a break. You're delusional if you think that someone on the right holding a severed head of Biden or Kamala Harris wouldn't IMMEDIATELY get censored and likely their account suspended. The left gets a charitable interpretation of their actions, from rioting/looting to the legitimacy of stories posted about the opposition.
WillPostForFood 6y ago
“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats.” That isn’t a call to violence.
throwaway122378 6y ago
So calls for violence are okay but only for approved groups?
viraptor 6y ago
What do you think made those services suddenly respond quickly to those issues? Do you think it's just that they were prepared with extra monitoring staff and stricter rules for the election time, or was there some fear of possible regulation if they used filtering before? (Which is gone now?) Twitter barely reacted to any reports before, but now Trump's feed is missing most quotes and has warnings on many tweets. The content hasn't changed that much in my opinion.
- cloverich 6y ago
  I would bet they became legitimately concerned his words would incite violence in response to a close election.
- soledades 6y ago
  I think this is perceived by many as a potential crucible for democracy in US. They are doing everything they can to not be made vehicles of violent unrest that could upset the peaceful transfer of power.
  - brnt 6y ago
    > everything they can Trump hasn't spoken a word of truth over twitter (or elsewhere) as far as I'm able to establish. Do you think he'd have his account still if he weren't president? Also, look at the number of fact checkers Facebook and twitter employ. That is far cry from "doing everything they can". American democracy is being undone by means of these social media platforms. In the past few weeks this the veneer has finally come off with "America is a republic, not a democracy". I can't believe how you could ignore the essential role social media play in all this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rglover 6y ago
Not exactly. Read past the headline. Here's the exchange they based their decision on: > Maxey: Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors. > Bannon: That’s how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war. Questionable, yes, but not an overt call to violence like the headline implies.
- tsomctl 6y ago
  Bannon called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci: https://boingboing.net/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-calls-for-beheading-dr-fauci-and-fbi-director-wray.html https://boingboing.net/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-calls-for-beh...
  - rglover 6y ago
    That one is far more egregious, but still not a call to violence.
    - hristov 6y ago
      Really? Is it a call for a non-violent beheading?
    - brandmeyer 6y ago
      What definition of "call to violence" are you using where posting the severed heads of your enemies doesn't qualify?
      - rglover 6y ago
        I would think a call to violence meant "hey people, go do this ____." It's certainly tactless and a really dumb thing to say and I understand why they took him down. Edit: yes. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 "Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct" I think he should be investigated for that claim, but that headline reads like he was telling people to go commit a crime. Edit 2: Recommended reading. https://www.amazon.com/How-Judges-Think-Pims-Immigration/dp/0674048067 https://www.amazon.com/How-Judges-Think-Pims-Immigration/dp/...
IceHegel 6y ago
It sounds like he was talking about firing two officials. I vote Not Guilty
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sumedh 6y ago
  Did you just ignore "putting their heads on pikes in front of the White House"
  - IceHegel 6y ago
    It was said in the context of firing two officials. It was a fantasy, a whole over the top rant on how he should fire them. HN turning into reddit as soon as politics is mentioned.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      > It was a fantasy, a whole over the top rant on how he should fire them. and that is how you end up with terrorists trying to kidnap a Governor. Why do you support violence when it has real life consequences?
      - KMag 6y ago
        The GP is not supporting violence, but is underestimating the consequences of a surprising percentage of the population having mental health issues (over 1% of the U.S. population has Schizophrenia, for instance) and 10% of the population is at or below 10th percentile intelligence. Most of us understand the hyperbole, but for those who don't, the consequences are deadly. Bannon wasn't calling for violence, but way too many people would clearly interpret it as such, and that has serious consequences.
        KMag 6y ago
        Just to clarify, people suffering from schizophrenia are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence, and not all schizophrenia is accompanied with paranoia. but they are prone to delusions. Given my layman's understanding of schizophrenia, it strikes me as particularly irresponsible for Bannon to take the paranoid delusions he peddles and mix in this violent hyperbole.
iron0013 6y ago
lol this thread “he didn’t call for any violence! He just said to stick their heads on pikes!” Your boy is gonna lose, chuds
dvt 6y ago
I know we all like to rail against Trump (who ain't a saint), but honestly, it's stuff like this that just simply doesn't help. The argument that he "called for violence" is not only uncharitable, it's also blatantly untrue. He was making a comparison to the "good old days" where monarchs could publicly execute officials that weren't in lockstep with their policies. Bannon's argument is moot (as we don't live in a monarchy), and he was just being hyperbolic. Twitter and YouTube went off the rails and decided to ban him, which I do think is unfair. His polarizing domestic policy notwithstanding, Bannon was doing a pretty good job of keeping pressure on China with regard to the Hong Kong situation. He was a fairly regular guest on "dissident" HK news channels.
- sumedh 6y ago
  > he was just being hyperbolic. How do you know that maybe he really meant that.
  - TearsInTheRain 6y ago
