YouTube Disabled Comments On Livestreams Of A Congressional Hearing On White Nationalism Because They Were Too Hateful (buzzfeednews.com) 431
Tuesday's hearing was meant to examine the rise of white nationalism and white supremacy and the role social media plays in its spread. Then the comments got hijacked. From a report: YouTube moderators disabled comments on livestreams of the House Judiciary Committee's hearing about hate crimes the rise of white nationalism on Tuesday, deeming them too hateful for the platform. The comment sections quickly flooded with hate speech and white nationalist memes before the hearing had even started. The comments included derogatory remarks about women on camera, anti-Semitic slurs, far-right memes with references to "white genocide," and pro-Trump slogans. The channels' comments sections were deactivated within an hour. [...] YouTube's disabling of comments is ironic: House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York, made special reference in his opening statement of the role social media platforms play in spreading hate speech and extremism in his opening statement.
Why this one video (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if these "You Tube Moderators" have looked around much, but you can find hateful comments on pretty much any video. Why block comments on just this one?
If YouTube wants to block "hateful comments" why do they allow comments anywhere?
Re:Why this one video (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if these "You Tube Moderators" have looked around much, but you can find hateful comments on pretty much any video. Why block comments on just this one?
If YouTube wants to block "hateful comments" why do they allow comments anywhere?
Because the quantity and hatefulness blew the scale?
Re:Why this one video (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh that's hilarious. Truly hateful speech invalidates itself. It's why conservatives love it when totalitarians of all stripes open up their mouths.
I would guess it's more a case of far too many accurate comments and questions.
Examples:
How do you raise the minimum wage to 15/hr while simultaneously allowing an endless flood of people in that will work for $5/hr ?
If sexual preference is biologically determined, just how is gender a social construct ?
Or the simple If it's OK for the U.S. to interfere in Russian elections, why wouldn't you expect them to return the favor ?
Re:Why this one video (Score:5, Informative)
The removed comments are a lot more disturbing, stuff like Heil Hitler posts & death threats.
Yeah no fan of that (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't see anyone banning Che Guevara shirts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Probably because comparing Che Guevara to Hitler is ridiculous, and because we don't have a problem with Marxist revolutionary terrorism right now.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It depends how you slice it. In the West white guys are the biggest source of terrorism at the moment, always have been. This is especially true in the US. If you designate Islamic State as terrorists and consider everything they do as terrorism, you can make them the worst.
Who are these Marxists committing all these terrorist acts? Are we talking historically, before the internet existed?
Citations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://fullfact.org/crime/eth... [fullfact.org]
https://ourworldindata.org/ter... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, you fucking make me laugh with https://fullfact.org/crime/eth... [fullfact.org]
So more white people are arrested than any other single racial group. A whole 38% of arrests. It's almost as though 86% of the population are classed as 'white'.
Of course, since you're the racist focussing on 'white' people, we can look at this another way: Even though 86% of people in the UK are 'white', 62% of terror arrests are for other demographics. Seems to me the white majority are being extremely tolerant of representatives of the 1
Re: Yeah no fan of that (Score:5, Informative)
You know why the Nazi's of WWII are regarded more evil than Stalin or Mao? The Nazi's where better record keepers. It's easy to gloss over 20 to 80 million that Stalin had murdered, and the 80 to 200 million that Chairman Mao red revolution slaughtered, when it's all anonymous numbers on a ledger.
But the Nazi's, now they new how to keep records over who they butchered. They had names, addresses, and a count of every item the took from jews before they gassed them.
Yes, the nazi's where just better record keepers, but communist stand way taller on a mountain of anonymous dead.
Re: Yeah no fan of that (Score:4)
Except there is literally not a single written record of the Holocaust. I'm completely serious. Go ahead, look for one.
Yes there are, you fucking dumbass.
https://www.denverpost.com/201... [denverpost.com]
It took me exactly 30 seconds to find that article. An I know these fucking records exist. The damn nazi's that kept them told the alias what they are. So go fuck yourself.
People like to put holocaust deniers on the same level as the flat earthers. Laugh at them for their stupidity and move on. They shouldn't. The flat earthers are just harmless in their brand of stupidity. These holocaust deniers would have us believe that the systematic round up, record, and murder of 12 million human beings never happened.
