Bowing To Pressure, YouTube Will Reconsider Its Harassment Policies (theverge.com) 752
YouTube will reconsider its harassment policies and may update them, the company said in a new blog post. The statement was apparently prompted by public pressure on the company after a conflict between two YouTubers: Carlos Maza, who hosts for Vox, and Stephen Crowder, a conservative media personality. From a report: In response to backlash, YouTube has convened a blue-ribbon commission and appears to be hoping everyone will stop screaming. YouTube has promised to consult journalists, experts, creators, and those who have experienced harassment as the company tries to figure out how to update its policies. Last week, Maza tweeted a very viral thread about how Crowder had targeted him for harassment, calling him -- among other epithets -- a "lispy sprite," a "little queer," and a "gay Latino from Vox." Maza's target was YouTube; he wanted to know why the company hadn't responded to the derogatory remarks Crowder made about Maza's sexuality and ethnicity, as can be seen in a supercut posted by Maza.
Last night, YouTube said Crowder's homophobic harassment didn't violate any of its policies, and that Crowder's videos would stay up. Earlier today, YouTube said that it would remove ads from Crowder's videos, a process known as "demonetization" among YouTubers. But Crowder's demonetization isn't permanent; according to YouTube, Crowder can once again make money from ads if he "addresses all of the issues with his channel."
Last night, YouTube said Crowder's homophobic harassment didn't violate any of its policies, and that Crowder's videos would stay up. Earlier today, YouTube said that it would remove ads from Crowder's videos, a process known as "demonetization" among YouTubers. But Crowder's demonetization isn't permanent; according to YouTube, Crowder can once again make money from ads if he "addresses all of the issues with his channel."
Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
All these names Maza whines about are names that he has used when referring to himself.
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're using it to be a dick then don't use it.
Except if you're using it to be a dick towards someone we don't like. In that case, there's no problem.
Re: (Score:3)
It's still a problem even if we don't like them. Aside from anything else, it's pretty lazy. Can't you even think of a better insult?
In fact insulting someone over something they can't change (e.g. race) is pretty much the ultimate concession. If you had a better criticism you would make it, but all you have is childish name calling.
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
> it's pretty lazy. Can't you even think of a better insult?
It's not about thinking of a better insult or if it's lazy. That is a subjective opinion. The point is that Maza uses those terms with no problem so why is it a problem when Crowder does it?
>In fact insulting someone over something they can't change (e.g. race)
Calling someone a "gay Mexican" isn't an insult against race. Maza repeatedly refers to himself as such. Are you saying "Mexican" is an insulting slur? Or is "gay"? Quite enlightening.
Re: (Score:3)
> it's pretty lazy. Can't you even think of a better insult?
It's not about thinking of a better insult or if it's lazy. That is a subjective opinion. The point is that Maza uses those terms with no problem so why is it a problem when Crowder does it?
>In fact insulting someone over something they can't change (e.g. race)
Calling someone a "gay Mexican" isn't an insult against race. Maza repeatedly refers to himself as such. Are you saying "Mexican" is an insulting slur? Or is "gay"? Quite enlightening.
I agree with you.
Mexican is a race? So is being from Wisconsin a race?
I don't identify humans by race, but what exact "race" is "Mexican"?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying "Mexican" is an insulting slur? Or is "gay"?
Under normal use conditions (with possible exceptions such arguably as law) words in a natural language have no meaning the persists independently of the context in which they are used. Nor is the difference in intent in which the same word is deployed to be discounted.
OTOH, while admittedly ignorant of context, I'm not sure that calling someone a "lispy sprite," a "little queer," or a "gay Latino from Vox" should attract any response beyond publi
Re: (Score:3)
That's racist.
Can you point one out please? I'm actually interested.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the definition of racism. Only allowing certain races to do something, in this case utter specific sounds from their mouths, is discrimination on basis of race.
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad you admit you are a racist bigot.