    How do you know he didnt? We are getting way to comfortable with censorship and selective enforcement of community standards by a small group of people in Silicon Valley.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      > How do you know he didnt? I did not make the claim that he was being hyperbolic in the first place. We are getting way to comfortable advocating violence which ends with terrorists trying to kill politicians and kidnapping governors. You can still get your point across without the violent language.
    - AaronFriel 6y ago
      After he was banned from Twitter, Steve Bannon's verified Facebook Page reiterated it. In fact, the Facebook post is still up: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776 https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776 Here's an archive.org link: https://web.archive.org/web/20201106185230/https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776 https://web.archive.org/web/20201106185230/https://www.faceb... Here's the text of that post in case it is removed: [BREAKING] On www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com - *Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack* - Steve Bannon Under Attack - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray Get your news NOW - Bookmark www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com I altered the URLs in the message above, I don't think HN turns URLs into links but I want to avoid any possible pagerank funniness.
every 6y ago
As with most of these wankers: BIG TALK, small hands...
mynameishere 6y ago
A call for violence (not censored): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmsXsIv2Ppw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmsXsIv2Ppw I wonder if there are any others. Probably not. Google is pretty consistent in its enforcement.
ReadEvalPost 6y ago
"Were I president I would use violence to political ends" is not a call for others to perform violence. It's a fantasy for the use of violence. These statements are not uncommon. It is normal and socially acceptable to wish for the death of sports teams, referees, your mother-in-law, billionaires, bankers, etc. etc. Here, take a look: https://twitter.com/search?q=%22kill%20billionaires%22&src=typed_query&f=live https://twitter.com/search?q=%22kill%20billionaires%22&src=t... The American people don't need to be protected from this. We aren't children.
- birdyrooster 6y ago
  It's clearly flame bait and Twitter/Google don't want it on their platform. The same would happen if it was posted here.
  - mansion7 6y ago
    They accept it just fine when it's against Republicans. Heck, I've heard harsher rhetoric from the "Young Turks", an organization sponsored and feted by YouTube itself. One needn't search long on YouTube/Twitter to find much stronger "flame bait" against the other side, which is allowed to stand. No need to wonder why; it's no secret that Googlers literally cried in the hallways after Trump's 2016 victory, nor that numerous former (?) Democrat operatives now occupy positions of authority at Twitter.
- taxicab 6y ago
  Don't be obtuse. A mainstream rightwing media figure is out there expressing nostalgia for the good old days of mob violence and when you could just lynch your opponents and calling for a civil war (as well as beheading Fauci). This is also in the context of armed extremists threatening people who are just trying to count the results of the election. Police are required to escort them in and out of counting locations in some cities for their protection [1]. Even his former whitehouse colleagues have expressed disgust at the statement. You don't have to pretend that this is at all appropriate just because Bannon is on the same "team" as you and companies like Twitter and Google have no requirement to be a mouthpiece for calls to violence. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/otilliasteadman/fears-for-ballot-counter-safety https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/otilliasteadman/fears-f...
taxicab 6y ago
Good! I'm tired of online platforms giving bad actors special treatment because their conspiracy theories and misinformation are so closely nestled with a political ideology. Enough is enough and Twitter has no obligation to be a mouthpiece for calls for violence that are splitting our country apart.
- mam2 6y ago
  Honesly some people are going to say the exact same in the opposite side for supporting gay marriage / trans young people. I'm definetely not on Bannon's side but you guys in america could do with a little "step back" other it's going to get even more polarized and there will really be 2 americas which may end up in even more violence. It's like Hilary's "deplorables".. just try to understand the other side's point before insulting it.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > Honesly some people are going to say the exact same in the opposite side for supporting gay marriage / trans young people. Are you unable to distinguish between supporting gay marriage and encouraging violence? If you need some help, consider the outcomes. In one of them, people end up married. In the other, people end up dead. Does one of those sound better than the other, perhaps?
    - mam2 6y ago
      The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the consequences of gay marriage is adoption, and that raising a child without both parents is a bigger violence for this child than any sort of physical violence. I disagree personally with this point of view, but you really need to start understanding the opposite point of view to understand that at the end of the day, both parties feel they fight a legitimate cause...
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the consequences of gay marriage is adoption No, while the opponents of same-sex marriage also oppose adoption by same-sex couples, by far the vast majority of them will argue that the primary basis for opposition is either that marriage is intended to produce offspring and same-sex marriage is defective in that regard or that marriage is a divine institution instituted for heterosexuality and that extending it same-sex couples defies the divine plan, improperly endorses homosexuality, and pollutes society with sin independently of whether or not this is further compounded by allowing such couples to adopt.