Yes, I'm feeding the troll.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Examples: How do you raise the minimum wage to 15/hr while simultaneously allowing an endless flood of people in that will work for $5/hr ?
The federal minimum wage is already $7.25/hr so if you are right this is already a problem. The only thing that changes when raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is that a ton of people will actually get paid $15/hr since there is plenty of businesses that respect the law.
If sexual preference is biologically determined, just how is gender a social construct ?
I have no idea, I have been a heterosexual all my life and I have never doubted my gender or my sexual orientation for a second. The philosophy of gender ambiguity is a topic I'm quite content to leave to others and I am certainly not going
Re: (Score:3)
US support of a very unpopular Yeltsin and his neo liberal "shock therapy" ideas that left Russia even worse off economically.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288/amp
Let us consider some of the consequences of Yeltsin's electoral win:
-In the first years of the Chubais-Yeltsin privatization scheme, the life expectancy of a Russian male fell from 65 years to 57.5 years. Female life expectancy in Russia dropped from 74.5 years in 1989 to 72
Re: Why this one video (Score:2, Informative)
Does someone's gender identity or sexual preference actually affect you? The answer is: it doesn't.
It doesn't until it does. I don't give a damn how you dress or who you sleep with. I care a lot when you start passing laws saying that I have to let you into whatever washroom you decide you want to use, or forcing me to call you something which you clearly are not. Don't be a totalitarian cunt and I'm quite happy to ignore you.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the simple If it's OK for the U.S. to interfere in Russian elections, why wouldn't you expect them to return the favor ?
I seriously doubt the US interfered much with the Russian elections. Most of the interference came from within Russia; the Putin supporters usually make sure he (or his preferred candidate) wins. Nothing to see here - move on.
Re: Why this one video (Score:4, Insightful)
No federally elected Democrat is arguing that,
Multiple elected Democrats in the House and Senate are for totally open borders [cis.org] and minimum wage at $15.
Just the facts, man.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just the facts, man.
AhahahahahahahaNo. Your source is bad [mediabiasfactcheck.com], and you should feel bad.
Just because they call themselves "non-partisan" doesn't mean that they actually are.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just the facts, man.
AhahahahahahahaNo. Your source is bad [mediabiasfactcheck.com], and you should feel bad.
Just because they call themselves "non-partisan" doesn't mean that they actually are.
Biased or not, his source cites the Washington Post, among others. Is that a right-wing rag to you?
Facts remain facts regardless of the bias of the person stating them.
Re: Why this one video (Score:4, Informative)
The facts, huh? Your link is an inaccurate summary of a WaPo story, which it actually links to but I'll repeat it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
As anyone can read for themselves, it does not say that the Democrats want totally open borders. That is simply false, and in fact as the article notes they are willing to fund ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a nation *state*, but arguably (and extremely loosely), you could argue that a "nation" is a pretty ambiguous concept that describes a grouping of people sharing some commonality, and there's no logical reason why race couldn't be a valid criteria for membership whatever nation you're defining.
So in theory, you could be a white nationalist and it would be a logical statement. Just like you could be a black nationalist, a Catholic nationalist, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if these "You Tube Moderators" have looked around much, but you can find hateful comments on pretty much any video. Why block comments on just this one?
If YouTube wants to block "hateful comments" why do they allow comments anywhere?
Because the quantity and hatefulness blew the scale?
Are these people new to the Internet?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh hey you can see where this is going. Congrats
Re:Why this one video (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems proper to me. Here they are, the big-wigs meeting about the role that social media plays in fueling hate. YouTube, a social media platform would be super stupid to NOT turn off the hate in such a situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The narrative here seems to be "talk about white nationalists, and gangs of white nationalists show up to prove just how demented and determined to be assholes they are."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... and their perspective of blatant discrimination got validated by YouTube promptly censoring them.
"Oh, but it's a corporation, not the government censoring them" isn't a great argument when you also claim that corporations own the government, and in this case, I'd agree with you that Google has an amazingly large, malign, influence on the government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that's true, then how is Trump president?
Re:Oversight (Score:4, Funny)
Because Google does have an amazingly large, malign, influence on the government?
