6 ms·

YouTube Cancels PewDiePie Show, Pulls Channel After ‘Death to All Jews’ Stunt

43 points by smaili 10y ago

senior_james 10y ago
The stunt wasn't actually anti-sematic. It was just trying to show how ridiculous the world has come to where you can pay a guy on Fiverr $5 to do pretty much anything (while it was in poor taste). To me, it just shows me how ridiculous our politically correct world has come to. If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies without getting fired from my job or having my life ruined, then I guess I will say that they never happened. Anything I'm not allowed to talk about eventually gets silenced. If someone asks, we should just say it never happened.
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? I don't understand the word "actually", is it to clarify that he only holds artistic feelings relating to this content he made? I don't see how his post-mortem intent negates the actuality, which is that people took offense to the poor taste, as you've noted, of the stunt. The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - senior_james 10y ago
    "Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? " Yes. it's like saying someone is racist for having a picture of a racist sign in an article about racism in America. Context is everything and removing it to intentionally discredit someone and destroy their livelihood reminds me of actual Hitler tactics. The self-proclaimed 'anti-fascists' are the actual fascists. "The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention." This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Sure, they aren't violating any laws. But we are creating an extremely divisive culture where opposing viewpoints can't be expressed without fear of reprisal and the result is violence. A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice. Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish. So hypocritical.
    - sdflkd 10y ago
      > This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? > Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? If they can give a good reason like it influencing public perception and damaging business, then yes.
      - xchaotic 10y ago
        First of all that might be illegal - for example firing a pregnant person (because you are a 'conservative' and think that there shouldn't be a maternity leave). But in Pew's case it's hard to judge what's the worse PR - his unfunny videos or Google letting him go (for him having a different opinion)
      - bmelton 10y ago
        At a federal level, they wouldn't need to provide a good reason. Political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore has no protections against at-will termination. This may vary state by state, depending on what their laws are.
    - John23832 10y ago
      Nobody has to like your opinion, nor do they have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. Your argument puts the onus on the person being offended to change their stance and accept offense. The system works when either side can choose to associate with the other only if the y want to.
    - alextheparrot 10y ago
      I'd like to ask you to refrain from calling me (and others like or against me) a hypocrite without understanding my viewpoints, nor making any attempt to.
    - zaccus 10y ago
      >Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company? >Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump? >I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
- shepardrtc 10y ago
  Why not use something like, "Death to all puppies" or "Death to all kittens"? That's a ridiculous thing to have someone hold up. The statement he chose was not ridiculous. > If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.
  - tscs37 10y ago
    You've left out a lot of context there.
    - John23832 10y ago
      No, he/she didn't. They addressed the above comment. If the Pie's point was to show they you can pay people to do dumb things there are other ways to do that without being blatantly offensive. >>> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies >> The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement. ^ This response is spot on.
      - tscs37 10y ago
        Except the last part, which as I said, is missing a lot of context. Hate is Content times Context. If there is no Context then there is therefore no Hate. A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.
        John23832 10y ago
        That's absurd. If you want your statements, whether in text or verbal, to be taken in the correct context, it is up to you as the originator of those statements to provide and ensure the context. If you don't you're at the whim of other people when they do. If you can't ensure that you can adequately provide that context, you shouldn't give that statement. Nobody exists in anyone else's head. Make definitive, thoughtful statements instead of juvenile ones aimed for shock value and this doesn't happen. Pewdiepie went for the shock value and the views, and it contractually bit him in the ass. > A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can. Do you really feel that people don't understand that words and text are not sentient beings? Sure, words cannot actively hate, but they can be hateful.
- x0x0 10y ago
  Hysterical nonsense about political correctness (hahaha jew jokes... Wait guys, why aren't you laughing?) aside, live by the advertising, die by the advertising. Brand advertisers do not want to appear within a mile of people making jew jokes. If your living is through advertising, you better figure that out with a quickness. protip: maybe don't crack jokes about jews or black people, then whine that they seemed not to find it funny. Also, fyi, freedom of speech doesn't equal people have to have the reactions to my or others' speech that I prefer.
- aanm1988 10y ago
  and out of all the ridiculous things that could have been done he paid for them to hold up a "death to all jews sign". How is that not anti-semitic?
conrs 10y ago
[]
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I love Milo not because of who he is, but because he pokes the bear that is social convention. His message is almost entirely abhorrent, but he has his right to do so in a free society. Checks and balances.