97 points by davidbarker 6y ago

Alex Jones been spewing the same hate and misinformation as well too.

Meanwhile, Kathy Griffin re-shares her beheaded Trump photo. What's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kathy-griffin-re-shares-beheaded-trump-photo-amid-delayed https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kat...

senectus1 6y ago
there is a big difference between an artist showing a picture of obvious art... and a political operative saying that he would put the heads of federal officials on pikes to warn other political operatives off... Bannon needs jail time, he's practically begged for it.
- Balgair 6y ago
  Well, based on the 'We Build The Wall' fraud scheme, it's a distinct possibility that Bannon may end up behind bars for 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Build_the_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Build_the_Wall
  - jungletime 6y ago
    The OTHER SIDE of Bannon and Kolfage's Fraud Indictment https://youtu.be/6PsqpghrEOo https://youtu.be/6PsqpghrEOo
  - 1-more 6y ago
    What I hate about this is that collecting money to fund your embezzlement boat is a lesser evil than building a wall through the desert.
- insickness 6y ago
  Gimme a break. You're delusional if you think that someone on the right holding a severed head of Biden or Kamala Harris wouldn't IMMEDIATELY get censored and likely their account suspended. The left gets a charitable interpretation of their actions, from rioting/looting to the legitimacy of stories posted about the opposition.

WillPostForFood 6y ago

“I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats.” That isn’t a call to violence.

throwaway122378 6y ago

So calls for violence are okay but only for approved groups?

viraptor 6y ago

What do you think made those services suddenly respond quickly to those issues? Do you think it's just that they were prepared with extra monitoring staff and stricter rules for the election time, or was there some fear of possible regulation if they used filtering before? (Which is gone now?) Twitter barely reacted to any reports before, but now Trump's feed is missing most quotes and has warnings on many tweets. The content hasn't changed that much in my opinion.

cloverich 6y ago
I would bet they became legitimately concerned his words would incite violence in response to a close election.
soledades 6y ago
I think this is perceived by many as a potential crucible for democracy in US. They are doing everything they can to not be made vehicles of violent unrest that could upset the peaceful transfer of power.
- brnt 6y ago
  > everything they can Trump hasn't spoken a word of truth over twitter (or elsewhere) as far as I'm able to establish. Do you think he'd have his account still if he weren't president? Also, look at the number of fact checkers Facebook and twitter employ. That is far cry from "doing everything they can". American democracy is being undone by means of these social media platforms. In the past few weeks this the veneer has finally come off with "America is a republic, not a democracy". I can't believe how you could ignore the essential role social media play in all this.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rglover 6y ago