Re:Oversight (Score:4, Interesting)
The narrative here seems to be "talk about white nationalists, and gangs of white nationalists show up to prove just how demented and determined to be assholes they are."
That's certainly the narrative. I'd bet the reality is "the chans saw this as a wonderful opportunity to troll, plus some actual white nationalists (who were also channers).".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's certainly the narrative. I'd bet the reality is "the chans saw this as a wonderful opportunity to troll, plus some actual white nationalists (who were also channers).".
Don't worry, the media is currently all over the rainbow clowns(honkhonk) are really a white nationalist and neo-nazi symbol.
The reality is, youtube doing this proves both sides right. YT is censoring some views(politically correct or not) and thus validating it. And the opposing side is "see look at all that hate! They were right!" Pure accelerationism all the way down, looks like the NZ nut was spot on.
And? (Score:5, Funny)
Dumb-but-serious question... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand what a "white supremacist" is. I understand what a "French Nationalist", or a "Argentinian Nationalist" would be. However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
I get that stamping out racism is a good thing, but seriously, folks - at least don't mangle the language while you do it.
Re:Dumb-but-serious question... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
If someone was a nationalist, and thought their nation should be solely or dominantly one race, would it not be semantically and massively correctly to refer to them as a "[Race] Nationalist"?
(Race being not a biological category, as humans are a single species, but a reference to skin color, geographical ancestry, or religion.)
Re: (Score:2)
However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
If someone was a nationalist, and thought their nation should be solely or dominantly one race, would it not be semantically and massively correctly to refer to them as a "[Race] Nationalist"?
(Race being not a biological category, as humans are a single species, but a reference to skin color, geographical ancestry, or religion.)
Humans are so lacking in genetic diversity that the closest we get to 'race' is 'trivial regional variations'.
Humans and Great Apes differ by 2% (Score:3, Insightful)
Upwards of 4% of European DNA is Neanderthal DNA; black Africans have zero Neanderthal DNA.
The point is not that one group is "better" than another, but this idea that all humans are clones of each other, and that race is a social construct, makes no sense; it makes no sense in the raw numbers, and it makes no sense in everyday life.
People know it's bullshit.
Now, look into average IQ measurements. Come on; you can do it. Stare into that deep abyss, and know reality for what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire field of genetics would disagree with you. Perhaps you haven't thought about it, but the whole reason there are so many biologists is specifically because there is a buttload of genetic variation within the human species, and figuring out how that affects us is pretty tricky. Throwing around numbers like 2% or 4% is popular when you don't understand that those 2% may be the switches that turn on or off or mutate the remaining 98%.
For example, did you know that the difference between friendly, har
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It also works semantically if someone is a nationalist, who happens to be white. Which provides a convenient way to conflate nationalism with racism.
Re: (Score:2)
White Nationalist is someone who believes there should be a White ethnostate. No immigration except from "correct" countries and definitely no importing or mixing of cultures.
You are correct that there is such country, but these people want to MAKE such a country. In recognition that there is no unclaimed land in the world currently, the only remaining option to make such a country is to remove any non white person.
The only country that could really pull this off is... Russia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that when you say you are a Nationalist, as Trump did, the Left automatically adds, "White" to the beginning.
Um.. no, that's not the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
There just comes a time to call a Spade a Spade. I don't care of Trump really drinks the Kool-Aid or is just doing it for the votes or even the lulz. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hiel Hitler's like a duck, it's a White Nationalist. Sooner we stop living in denial the better. This will not end well for us otherwise. Ignoring reality never does...
Re: (Score:2)
You know who also liked dogs? Hitler. Let that sink in for a moment.
Not everything done by a bad person is a bad thing. I'm not saying that calling oneself a nationalist is a good thing (it wasn't), but "Hitler did it" is a stupid line of argument. Hitler did a lot of perfectly innocuous things, like everyone else does.
Language mangling is a feature, not a bug (Score:2)
Mangling the language is one of the most important tools of the professional liars. Basic ontology of lies:
Level 0: Self-contradiction. Something is obviously wrong. Only amusing variation is when both halves are false.
Level 1: Counterfactual. As the famous saying says, any fool can check the facts.
Level 2: Partial truth. Two basic variations. One is to omit parts so as to deny actually lying, but the higher form involves actively creating a false perception of reality based on the gaps.