>conspiracy theories about gay people
Source plz.
> then identifying Maza as gay
Maza isn't gay? You should tell him that.
>doing little to stop the torrent of attacks and abuse that then go his way
That is a lie. He actively tells his audience to not doxx or harass anyone ever since at least GamerGate. Sounds like you are saying that isn't enough. What is good enough? Are you going to hold Maza to the same standard who did call upon his audience to attack people?
>that repeatedly bringing up Maza's sexuality has
Hmmm. Maza using the moniker "gaywonk" and who repeatedly brings up his sexuality, it's kind of hard to see why repeatedly bringing up his sexuality would matter to anyone. It obviously doesn't matter to Maza.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Being a righteous warrior for a god is one of the most dickish things ever invented.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of the point. I don't like censorship and I don't think your identity should change what words you are allowed to say or not say.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, context matters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes that is exactly what it looks like to a third party when they see someone say "I can call myself gay but you can't call me gay". Maybe over time we will have to refer to it as "the G word" in the same way we refer to "the N word", but that day is not today, and thus anyone complaining about being called gay when they call themself gay just looks silly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes that is exactly what it looks like to a third party when they see someone say "I can call myself gay but you can't call me gay". Maybe over time we will have to refer to it as "the G word" in the same way we refer to "the N word", but that day is not today, and thus anyone complaining about being called gay when they call themself gay just looks silly.
Context does matter. Just like you can describe me as CIS all day, but as soon as you use CIS as a put down you are crossing a line. You can call me gay all day, but as soon as you use gay as a put down you cross the line.
Granted, the line is VERY fuzzy and so shouldn't be used as a cudgel. The consequences of crossing that line should be light.or non-existent unless proven to be excessive and repeated. I'm pretty sure you can criticize Maza without referring to his sexuality though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok...so, you just mean NORMAL.
Geez, why do people have to make things more complex than they have to be?
Re: Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok...so, you just mean NORMAL.
Calling cis people normal is implying that trans people are abnormal.
Besides, "normal" is ambiguous. You can have normal gender identification, and still be gay, or a minority, or a furry.
I am cis, straight, and white, but nobody who knows me would call me "normal".
Re: Maza calls himself these names. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. And it turns out normal and abnormal have pretty clear definitions in biology
Sure. And in a scientific context, saying "normal" is fine.
But in a social context, using "normal" implies a value judgement.
You are yourself a good example of that. "Cis" is shorter to both say and write, and is less ambiguous. So the only reason you want to say "normal" instead is to let trans people know that you think they are "abnormal", that they don't deserve respect, and that they are not at your level.
It is no longer socially acceptable to discriminate against people because of their race, or insult people for being gay. But transgender people are still fair game. You can ridicule them, force them to use toilets that don't match their gender, and strip them of their dignity. They are the last refuge of bigotry, and you really don't want to give that up.
Re: Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
The use of "cis white male" is intentionally meant to shrink the group of "privilege" to as small as possible to remove their voice from public discourse. I'd say that's a more vicious use of language than most.
Re: Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Idiots exist, don't let them ruin your life.
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically it's the same thing where it's ok for blacks to use the "N" word when referring to themselves and other blacks but don't use that word if you belong to any other race.
No, it;s not the same, because "gay" and "Latino" are not slurs. They are simply objective descriptions. "Vox reporter" is, of course, the most vile insult imaginable, so maybe Crowder crossed the line with that one. Calling someone who is publicly "out" gay or queer is not homophobia, especially if that's part of their public persona.
This is merely the latest example of hate speech being defined as disagreement, or petty bickering. The mass migration of political commentators to Bitchute apparently caught YouTube's attention, which surprises me since it's a tiny part of their revenue stream. The 2017 adpocalypse caused a blip on there revenue radar, but that's mostly because the bits ran wild, and demonetized vast swathes of innocent content.
Makes me wonder what this backtracking is actually about. For damn sure they care not at all about free speech on their platform.