Not exactly. Read past the headline. Here's the exchange they based their decision on: > Maxey: Just yesterday there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia. These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors. > Bannon: That’s how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war. Questionable, yes, but not an overt call to violence like the headline implies.

tsomctl 6y ago
Bannon called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci: https://boingboing.net/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-calls-for-beheading-dr-fauci-and-fbi-director-wray.html https://boingboing.net/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-calls-for-beh...
- rglover 6y ago
  That one is far more egregious, but still not a call to violence.
  - hristov 6y ago
    Really? Is it a call for a non-violent beheading?
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    What definition of "call to violence" are you using where posting the severed heads of your enemies doesn't qualify?
    - rglover 6y ago
      I would think a call to violence meant "hey people, go do this ____." It's certainly tactless and a really dumb thing to say and I understand why they took him down. Edit: yes. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 "Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct" I think he should be investigated for that claim, but that headline reads like he was telling people to go commit a crime. Edit 2: Recommended reading. https://www.amazon.com/How-Judges-Think-Pims-Immigration/dp/0674048067 https://www.amazon.com/How-Judges-Think-Pims-Immigration/dp/...

IceHegel 6y ago

It sounds like he was talking about firing two officials. I vote Not Guilty

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sumedh 6y ago
Did you just ignore "putting their heads on pikes in front of the White House"
- IceHegel 6y ago
  It was said in the context of firing two officials. It was a fantasy, a whole over the top rant on how he should fire them. HN turning into reddit as soon as politics is mentioned.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    > It was a fantasy, a whole over the top rant on how he should fire them. and that is how you end up with terrorists trying to kidnap a Governor. Why do you support violence when it has real life consequences?
    - KMag 6y ago
      The GP is not supporting violence, but is underestimating the consequences of a surprising percentage of the population having mental health issues (over 1% of the U.S. population has Schizophrenia, for instance) and 10% of the population is at or below 10th percentile intelligence. Most of us understand the hyperbole, but for those who don't, the consequences are deadly. Bannon wasn't calling for violence, but way too many people would clearly interpret it as such, and that has serious consequences.
      - KMag 6y ago
        Just to clarify, people suffering from schizophrenia are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence, and not all schizophrenia is accompanied with paranoia. but they are prone to delusions. Given my layman's understanding of schizophrenia, it strikes me as particularly irresponsible for Bannon to take the paranoid delusions he peddles and mix in this violent hyperbole.

iron0013 6y ago

lol this thread “he didn’t call for any violence! He just said to stick their heads on pikes!” Your boy is gonna lose, chuds

dvt 6y ago

I know we all like to rail against Trump (who ain't a saint), but honestly, it's stuff like this that just simply doesn't help. The argument that he "called for violence" is not only uncharitable, it's also blatantly untrue. He was making a comparison to the "good old days" where monarchs could publicly execute officials that weren't in lockstep with their policies. Bannon's argument is moot (as we don't live in a monarchy), and he was just being hyperbolic. Twitter and YouTube went off the rails and decided to ban him, which I do think is unfair. His polarizing domestic policy notwithstanding, Bannon was doing a pretty good job of keeping pressure on China with regard to the Hong Kong situation. He was a fairly regular guest on "dissident" HK news channels.