Level 3: Reframing.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
I get that stamping out racism is a good thing, but seriously, folks - at least don't mangle the language while you do it.
I've been musing on this lately, as accusations of being a "White Nationalist" have become extremely bizarre. For example, claiming "White Nationalists" love anime [quora.com] or that multi-racial groups like the Proud Boys [atlantablackstar.com] are "White Nationalists".
I think there are two main points with this:
White Nationalist means (Score:3)
It reminds me of one of my mainframe buds who couldn't wrap his head around the concept of metadata. "It's just data!". Well, no, it's not. It's data about data. "But that's just data". Yes, but it's a kind of data, and it became increasingly common and important to discuss so we made a term for it so that we could
It is kind of shocking (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Nazism was not a variant of Italian Fascism. Nazism grew out of a certain brand of socialism that came to the fore in Germany in the 1920s, in particular with the rise of the SA. Mussolini himself at first determined to stay neutral in WWII, but thought that by backing Hitler, Italy would keep and enlarge its embryonic African empire (it was deeply stung by the League of Nations determining the invasion and annexation of Ethiopia was illegal). They may have grown out of similar sentiments in both countr
Re: (Score:2)
Owing a debt is not the same as derived from. The two movements largely came into existence at the same time; along with the Falangists (though the latter had much deeper roots in Spanish instability since the Peninsular War).
They should see Starcraft II general chat! (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously .... it's amazingly bad, how often online conversations or comments on social media devolve into utter garbage. I imagine in this instance, it was egged on because of the political topic of discussion. Furthermore? I'm fairly confident the vast majority of "white supremacist" comments were made by teenagers trying to get a rise out of people.
I mean, sure -- you really DO have these racist hate groups around. But they're generally rather disorganized or lack enough membership to do anything significant. You have FAR more people who are just angry and like to talk trash than you do people who are truly committed to promoting neo-nazis or some kind of white supremacy movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously .... it's amazingly bad, how often online conversations or comments on social media devolve into utter garbage.
YEP.EVERY.FUCKING.TIME
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Agreed. Just look at 4chan, the guys who tried to get "hitler did nothing wrong" voted as a new Mountain Dew flavor. The do it to get a rise out of people, or in their own words, do it for the lulz. There certainly are real neo nazis, stormfront wouldn't exist otherwise, but that site has always been tiny. I think it more closely represents the true size of such groups. And they aren't all that big or threatening.
What we do have is a polarization problem right now. It feels like people are generally more d
Re:They should see Starcraft II general chat! (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, actually, if you march carrying torches at night shouting Nazi slogans, then yes, you are a Nazi. Mike Godwin himself, author of that law, came out and publicly said "Go right ahead and call them Nazis, because they are!" AC
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They should see Starcraft II general chat! (Score:5, Insightful)
Guys, nobody is a Nazi.
You generally have a good point, but the people marching with torches chanting "the Jews will not replace us" are nazis.
Not everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi. Nor is everyone more conservative than I am or everyone who believes negative stereotypes based on skin color or religion.
But that does not mean there are no nazis.
Re: (Score:3)
To be a Nazi you would need to be a member of the national socialist german workers party (yep, thats right, Nazis were socialists..),
Yeah, in the same way that North Korea is a Democratic Peoples Republic...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You dance with the one that brung ya.
If these 4chan types are aping racist sentiments just because it pisses the adults off, well, in my view, at best that makes them deluded pricks. But it's worse than that, because if nothing else they act as an unwitting online army for the really nasty guys. Racism is still racism, whether it's just some attempt at a bit self-masturbatory humor. Even if it's some sort of satire, there's a way to do satire of racists that doesn't involve basically behaving exactly like a
Re: (Score:2)
Yea because that's how we measure things. Based on how many men like my little pony. /s
Fucking Idiot.
If more men like my little pony than your thing, well your thing is pretty fucking shitty.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, the amount of actual white nationalists on there was probably very small. Most people aren't racist. They might at worse grumble and hold some prejudice views, but wouldn't discriminate. A lot of trolls which... hey! Why not!
