6 ms·

Similarly, Youtube is demonetizing videos with "bad words". Such as referring to "the naked eye". See here for a deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watc

by adekok 9y ago

Similarly, Youtube is demonetizing videos with "bad words". Such as referring to "the naked eye". See here for a deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRFoYr-XuY&t=306s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRFoYr-XuY&t=306s This kind of censorship is nice, until it turns into censorship of "things the company dislikes", versus "bad / illegal things." See recent vidcon for an example. Despite rules against harassment, a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee... and the organizers did nothing. This shows that power and political agendas trump peopl's alleged morality.

boobsbr 9y ago
> See recent vidcon for an example. Anita Sarkeesian and Sargon of Akkad?
- adekok 9y ago
  Yes. Or, Twitter banning people because they didn't do anything, but someone who claimed to like them did things? And as always... the "good" people engage in harassment, and they don't do anything. The "bad" people don't harass, and get banned.
distances 9y ago
> This shows that power and political agendas trump peopl's alleged morality. I'm not familiar with the incident, but I don't think it proves this. If the harassment was real, the organizers could just be incompetent/afraid of interfering/incapable of reading the situation. In which case they're perhaps not suitable for organizing, but doesn't mean it's political.
- adekok 9y ago
  It's political. The harassment was excused because the harasser was traditionally a victim, and the harassed person was a white male.
SolaceQuantum 9y ago
I’m not familiar with vidcon- can you provide a link to the incident?
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sarkeesian-garbage-human-vidcon-interview https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sa...
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    Much appreciated.
- j_s 9y ago
  https://medium.com/@VidCon/vidcon-debrief-e6bb4e187a28#5f56 https://medium.com/@VidCon/vidcon-debrief-e6bb4e187a28#5f56 I think this observation summarizes even this thread: > do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people I was looking for any attempt at a neutral-ish video of the incident but came up empty.
  - adekok 9y ago
    The video taken by the "harassers" at vidcon seems pretty clear. Were they forbidden from attending vidcon because of their alleged history of harassment of the panelists? No. Do they get kicked out of vidcon for violating the rules? No. Does the panelist violate the rules by calling them out and insulting them publicly? Yes. So... let's say Sargon and his ilk are terrible people. Shall we destroy the rule of law to "get" him? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt --- Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. --- I am disturbed by the fascination with witch-hunts. My attempts here to ask people to explain themselves have resulted in no explanations (of course). Just accusations. Well, if those people are so bad, then the rule of law should allow them to be banned and/or punished. If they're not that bad, then the rule of law should be followed. If we're not going to follow the rule of law, then why pretend to have rules? Maybe I'm weird... but none of that makes any sense to me.
zimpenfish 9y ago
> a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee... and the organizers did nothing You seem to have misplaced the context which I'm sure was unintentional - the panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee, who specifically sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers to make a point, called him a shithead. That, sir, is why the organisers did nothing - because he is a verifiable shithead and calling him such in front of an audience is not harassment in any sense of the word.
- adekok 9y ago
  > The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee ... which is, of course, not true. > sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers Who also didn't harass her. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then. The same goes for other form of communication. Were these people sending harassing messages directly to her? The answer is "maybe once or twice, but there was absolutely no pattern of harassment". I think you (and her supporters) are misconstruing criticism, and hostile criticism for outright harassment. It's not. In contrast, there is no question that her behavior violated the rules of vidcon. There is no question that the behavior of the alleged harassers did not violate the rules of vidcon, while they were at vidcon. > because he is a verifiable shithead Uh.. is THAT against the rules of vidcon? No?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Frondo 9y ago
    "... which is, of course, not true." It is true. Stop lying about this. All this stuff unfolds in public, the non-stop harassment of people like Anita Sarkeesian by people like that person she called out. There is no mystery here, no ambiguity about the wretchedness of the behaviors of the guys dogpiling on people like her.
    - 9y ago
hermenaut 9y ago
Except I don't think Vidcon is run by YouTube as much as it is run by VlogBrothers
ribosometronome 9y ago
> and the organizers did nothing. The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years to come and monopolize the front seats of that panel. You would think someone so concerned about the harassment of a key figure supporting the GamerGate movement would actually report the situation in its entirety. It's almost as all of this might not be about ethics in video game journalism after all.
- adekok 9y ago
  > The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years I've looked... is there any proof of this? - phone calls from those people to Anita - emails... - twitter messages - facebook messages... If there are, I'll be happy to label them harassers. But until then... I have this weird idea that the rule of law is more important than feelings The vidcon people (among others) have made it clear that they will violate their own rules in order to "get" the bad people. People who, according to their own rules, have done nothing wrong. Witch-hunts end up in one place, and only one place. The people who previously were accusers, on trial, for the same offenses. So again, is there any reason to believe these accusations? If not, why do you believe them? Edit Apparently asking for evidence was the wrong thing to do.
  - sintaxi 9y ago
    It wouldn't at all surprise me if Sarkeesian sends herself anonymized harassment. Its a valuable currency for the advancement of her career.
pwinnski 9y ago
It seems inconceivable that you are as well-versed in the details of this incident as you seem to be but unaware that the situation is entirely different than what you're describing. I could see someone being ignorant of the truth and believing the very surface-level description you give here, but your subsequent comments reveal a willful ignorance on your part. Censorship of nasty harassers would have been welcome in that case, and describing that nasty harassers as she did was hardly harassment, no matter how it might give one the vapors.