Re: (Score:3)
I discovered BitChute from another /. post. It's steadily growing as commentators get banned/demonetized on Youtube, and they make it trivially easy to mirror your youtube channel. However there's two things which seem to be stifling its growth:
1. The video resolution seems to be capped at something rather low, like 360p. Just increasing it a hair to 480p would make a world of difference.
2. There's a lot of content, but not a lot of subscribers. It's not easy to get ranked subscriber counts but for exam
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that what you meant?
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen Crowder a few times, sometimes interesting, sometimes funny, but I'm not what I would consider a fan of him. He just comes up on my things to watch suggestions at times.
But he is just using the same terms the Maza fellow from Vox uses, and it doing it with humor.
And since both are considered to be public figures at this point, I would think humor and satire is fair game, no?
Geez, in today's world, we'd never have a Richard Pryor or George Carlin.
Man...we REALLY need them now too....RIP.
I don't think calling someone a name on a YT video, rates as harassment. Harassment is something that causes you true harm, like throwing things at your house, trash on your lawn, trying to get you fired from your employer....yelling at you in meatspace with people all round, etc.
But a video that you have a choice not to watch saying something about you (as long as it isn't libelous)....is not harassment.
If you make yourself a public figure, you are open for satire, and yes, even some ridicule.
Re: (Score:3)
Geez, in today's world, we'd never have a Richard Pryor or George Carlin.
Man...we REALLY need them now too....RIP.
Comedians are practically falling over one another to talk about how PC culture is ruining comedy. But if they really believed that, they'd have come out in support of Kathy Griffin, and only a couple of them did that in a timely fashion.
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kathy Griffin... The problem with her Trump severed head is that it wasn't a punchline. It wasn't funny. And it's entirely plausible that Kathy Griffin would be happy to see Trump decapitated. A roast is funny if it is done by your friends. It's not comedy if your enemies are performing it...
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, something that is similar in tone, mood, and demeanor to an ISIS execution video isn't funny... All it needed was the ISIS theme song and I am sure people would be laughing.
Color me shocked.
Re: (Score:3)
The correct answer is "I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole".
What? 10 Foot? You freaking METRIST! Call it how it wants to be called: 3.048m pole, you hater...
Re:There is a difference, dumbfuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of the Rwandan Genocide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or in more historic terms slavery and it's history in Egypt?
I am pretty sure I understand your point and even mostly agree with you , but you really undermine yourself when you don't get the facts correct.
There are MANY cases of blacks being 'racist' against other blacks. As a matter of history most of the slaves sold in the United states were blacks captured by other blacks and then sold to slave traders. There are plenty of cases of Europeans being 'racist' against other Europeans . ' french against English' ' french against Spanish' , etc. The ability to have a racist attitude has nothing to do with skin color.
You will also notice I quoted the 'race' because it is a term that was pretty much invented as a way for Europeans to justify savory, most other 'group hatred' tied to characteristics of a group is generally more political.
Honestly anyone who thinks they are better then someone else because they have a different amount of brown pigment in there skin is working on a certain level of unreality. The more meaningful things that separate people are things like , culture and values, which are usually associated with 'race', but can have a great deal of overlap.
I personally believe it is relatively easy to learn to enjoy and except other cultures.
On the other hand , i think most people have more difficulty accepting a moral standard different from their own. Probably because each assignment of moral value has consequences for the group and disagreement is generally impassable.
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:4, Insightful)
1984 comes....
When "speech" becomes governed by a list of words which are not acceptable to utter, have we not departed from freedom? Yep. IF the list of words varies based on your race or political positions, is that fair? Nope... The problem here is U-Tube isn't being honest or consistent about their criteria of what's acceptable content and what's not. They are not being fair or following an objective set of content rules. Remember "Diamond and Silk" and their issue? Crowder is generally the same vein, albeit a bit more edgy. It sure seems there is some political bias here... HOWEVER....