I'm more worried about the left identitarian stuff. That has a bigger chance of actually implementing policy changes with far reaching consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's a path from just being a "grumbler" to becoming an active supporter. Prior to the Nazi racial laws, general grumbling about Jews was pretty common. Talk to your average German in, say, the 1920s, and the idea that every Jew under German control would end up in concentration camps or being murdered on an industrial scale would have seemed ludicrous. Oh sure, they'd probably bring up some popular tropes of the day about the greedy Jew, and they had a cousin who had a friend who had been stiffed by
Re: (Score:2)
Most people aren't racist. They might at worse grumble and hold some prejudice views
So...they're racist, you're saying.
I'm more worried about the left identitarian stuff.
I had to look that up. Apparently it is a far-right and white nationalist movement that originated in France.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that in most live streams with political topic, it is just spammy crap that isn't really worth your time. It's not even clever trolling, just noise really.
Re: (Score:2)
The timing on this is almost perfect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anonymity the source of all Internet rudeness? (Score:2)
Why is your comment nearly invisible? Yes, your Subject: line isn't greatly illuminating, but I don't see the basis for the current score of 1. Some kind of troll moderation effect?
The comic you linked to is rather insightful. My favored solution approach would involve MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) so that people who have a track record of not acting like that would acquire additional visibility, while the trolls would be helped in rendering themselves less and less visible. Anonymity has
Re: (Score:2)
I am unable to interpret that as a request for clarification, not does it suggest the slightest awareness of my earlier writings on the general topic. Therefore I can only congratulate you on your remarkable mind-reading or other psychic capabilities and beg you to explain what is wrong with the idea. Surely you can share a tiny bit of your infinite wisdom with us peasants?
(Yes, I'm overreacting, but it might be triggered by your handle.)
Sadly any place (Score:2)
any place at all where speech is truly free is going to be flooded with hatred trying to drown out everything else.
It's unfortunate, and I don't have a solution, but it is an incontrovertible fact of life.
Re: (Score:2)
/satire: The "solution" is just to ban all speech. Then no one can say anything that gets your panties in a knot since all speech is banned. "Problem solved!" /s
Seriously though:
Either you have 100% free speech (and allow "bad words") or you have censorship (and eventually block everything.) There is no middle ground by definition.
People who are "hurt" by words need to grow the fuck up and stop trying to micro-manage everybody else from expressing an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
People who are "hurt" by words need to grow the fuck up and stop trying to micro-manage everybody else from expressing an opinion.
I tend toward agreement.
Then I think about people like Joseph Goebbels and start to waver........
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is noise level. And it's a problem intentionally caused by as least some of the posters. Their goal is to shout so loudly that no one else can be heard. They are often successful. One of the benefits of moderation systems is that they mitigate the problem, but they cannot solve it.
If there is a solution, it's not obvious. Simple "solutions" tend to enclose everyone in an "echo chamber" where their pre-existing opinions and biases are reinforced without regard to their fit with reality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
any place at all where speech is truly free is going to be flooded with hatred trying to drown out everything else.
It's unfortunate, and I don't have a solution, but it is an incontrovertible fact of life.
I totally disagree. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, and more speech is always better. The issue comes in echo chambers that are cut off from one another either voluntarily or by force. These allow extreme ideas and sentiment to exist. Some of the best research on getting rid of extremism states that two people talking will do more than nearly any amount of censorship.
It's a lot harder to use the n-word when a friend will smack you in the back of the head. It's a lot harder to breed resentment when people
Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? (Score:4, Funny)
YouTube's disabling of comments is ironic
If by "ironic" you mean "totally fucking predictable" then yeah, I suppose it was.
Who's responsible? (Score:2)
Hell, the trolls or the astroturfers (or both) could have been the first ones to do it and that encouraged the haters to start up, kind of like priming a pump. The sad part is we will never know for sure. My money is that most was true but there w
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it amusing and interesting that the "conservatives" want businesses to have rights and religion when they are discriminating against gays, but freak out when some business decides they don't want said "conservatives" as a customer.
It's a bit like the "tolerance" groups that only have tolerance for the groups/religions/etc. THEY like.
Left/Right, D/R, doesn't matter. They are all stupid. :)
Pussy Cat Pussy Cat (Score:2)
Re: Pussy Cat Pussy Cat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then switch your comment post mode from "HTML Formatted" to "Plain Old Text", which runs the equivalent of PHP nl2br() on each post.