  - spacemanmatt 10y ago
    He has the right in the U.S.A. and it's only due him from the government. Citizens owe him exactly squat. I want him to need ACLU protection and I trust them to protect only the rights we all deserve. He doesn't have that right in other places. He would be a non-citizen elsewhere, subject to foreigner's rights, except where foreigners get the same rights as citizens. Which is nowhere in the 1st world.
345218435 10y ago
what to learn from this? unpopular speech needs protection. google is a private company making money from popular speech. private companies don't care about free speech.
- John23832 10y ago
  Unpopular speech does not need any more protection. It's already afforded the same protections as popular speech.
- gdulli 10y ago
  He's still on Youtube, he can continue to speak. Google only ended a partnership with him and is no longer going out of their way to promote him. Google doesn't have an obligation to tie their brand to one that's engaging in unpopular speech, as that would defeat the purpose of a promotional relationship.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  Having commercial partnerships with YouTube is not a constitutional right; they have no obligation to keep working with anyone.
  - orionblastar 10y ago
    Youtube made a business decision not to support someone that does not fit into their corporate culture. The jokes were done in poor taste, and it made bad PR for Youtube/Google.
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  Google owes a fiduciary responsibility to its investors. Maintaining relations with a fool like that is bad for business, and could expose them to shareholder suit. There is even more than speech, not that Google wields coercive power to prevent speech in the first place.
- yladiz 10y ago
  So an employee who makes offensive, unpopular speech or content should be protected from his bosses firing him, especially when he represents the company? Like it or not, Pewdiepie represents Youtube in a large way and the things he says represents, in many respects, how others see Youtube. Is it an overreaction from Youtube and Maker? Maybe, there are arguments that support it. But it is their right to essentially fire him (his show was canceled, he was removed from his network, and he can't use the same advertisements as some other content creators can) if they don't like his speech (as long as the contract allows it). Just because he's allowed to say whatever he wants and justifies it as a joke doesn't mean he doesn't have consequences for those actions, and I strongly think that he chose to use Nazi and anti-Semetical symbolism for the shock value when he could have conveyed the same message with something less offensive.
popobobo 10y ago
What is interesting here is that Jewish are the selected race to be protected on youtube. Some other ones don't qualify. Youtube is so old testament.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
moomin 10y ago
sigh White guy thinks it's edgy and eye-catching to emulate racism, gets surprised when he gets treated like an offensive racist. Someone will be more than happy to split hairs about the exact nature of the offensive actions here, and will carefully explain that it's not racist, it's opportunistic self-promotion employing racism. Sponsors don't care, most of the general public don't care and, most importantly, victims of racism don't care about a distinction that has precious little practical difference.
- snow_god 10y ago
  PewDiePie made a video in December lampooning how he's represented in the media (with a nazi uniform watching a Hitler speech). WSJ used that joke segment without context as evidence that he's anti-semitic. That's not an argument about what's racist, it's a complete and total lie. It's no different than me pulling a clip of Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump on SNL, and saying "Alec Baldwin is a lunatic, and for some reason thinks he's the President."
- clickbait 10y ago
  I don't understand how it's relevant that he's white or a guy; people that aren't white or male cannot be racist? Kinda ironic considering your comment is about racism.
  - moomin 10y ago
    Well, for one thing you need to understand the difference between racist prejudice and racism. It's quite important. As for the rest, sure there's black people who are anti-Semitic, but I've never seen one using anti-Semitism "ironically" as a form of self-promotion. This "Look at me, I'm so edgy" behaviour really does seem to be restricted to white people. (At least in the West.) Want to talk actual racism? Take a look at the habit the press have of giving white people like Ryan Lochte the benefit of the doubt, whilst not extending the same privilege to black lawbreakers like Eric Holder.
    - clickbait 10y ago
michaelbuddy 10y ago
He should have experimented with signs that said "Death to all Christians" and "Death to All Muslims" "Death to all whites" "Death to all blacks" and see which one would have gathered the most hostility or backlash. When you've said every curse word under the sun, what's left in edginess but to make jokes about the protected classes of society. Nobody on here seems to be coming to Pewdiepie's defense even though, it's quite easy to compare his jokes here to the ones made by Sarah Silverman Jim Jefferies Louis CK, etc etc. And if Disney would have cancelled a Louis CK show because of a tasteless Jew joke (which he's done many) my bet is we'd see more people come to his defense on here. Comedy is the delivery and recognition of the absurd. Jokes work best when the audience knows that the comedian says something they would never do that brings a shock.
flukus 10y ago
The biggest danger here is that's it's now becoming impossible to satirize Nazism, lest someone get offended. Satire is probably the most powerful weapon against it. And why is no one worried about the racism inherent in Judaism, God's chosen people, etc? This is a message we force on kids.
tdkl 10y ago
Thanks YouTube for making the Internet a safespace, because censorship is the best choice of dealing with opinions. Luckily your ministry of truth tactics are backclashing already.