sumedh 6y ago
> he was just being hyperbolic. How do you know that maybe he really meant that.
- TearsInTheRain 6y ago
  How do you know he didnt? We are getting way to comfortable with censorship and selective enforcement of community standards by a small group of people in Silicon Valley.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    > How do you know he didnt? I did not make the claim that he was being hyperbolic in the first place. We are getting way to comfortable advocating violence which ends with terrorists trying to kill politicians and kidnapping governors. You can still get your point across without the violent language.
  - AaronFriel 6y ago
    After he was banned from Twitter, Steve Bannon's verified Facebook Page reiterated it. In fact, the Facebook post is still up: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776 https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776 Here's an archive.org link: https://web.archive.org/web/20201106185230/https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776 https://web.archive.org/web/20201106185230/https://www.faceb... Here's the text of that post in case it is removed: [BREAKING] On www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com - *Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack* - Steve Bannon Under Attack - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray Get your news NOW - Bookmark www [dot] PopulistPress [dot] com I altered the URLs in the message above, I don't think HN turns URLs into links but I want to avoid any possible pagerank funniness.

every 6y ago

As with most of these wankers: BIG TALK, small hands...

mynameishere 6y ago

A call for violence (not censored): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmsXsIv2Ppw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmsXsIv2Ppw I wonder if there are any others. Probably not. Google is pretty consistent in its enforcement.

ReadEvalPost 6y ago

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

birdyrooster 6y ago
It's clearly flame bait and Twitter/Google don't want it on their platform. The same would happen if it was posted here.
- mansion7 6y ago
  They accept it just fine when it's against Republicans. Heck, I've heard harsher rhetoric from the "Young Turks", an organization sponsored and feted by YouTube itself. One needn't search long on YouTube/Twitter to find much stronger "flame bait" against the other side, which is allowed to stand. No need to wonder why; it's no secret that Googlers literally cried in the hallways after Trump's 2016 victory, nor that numerous former (?) Democrat operatives now occupy positions of authority at Twitter.
taxicab 6y ago
Don't be obtuse. A mainstream rightwing media figure is out there expressing nostalgia for the good old days of mob violence and when you could just lynch your opponents and calling for a civil war (as well as beheading Fauci). This is also in the context of armed extremists threatening people who are just trying to count the results of the election. Police are required to escort them in and out of counting locations in some cities for their protection [1]. Even his former whitehouse colleagues have expressed disgust at the statement. You don't have to pretend that this is at all appropriate just because Bannon is on the same "team" as you and companies like Twitter and Google have no requirement to be a mouthpiece for calls to violence. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/otilliasteadman/fears-for-ballot-counter-safety https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/otilliasteadman/fears-f...

taxicab 6y ago

Good! I'm tired of online platforms giving bad actors special treatment because their conspiracy theories and misinformation are so closely nestled with a political ideology. Enough is enough and Twitter has no obligation to be a mouthpiece for calls for violence that are splitting our country apart.

mam2 6y ago
Honesly some people are going to say the exact same in the opposite side for supporting gay marriage / trans young people. I'm definetely not on Bannon's side but you guys in america could do with a little "step back" other it's going to get even more polarized and there will really be 2 americas which may end up in even more violence. It's like Hilary's "deplorables".. just try to understand the other side's point before insulting it.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > Honesly some people are going to say the exact same in the opposite side for supporting gay marriage / trans young people. Are you unable to distinguish between supporting gay marriage and encouraging violence? If you need some help, consider the outcomes. In one of them, people end up married. In the other, people end up dead. Does one of those sound better than the other, perhaps?
  - mam2 6y ago
    The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the consequences of gay marriage is adoption, and that raising a child without both parents is a bigger violence for this child than any sort of physical violence. I disagree personally with this point of view, but you really need to start understanding the opposite point of view to understand that at the end of the day, both parties feel they fight a legitimate cause...
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The opponents of gay marriage will tell you that the consequences of gay marriage is adoption No, while the opponents of same-sex marriage also oppose adoption by same-sex couples, by far the vast majority of them will argue that the primary basis for opposition is either that marriage is intended to produce offspring and same-sex marriage is defective in that regard or that marriage is a divine institution instituted for heterosexuality and that extending it same-sex couples defies the divine plan, improperly endorses homosexuality, and pollutes society with sin independently of whether or not this is further compounded by allowing such couples to adopt.