Dem Angry White Folks is Crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
There is an awful lot of anger out there.
Those of Caucasian decent have been told for years that they are racists simply because of their skin color.
They can't be discriminated against because they aren't the right color.
They have something called " White Privilege " that, apparently, is some sort of " I win " button available on tap.
They get turned down for jobs and education slots because the Company or University has to have enough minorities lest they be called racists too.
Standardized tests are all racist because, apparently, minorities have issues with them. So they just get rewritten to make the numbers look better.
Slavery is still their fault apparently, irregardless of the fact the last " slaves " in America were freed ~150 years ago.
( The reparations movement, and all the politicians using it to further their political career, can just f*ck off. )
Starting a #WhiteLivesMatter movement would instantly be classified as some White Nationalist Klan Nazi Terrorist Group and the media would just lose it.
Given the above:
Is there anyone out there who doesn't think a very small percentage of impacted folks might be just a tad bit angry about it all ?
Is there anyone out there who doesn't think an even smaller percentage of that small percentage might even be REALLY angry about it ?
And of that laughably tiny percentage, a few folks might actually do something rather radical ?
This is shocking why ?
Maybe they're just tired of being the " Bad Guy " for nothing more than their skin color.
Re: (Score:3)
Those of Caucasian decent have been told for years that they are racists simply because of their skin color.
No one (serious*) is saying that. There is a strong believe for progressives that the mainstream American society goes out of its way to avoid recognizing or admitting that the history of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation in this country has done serious damage to the social mobility and opportunity available to people o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The constitution says THE GOVERNMENT can't censor your speech. Last time I checked, there was no mention in the constitution of private corporations like YouTube.
Re:There is only one kind of speech in America (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason the Government uses newspapers to advertise and TV networks for televised addresses. Just because the government can use private companies for providing services does not mean that private companies suddenly become branches of the government, and bound to the first Amendments.
Jesus Christ, the utter lack of understanding on the part of some here just astonishes. This black and white thinking, this inability to comprehend nuance or complexity, and the fundamental ignorance that gets married to it, so that your lack of knowledge gets coupled with astonishing arrogance, that you become blind to how things are actually supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but my limited understanding is that when officially contracted by the US Govt, private companies are acting as 'agents' of the USA, and are indeed bound by all of the same things Uncle Sam is.
Am I wrong??
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The ruling on Trump's twitter account was that he couldn't block it for certain people. Different argument. Comment forums, like newspaper editorial sections, have every right to not publish or edit any commentary letter. This is nothing new. If you don't like Youtube's rules, build your own forum, or, what the heck, use one of those nice accommodating ones like Stormfront.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the government then using a private corporation like YouTube to stream?
Why is the government using a private corporation like Boeing to build the President's aircraft? I expect they used YouTube and Boeing because they both provided something the government needed and the government wasn't about to waste large amounts of taxpayer money on designing and building those things them selves when they could be outsourced to private industry and the vast sums of tax payer money the government thus saved could be better spent on tax breaks for the wealthy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Free Speech. Guaranteed by the first (foremost) amendment to the supreme law of the land.
Anyone who would knowingly abridge it is an enemy of the United States of America.
Period. Full Stop.
All Trump supporters should be tied to a post and flogged with a clue stick whilst wearing a refrigerated steel butt plug up their fundament <- That was free speech, now mod me up for making use of the 1st amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech. Guaranteed by the first (foremost) amendment to the supreme law of the land.
Anyone who would knowingly abridge it is an enemy of the United States of America.
Period. Full Stop.
All Trump supporters should be tied to a post and flogged with a clue stick whilst wearing a refrigerated steel butt plug up their fundament <- That was free speech, now mod me up for making use of the 1st amendment.
So, modded down to -1 already, it's fun being censored by a bunch of Trump supporters who usually are the first to complain about being censored for hating on brown people in violation of their rights under the 1st amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't read or understood the constitution, have you?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Free Speech. Guaranteed by the first (foremost) amendment to the supreme law of the land.
Anyone who would knowingly abridge it is an enemy of the United States of America.
Period. Full Stop.