43 points by smaili 10y ago

The stunt wasn't actually anti-sematic. It was just trying to show how ridiculous the world has come to where you can pay a guy on Fiverr $5 to do pretty much anything (while it was in poor taste). To me, it just shows me how ridiculous our politically correct world has come to. If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies without getting fired from my job or having my life ruined, then I guess I will say that they never happened. Anything I'm not allowed to talk about eventually gets silenced. If someone asks, we should just say it never happened.

alextheparrot 10y ago
Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? I don't understand the word "actually", is it to clarify that he only holds artistic feelings relating to this content he made? I don't see how his post-mortem intent negates the actuality, which is that people took offense to the poor taste, as you've noted, of the stunt. The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- senior_james 10y ago
  "Can you reframe your first sentence based on the fact that a sign with "Death to All Jews" was used? " Yes. it's like saying someone is racist for having a picture of a racist sign in an article about racism in America. Context is everything and removing it to intentionally discredit someone and destroy their livelihood reminds me of actual Hitler tactics. The self-proclaimed 'anti-fascists' are the actual fascists. "The companies have no obligation (Aside from contractual) to work with him. He made content that they deemed to be bad enough to end their relationship, that's on him, no matter the intention." This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Sure, they aren't violating any laws. But we are creating an extremely divisive culture where opposing viewpoints can't be expressed without fear of reprisal and the result is violence. A few years back, I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. There were so many people (including here on HN) claiming that companies have no rights and they shouldn't even be given the choice. Now that it supports your political opinion, companies have the right to not do business with anyone they wish. So hypocritical.
  - sdflkd 10y ago
    > This is a dangerous path as well. Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? > Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? If they can give a good reason like it influencing public perception and damaging business, then yes.
    - xchaotic 10y ago
      First of all that might be illegal - for example firing a pregnant person (because you are a 'conservative' and think that there shouldn't be a maternity leave). But in Pew's case it's hard to judge what's the worse PR - his unfunny videos or Google letting him go (for him having a different opinion)
    - bmelton 10y ago
      At a federal level, they wouldn't need to provide a good reason. Political affiliation is not a protected class, and therefore has no protections against at-will termination. This may vary state by state, depending on what their laws are.
  - John23832 10y ago
    Nobody has to like your opinion, nor do they have to associate with you if they don't like your opinion. Your argument puts the onus on the person being offended to change their stance and accept offense. The system works when either side can choose to associate with the other only if the y want to.
  - alextheparrot 10y ago
    I'd like to ask you to refrain from calling me (and others like or against me) a hypocrite without understanding my viewpoints, nor making any attempt to.
  - zaccus 10y ago