I don't care what U-Tube considers acceptable on their platform and what's not. They can make decisions based on their political or religious beliefs if they like. My ONLY request is that that their criteria be objective, published and applied fairly across their platform. Just be honest, clear and consistent as you can about what you allow and what you don't and I'm fine with what ever you want to do on your platform.
Re:Maza calls himself these names. (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that U-Tube (and others) are enjoying a legal status that precludes them from being legally responsible for the *content* of what they have on their platform. The legal responsibility in this case falls on whomever posted the material. You cannot sue U-Tube for defamation.
Seems only fair to me that U-Tube would then need to have well known objective rules which are evenly applied. Once they start down the subjective editing of what they do and don't allow, they are doing the same thing as a Newspaper editorial staff. IF they want to act like a newspaper, they need to be treated like one, and you CAN sue a newspaper for defamation.
An extremely difficult issue (Score:2)
How do you draw the line between free speech and harassment? Especially, how do you address the issue when there are millions of videos that potentially need to be evaluated for inappropriate content. YouTube is faced with an impossible situation. If they crack down further on extremist content, the accusations of bias against conservative views is just going to get more vocal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty simple really. If it's a liberal then it's fine, but if it's a right-winger it's not.
Re:An extremely difficult issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously???
When is the last time you saw or heard of a liberal channel being banned, demonetized or even scolded with a slap on the hand?
Hell, they get away with much more egregious stuff than what this Crowder guy was saying...MUCH more.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If it's a liberal, the liberal will usually be banned. If it's the conservative, the conservative will be demonetized. That's the main difference.
That sure explains why there are so many liberal and progressives openly posting what would be defined as "hate speech" and engage in active doxing and don't even get a slap on the wrist over it.
(Reposted due to moderation abuse):
Maybe it's not moderation abuse. Maybe your opinions and views are so out of touch with the mainstream. Maybe you're so isolated in your own social and political bubble that you really don't know what's going on. I mean you can always start screeching like another well known progressive on here, that when you're b
Re:An extremely difficult issue (Score:5, Informative)
How do you draw the line between free speech and harassment?
YouTube solves that by not drawing a line. They use a bunch of fuzzy feelings that they can't explain, giving them the flexibility to judge a channel as they see fit.
From the summary:
Crowder can once again make money from ads if he "addresses all of the issues with his channel."
Some of the issues are from videos he made in 2015, and this is the first time they are complaining about it. This isn't realistic. YouTube is not willing or able to give Crowder a list of rules that he should follow, or even list all the videos that are in violation.
Re:An extremely difficult issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? He could just delete them
He is not being given a comprehensive list.
If he really wants to he could go back and edit them.
How can he edit out the offensive parts, if YouTube doesn't tell him what they are ?
Why shouldn't a service be able to change it's rules over time?
Sure, but not on a whim, inconsistently, without warning or explanation, or without a grace period. If a video has been up for 3-4 years, and was always considered acceptable, it can't be that bad that it needs to be removed this very instant. Why not give content creators a reasonable amount of time, and a clear list of offending videos + timestamp + rule # violation.
Re: (Score:3)
Crowder has a comprehensive list. In fact YouTube highlights the exact parts of any video that have issues with content or copyright for you.
Having said that, the only request YouTube has actually made a condition of re-monetizing his channel is that he deletes the link in he description to his shop selling "socialism is for fags" t-shirts.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the T-Shirt in question said: "Socialism is for Figs"....not fags, figs.
Ironically it also has a picture of Che Guevara, who we know from history was absolutely NO friend to homosexuals, to put it mildly.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we're already seeing this.
The removal of all the old civil war statues, that's part of it.
They won't show many old classic cartoons on TV anymore (and I'm not even talking about the one
Re: (Score:3)
The removal of all the old civil war statues, that's part of it.