by adekok 9y ago

boobsbr 9y ago

> See recent vidcon for an example. Anita Sarkeesian and Sargon of Akkad?

adekok 9y ago
Yes. Or, Twitter banning people because they didn't do anything, but someone who claimed to like them did things? And as always... the "good" people engage in harassment, and they don't do anything. The "bad" people don't harass, and get banned.

distances 9y ago

> This shows that power and political agendas trump peopl's alleged morality. I'm not familiar with the incident, but I don't think it proves this. If the harassment was real, the organizers could just be incompetent/afraid of interfering/incapable of reading the situation. In which case they're perhaps not suitable for organizing, but doesn't mean it's political.

adekok 9y ago
It's political. The harassment was excused because the harasser was traditionally a victim, and the harassed person was a white male.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago

I’m not familiar with vidcon- can you provide a link to the incident?

zimpenfish 9y ago
https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sarkeesian-garbage-human-vidcon-interview https://www.polygon.com/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sa...
- SolaceQuantum 9y ago
  Much appreciated.
j_s 9y ago
https://medium.com/@VidCon/vidcon-debrief-e6bb4e187a28#5f56 https://medium.com/@VidCon/vidcon-debrief-e6bb4e187a28#5f56 I think this observation summarizes even this thread: > do not violate harassment policies, but the result is often that the vitriol of their followers ends up focused not on ideas, but on people I was looking for any attempt at a neutral-ish video of the incident but came up empty.
- adekok 9y ago
  The video taken by the "harassers" at vidcon seems pretty clear. Were they forbidden from attending vidcon because of their alleged history of harassment of the panelists? No. Do they get kicked out of vidcon for violating the rules? No. Does the panelist violate the rules by calling them out and insulting them publicly? Yes. So... let's say Sargon and his ilk are terrible people. Shall we destroy the rule of law to "get" him? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt --- Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. --- I am disturbed by the fascination with witch-hunts. My attempts here to ask people to explain themselves have resulted in no explanations (of course). Just accusations. Well, if those people are so bad, then the rule of law should allow them to be banned and/or punished. If they're not that bad, then the rule of law should be followed. If we're not going to follow the rule of law, then why pretend to have rules? Maybe I'm weird... but none of that makes any sense to me.

zimpenfish 9y ago

> a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee... and the organizers did nothing You seem to have misplaced the context which I'm sure was unintentional - the panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee, who specifically sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers to make a point, called him a shithead. That, sir, is why the organisers did nothing - because he is a verifiable shithead and calling him such in front of an audience is not harassment in any sense of the word.

adekok 9y ago
> The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee ... which is, of course, not true. > sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers Who also didn't harass her. Honestly, this isn't rocket science. If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then. The same goes for other form of communication. Were these people sending harassing messages directly to her? The answer is "maybe once or twice, but there was absolutely no pattern of harassment". I think you (and her supporters) are misconstruing criticism, and hostile criticism for outright harassment. It's not. In contrast, there is no question that her behavior violated the rules of vidcon. There is no question that the behavior of the alleged harassers did not violate the rules of vidcon, while they were at vidcon. > because he is a verifiable shithead Uh.. is THAT against the rules of vidcon? No?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Frondo 9y ago
  "... which is, of course, not true." It is true. Stop lying about this. All this stuff unfolds in public, the non-stop harassment of people like Anita Sarkeesian by people like that person she called out. There is no mystery here, no ambiguity about the wretchedness of the behaviors of the guys dogpiling on people like her.
  - 9y ago

hermenaut 9y ago

Except I don't think Vidcon is run by YouTube as much as it is run by VlogBrothers

ribosometronome 9y ago

> and the organizers did nothing. The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years to come and monopolize the front seats of that panel. You would think someone so concerned about the harassment of a key figure supporting the GamerGate movement would actually report the situation in its entirety. It's almost as all of this might not be about ethics in video game journalism after all.

adekok 9y ago
> The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years I've looked... is there any proof of this? - phone calls from those people to Anita - emails... - twitter messages - facebook messages... If there are, I'll be happy to label them harassers. But until then... I have this weird idea that the rule of law is more important than feelings The vidcon people (among others) have made it clear that they will violate their own rules in order to "get" the bad people. People who, according to their own rules, have done nothing wrong. Witch-hunts end up in one place, and only one place. The people who previously were accusers, on trial, for the same offenses. So again, is there any reason to believe these accusations? If not, why do you believe them? Edit Apparently asking for evidence was the wrong thing to do.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  It wouldn't at all surprise me if Sarkeesian sends herself anonymized harassment. Its a valuable currency for the advancement of her career.

pwinnski 9y ago

It seems inconceivable that you are as well-versed in the details of this incident as you seem to be but unaware that the situation is entirely different than what you're describing. I could see someone being ignorant of the truth and believing the very surface-level description you give here, but your subsequent comments reveal a willful ignorance on your part. Censorship of nasty harassers would have been welcome in that case, and describing that nasty harassers as she did was hardly harassment, no matter how it might give one the vapors.