    >Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion? Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company? >Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary? Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump? >I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans. By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
shepardrtc 10y ago
Why not use something like, "Death to all puppies" or "Death to all kittens"? That's a ridiculous thing to have someone hold up. The statement he chose was not ridiculous. > If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement.
- tscs37 10y ago
  You've left out a lot of context there.
  - John23832 10y ago
    No, he/she didn't. They addressed the above comment. If the Pie's point was to show they you can pay people to do dumb things there are other ways to do that without being blatantly offensive. >>> If I'm not allowed to talk about tragedies >> The sign didn't say, "The Holocaust was bad". The sign said, "Death to all Jews". That's not a tragedy, that's a hateful statement. ^ This response is spot on.
    - tscs37 10y ago
      Except the last part, which as I said, is missing a lot of context. Hate is Content times Context. If there is no Context then there is therefore no Hate. A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can.
      - John23832 10y ago
        That's absurd. If you want your statements, whether in text or verbal, to be taken in the correct context, it is up to you as the originator of those statements to provide and ensure the context. If you don't you're at the whim of other people when they do. If you can't ensure that you can adequately provide that context, you shouldn't give that statement. Nobody exists in anyone else's head. Make definitive, thoughtful statements instead of juvenile ones aimed for shock value and this doesn't happen. Pewdiepie went for the shock value and the views, and it contractually bit him in the ass. > A mere text is not a hateful statement, text has no intentions or feelings, it cannot hate. The person writing the text or creating the text can. Do you really feel that people don't understand that words and text are not sentient beings? Sure, words cannot actively hate, but they can be hateful.
x0x0 10y ago
Hysterical nonsense about political correctness (hahaha jew jokes... Wait guys, why aren't you laughing?) aside, live by the advertising, die by the advertising. Brand advertisers do not want to appear within a mile of people making jew jokes. If your living is through advertising, you better figure that out with a quickness. protip: maybe don't crack jokes about jews or black people, then whine that they seemed not to find it funny. Also, fyi, freedom of speech doesn't equal people have to have the reactions to my or others' speech that I prefer.
aanm1988 10y ago
and out of all the ridiculous things that could have been done he paid for them to hold up a "death to all jews sign". How is that not anti-semitic?

conrs 10y ago

[]

toomuchtodo 10y ago
I love Milo not because of who he is, but because he pokes the bear that is social convention. His message is almost entirely abhorrent, but he has his right to do so in a free society. Checks and balances.
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  He has the right in the U.S.A. and it's only due him from the government. Citizens owe him exactly squat. I want him to need ACLU protection and I trust them to protect only the rights we all deserve. He doesn't have that right in other places. He would be a non-citizen elsewhere, subject to foreigner's rights, except where foreigners get the same rights as citizens. Which is nowhere in the 1st world.

345218435 10y ago

what to learn from this? unpopular speech needs protection. google is a private company making money from popular speech. private companies don't care about free speech.