They're not old. Most of them were put in downright recently, as a way of romanticising slavery, just like "in god we trust" was put on our money as part of a cynical attempt to convince people that America is a christian nation, as if god would have anything to do with such a pack of greedy fucks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you draw the line between free speech and harassment, like what the fuck is going on, have people suddenly turned stupid or do they truly believe Google is above the law and can define it for the rest of us. FUCK GOOGLE, how do you draw the law, in fucking court, that is how you draw the line. If the act is not sufficient to warrant a court case, that Google should shut the fuck up and not think Google==GOD and can tell us all how to behave beyond the requirements of law.
Has everyone gone stupid, te
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Has everyone gone stupid, tell Google to go fuck itself and stick to the law
The law says that Google can deplatform anyone they want, because it's their platform.
I personally think that they ought to be regulated since they have a dominant market position that has a chilling effect on other video sites, but they are operating within the law as written. The DoJ could conceivably force them to operate differently, and Google is being considered for antitrust action right now, but it hasn't happened yet.
TL;DR: Google is operating within the law, as you insist, right now.
Re:An extremely difficult issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I have bad news for you. If Google is regulated it won't be to ensure they don't boot people like Crowder off their service. Politicians are far, far worse when it comes to misguided attempts to uphold moral values.
There are practical issues too. Say the legislation forces Google to keep these videos up, are they also going to force advertisers to buy YouTube ads even if they appear along side them? What is the criteria for being forced to buy a YouTube ad? Or would tax money be used to cover the lost ad revenue, or even just to fund the servers that deliver the video?
And what about search results and the recommendation algorithm? And when they nerf that, what happens when people leave the platform in droves and some other site becomes popular and suddenly all the extremists want to be on there instead?
Re:An extremely difficult issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod this up. Google could simply say, "If you want someone taken down, go get a court order."
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the law basically says that it's Google's servers and they will host whatever they damn well please, so... what again was your argument?
Re: (Score:2)
I know how my mother handled it.
"I don't care who started it. I'm going to finish it."
Show of hands from all those that heard this and stopped arguing.
In this case, YouTube would kick Crowder off for being insufficiently woke, and Maza off for being a whiny little bitch. (He was making a joke at your expense, Maza. Grow a pair, already.)
Re: (Score:3)
demanding that a private company monetize your free speech for you?
The real issue is that the rules aren't clear or constant, and there's very little opportunity to get an explanation. You can spend a couple of years making a decent living off of YouTube videos, and then suddenly get a notification that your entire channel no longer is acceptable for monitization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if I was YouTube I wouldn't do it any other way. As soon as you put down rules, people start looking for loopholes. Sorry, no. "Don't be an asshole" is enough of a rule.
Re: (Score:3)
No. That's too one-sided. Fidonet got it right -
1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's just the marketplace of ideas. We won, you lost, so get over it, cupcake.
Did you know that Apple Inc doesn't actually sell apples, even though "Apple" is literally in the name?
Did you know that Masterpiece Cakeshop doesn't actually have to sell cakes to people that they don't want to even though "cakeshop" is literally in the n
Re: (Score:2)
They did start their own sites, then they got "de-banked". You should pay attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Debanking is when a government pressures the financial industry to not do business with the targeted group. Those who are proponents of it claim it doesn't violate anyone's civil rights because corporations are not bound by the first amendment (except when the courts randomly decide they are, or when a protected class is involved) and the corporation is "voluntarily" choosing not to do business with said party.
That is, of course, bullshit, and if the shoe were on the other foot, the same people supporting i
Re:An extremely difficult issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom to be a dick is why we have freedom of speech declared in the Constitution. Why would we ever have a need to declare that "amiable conversation" needs to be protected? If you take a long look in the mirror, you might discover an authoritarian.
Re: (Score:3)
So, by your own logic, given that I find your lack of understanding of what free speech means and why it is important, and find your use of vulgarity offensive, I am not responsible for doing you physical harm?