You can exercise your free speech as much as you want and you can use the 1st amendment to spew as much racist hate as you want but I reserve the right to forbid you from doing that on my lawn and I will make use of the rights guaranteed to me under the second amendment to persuade you to comply if you refuse. Be glad that Google is a lot more diplomatic about shutting up hate spewing racist dummies than I am.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But the interesting difference between your lawn and google's lawn is google has opened their lawn to the public. For now you are correct but we do need to have a conversation about privately owned public spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Right? It is so annoying when mass media companies allow the printing of speech I disagree with. I never do business with anyone that has a different opinion on anything then I have.
A fine description of a Fox News customer.
Re:There is only one kind of speech in America (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, the dullards miss the teeny, tiny caveat to the First Amendment. It only applies to the government.
As has been stated who knows how many times, a company is free to limit free speech if it so chooses. This is no different than if a casino doesn't want to provide service to someone. It's their property, their rules. Same with YouTube.
It has nothing to do with being an "enemy" of the U.S. It has to do with a company doing what it wants on its platform. Don't like it? Don't frequent YouTube.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Marsh v Alabama doesn't apply because a) YouTube set up rules of conduct regarding comments from the beginning. It did not single out one specific type of speech it would ban over another and b) YouTube also limits what can be posted as far as videos, and has done so from the beginning. Neither is an abridgement of free speech.
The only ones outsourcing totalitarianism are Republicans who keep claiming the free market will fix everything, then turn around and use taxpayer money to prop up the free market an
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you don't know the facts of that case, I find it amusing that it is quotes so often. Try googling Schenck v. United States
Re: (Score:3)
Just look back at Trump's history, he's been a racist all along. Miller is as well, but Trump is a willing participant.
Re:Trump's latest government deform: #DWHS (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm... I'm not certain. I am convinced that Trump thinks HE himself is (genetically and presidentially and otherwise) superior, but I think it is mostly at a personal, familial level rather than at a racial level. Rather I suspect Trump is so solipsistic that he has no real feelings about groups as such. Therefore I think Trump can be played by the racists, but he isn't nearly as sincere about it as Miller and Bannon. I think Trump has always been a puppet, and the only trick to pulling his strings is to convince Trump it was his idea in the first place. As long as you are pushing him from behind, Trump thinks he's leading.
Having said that, I do have to agree that there is plenty of racist stuff in Trump's past. The Central Park Jogger stuff is especially bad, but there was some less racist stuff mixed in, too. For example, if a black celebrity could help him make some money, then Trump was much more concerned about the money than the race.
I just don't think Trump was smart enough to come up with the idea of the Department of White Homeland Security, and his willingness is not that important. In fact, now he seems to be getting cold feet.
If Trump had any imagination, then I'd think he was afraid of a protest mocking one of his own rallies. I still want to see the video of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" In my imagination, the protesters are in Trump face, and the video builds to an angry crescendo before collapsing into howls of insane rage.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a new theory for what's going on now. Among other real-world effects, it explains such extremist reactions on YouTube.
Actually it's not really Trump's idea, but must be coming from Stephen Miller and his associates. Trump is just the puppet. Again.
The Department of Homeland Security is under reconstruction.
Coming soon: The Department of WHITE Homeland Security. #DWHS
Don't think of it as the largest piece of the federal government running amok.
It's just color coordination. White House and White Homeland.
Not sure who coined the term "slow-moving coup". Perhaps Bill Maher? But they are shifting out of first gear now. I'm even beginning to think Trumpism has some of the potential of Stalinism. Depends on the depth of the purge. If the Trumpists start purging the "weaklings" among themselves, that would be an exceedingly bad sign. (I had to wrestle with that "If" for a while...)
Well, well, well. Something certainly seems to have triggered someone.
Public masturbation of 25149 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Re: (Score:2)
Read that article, it is only talking about Hispanics, not minorities in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more speech is suppressed the stronger the suppressed will react. Censorship is a loser's game
Correct. Resorting to censorship is a desperate act of someone who doesn't want certain facts to come out.
The only way to properly react to hate is to rebuff it in a open debate. If your arguments hold up, you'll not lose the debate. Suppressing certain views will only make them stronger.
Re: (Score:3)