John23832 10y ago
Unpopular speech does not need any more protection. It's already afforded the same protections as popular speech.
gdulli 10y ago
He's still on Youtube, he can continue to speak. Google only ended a partnership with him and is no longer going out of their way to promote him. Google doesn't have an obligation to tie their brand to one that's engaging in unpopular speech, as that would defeat the purpose of a promotional relationship.
Analemma_ 10y ago
Having commercial partnerships with YouTube is not a constitutional right; they have no obligation to keep working with anyone.
- orionblastar 10y ago
  Youtube made a business decision not to support someone that does not fit into their corporate culture. The jokes were done in poor taste, and it made bad PR for Youtube/Google.
spacemanmatt 10y ago
Google owes a fiduciary responsibility to its investors. Maintaining relations with a fool like that is bad for business, and could expose them to shareholder suit. There is even more than speech, not that Google wields coercive power to prevent speech in the first place.
yladiz 10y ago
So an employee who makes offensive, unpopular speech or content should be protected from his bosses firing him, especially when he represents the company? Like it or not, Pewdiepie represents Youtube in a large way and the things he says represents, in many respects, how others see Youtube. Is it an overreaction from Youtube and Maker? Maybe, there are arguments that support it. But it is their right to essentially fire him (his show was canceled, he was removed from his network, and he can't use the same advertisements as some other content creators can) if they don't like his speech (as long as the contract allows it). Just because he's allowed to say whatever he wants and justifies it as a joke doesn't mean he doesn't have consequences for those actions, and I strongly think that he chose to use Nazi and anti-Semetical symbolism for the shock value when he could have conveyed the same message with something less offensive.

popobobo 10y ago

What is interesting here is that Jewish are the selected race to be protected on youtube. Some other ones don't qualify. Youtube is so old testament.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

moomin 10y ago

sigh White guy thinks it's edgy and eye-catching to emulate racism, gets surprised when he gets treated like an offensive racist. Someone will be more than happy to split hairs about the exact nature of the offensive actions here, and will carefully explain that it's not racist, it's opportunistic self-promotion employing racism. Sponsors don't care, most of the general public don't care and, most importantly, victims of racism don't care about a distinction that has precious little practical difference.

snow_god 10y ago
PewDiePie made a video in December lampooning how he's represented in the media (with a nazi uniform watching a Hitler speech). WSJ used that joke segment without context as evidence that he's anti-semitic. That's not an argument about what's racist, it's a complete and total lie. It's no different than me pulling a clip of Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump on SNL, and saying "Alec Baldwin is a lunatic, and for some reason thinks he's the President."
clickbait 10y ago
I don't understand how it's relevant that he's white or a guy; people that aren't white or male cannot be racist? Kinda ironic considering your comment is about racism.
- moomin 10y ago
  Well, for one thing you need to understand the difference between racist prejudice and racism. It's quite important. As for the rest, sure there's black people who are anti-Semitic, but I've never seen one using anti-Semitism "ironically" as a form of self-promotion. This "Look at me, I'm so edgy" behaviour really does seem to be restricted to white people. (At least in the West.) Want to talk actual racism? Take a look at the habit the press have of giving white people like Ryan Lochte the benefit of the doubt, whilst not extending the same privilege to black lawbreakers like Eric Holder.
  - clickbait 10y ago

michaelbuddy 10y ago

He should have experimented with signs that said "Death to all Christians" and "Death to All Muslims" "Death to all whites" "Death to all blacks" and see which one would have gathered the most hostility or backlash. When you've said every curse word under the sun, what's left in edginess but to make jokes about the protected classes of society. Nobody on here seems to be coming to Pewdiepie's defense even though, it's quite easy to compare his jokes here to the ones made by Sarah Silverman Jim Jefferies Louis CK, etc etc. And if Disney would have cancelled a Louis CK show because of a tasteless Jew joke (which he's done many) my bet is we'd see more people come to his defense on here. Comedy is the delivery and recognition of the absurd. Jokes work best when the audience knows that the comedian says something they would never do that brings a shock.

flukus 10y ago

The biggest danger here is that's it's now becoming impossible to satirize Nazism, lest someone get offended. Satire is probably the most powerful weapon against it. And why is no one worried about the racism inherent in Judaism, God's chosen people, etc? This is a message we force on kids.

tdkl 10y ago

Thanks YouTube for making the Internet a safespace, because censorship is the best choice of dealing with opinions. Luckily your ministry of truth tactics are backclashing already.