Your position is not tenable, and is actually self contradictory, not to mention destructive to a free society.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's usually what people get told when they complain about underhanded practices of corporations. Go and make your own, nobody stops you!
What's good for the goose...
Hmm, wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Sprite isn't particularly negative, and lispy is descriptive. Little queer might be an insult. Gay Latino from Vox sounds descriptive. Is that a teapot? It appears to contain a tempest.
Re:Hmm, wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially when Maza's twitter handle is "gaywonk".
Re: (Score:2)
geez, we better notify the "queer eye for the straight guy" gay fellers that they're slurring themselves
Re:Hmm, wait (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For some reason the summary doesn't list the worst stuff. It's not just individual insults though, as Maza makes clear. It's the pattern of behaviour over a very long period of time.
Last he someone doxed him, and he got hundreds of texts telling him to debate Crowder. Every time Crowder attacks him in a video, reminding his mob that Maza is gay and Latino, he gets more abuse.
YouTube has so far demonetized Crowder's channel until he removes links to a personal shop selling a t-shirt that says "socialism is f
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason the summary doesn't list the worst stuff.
pssssst "Slashdot"
Last he someone doxed him,
Did Crowder dox him? That would be offensive.
and he got hundreds of texts telling him to debate Crowder.
Did Crowder instigate the texting?
YouTube has so far demonetized Crowder's channel until he removes links to a personal shop selling a t-shirt that says "socialism is for fags".
That's their right, I guess, but it seems pretty anti-free-speech. I'm not sure they should be allowed to be that restrictive given their position in the market.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube has so far demonetized Crowder's channel until he removes links to a personal shop selling a t-shirt that says "socialism is for fags".
It says f*gs, with a little fig leaf instead of *
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the shirt. It does not say what you think it says. I am sorry if your mind is so homophobic you associate the image and the text with 'fags'. Perhaps you need a few more rounds of Social Justice Warrior brainwashing...
Che is depicted with a stereotypically limp wrist, making it clear what the word is meant to be in spite of the admittedly clever use as a fig leaf to denote elision in place of an asterisk. Anyone with even a modicum of familiarity with western culture can make the connection, which leads me to believe that you are trolling, since I don't think even you could possibly be that ignorant.
Re:Hmm, wait (Score:4, Informative)
Why Is It Always Conservatives... (Score:3, Insightful)
... that get banned and demonitized?
It's not as if the left isn't pretty "edgy" - yet almost never do they get held annually accountable by the owners of the town square... I mean, the common carrier... I mean the curated platforms.
Re:Why Is It Always Conservatives... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that get banned and demonitized?
It's not as if the left isn't pretty "edgy" - yet almost never do they get held annually accountable by the owners of the town square... I mean, the common carrier... I mean the curated platforms.
Why, because they are so wrong! Isn't it obvious? ;)
The Left owns the town square now ... so their views on free speech have, uh, slightly adjusted.
If we can't find an enemy we make one up. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have seen so much hate on boards and You Tube because it seems like people are trying to find the group of people who is responsible for the problems in their lives.
They are people who happened to be born with different traits, grew up in different cultures, have faced influences that are unique, which gives them a particular view of the world.
While people have the right to their opinions, people need to make sure they are not just being cruel with their opinions. Unfortunately we need the sites that publish such opinions to have a method of moderating them. Yes this could be considered censoring, but for a lot of this stuff posted there is a clear line between just hateful talk vs discussing a controversial subject, or just having an unpopular opinion.
Re:If we can't find an enemy we make one up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with your opinion + I am shaking because of it.
It is absolute hate speech to me.
Your comment should be removed, and you should be banned.
Re:If we can't find an enemy we make one up. (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with your opinion + I am shaking because of it.
Try a Xanax.
I'm sure you're trolling, so congrats on a nice one. But I'll PSA anyway, Anyone who finds themselves angry to shaking because of something they read online is only harming themselves. Learn to be cool, kids. Then you can make decisions based on intellect instead of glands.
Re:If we can't find an enemy we make one up. (Score:5, Insightful)
So Chinese model of "harmonious society" that must "consider the feelings of the people".
I have only one question. How long does your model take to devolve into "retraining facilities" for Uighurs/people to the right of Stalin?
I am not going to use the word "gulag", because that word is obviously going to be banned shortly because we can't have people remember the inconvenient events to The Ideology. No Tank Man here. Move along.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Stirring up hatred has always been an easy tactic. Groups are the most common target because they are easy to identify and dehumanize.
Re: (Score:2)
Groups are the most common target because they are easy to identify and dehumanize
As demonstrated here:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic – Islamophobic – you name it.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, people could, you know, GROW THE FUCK UP!!
Someone made fun of you or called you names. Why did you not learn how insignificant that is in grade school like everybody else?
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
But Samantha Bee calling Ivanka Trump a feckless cunt is totally cool... Youtube seems to only ban and demonetize in one direction.
Re: (Score:3)
There's really no reason to perceive an insult, directed at an individual, as being somehow also applied to all instances of wh
Re: (Score:3)
Did Bee do it repeatedly over a long period of time, resulting in her fans doxing and repeatedly attacking Ivanka Trump?
What do the YouTube Terms say about "long periods", and stupid actions of "fans" ?
Re: (Score:3)
What do the YouTube Terms say about "long periods", and stupid actions of "fans" ?
Fuck-all. The YouTube ToS is left intentionally vague so as to give Google wiggle room on what they do or don't take down. However, that is utterly, totally, and in all other ways completely orthogonal to the point, which is what is or is not antisocial behavior. Google is running a social video-sharing site, and antisocial actions threaten its well-being, so they essentially have to remove antisocial users from their service if they want it to continue to function. Insulting a highly public figure and memb
Carlos Maza works for Vox which owns The Verge (Score:5, Informative)
This is hardly what I'd consider an objective outlet to use to describe what's happening.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube a platform where you can't argue (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a conservative. (Score:2, Interesting)
Stephen Crowder is not a conservative media personality, he's a conspiracy theorist and an asshole. The whole reason he doesn't like Carlos Maza is because Carlos debunks Stephen's bullshit claims.
Conservatism is getting a really bad name from all these assholes claiming they are conservative when they don't even believe in the basics of conservatism.
Re: (Score:2)
He calls himself a libertarian.
Re: (Score:3)
It's turned
Re:Not a conservative. (Score:4, Insightful)
Stephen Crowder is not a conservative media personality, he's a conspiracy theorist and an asshole. The whole reason he doesn't like Carlos Maza is because Carlos debunks Stephen's bullshit claims.
Conservatism is getting a really bad name from all these assholes claiming they are conservative when they don't even believe in the basics of conservatism.
Then let everyone watch his videos and see what an asshole he is.
Why be so afraid of him?
Re:Not a conservative. (Score:4, Interesting)
One sided description.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One sided description.. (Score:5, Informative)
https://twitter.com/gaywonk/st... [twitter.com]
But I'm sure you will explain that one away.
PBR for all! (Score:3)
Again, gotta love internet libertarians. (Score:4, Funny)
Still enjoying watching people twist themselves into knots trying to justify saying that YouTube/Twitter/etc owe them a platform while also being pro-corporate/pro-capitalist shills. Free Speech amendment misreadings are pretty fun too.
That being said it's expected YouTube/Google behavior to come up with a solution that pisses literally everyone off and makes no one happy. They're extremely good at doing this.
There's always Bitchute, right?
Re:SJW cannot win (Score:4, Insightful)
SJW's can't win (Score:3)
I agree with your final comment though, but would apply it to the anti-SJW crowd. You guys number in the millions based on YouTube subscription #s and you've got heavy backing from Koch Bros funded right wing think tanks (look up where your Buddy Ben Shapiro gets his mone