5 ms·
Besides the forest video, he was incredibly disrespectful with Japanese people in the other videos. That alone should be a reason to ban him. [Edit: By disresp
by hugozap 9y ago
Besides the forest video, he was incredibly disrespectful with Japanese people in the other videos. That alone should be a reason to ban him.
[Edit: By disrespectful I mean actually harassing people (at least in the Japan videos). That's a valid cause for banning in most communities]
- jackvalentine 9y agoShould it?
- smt88 9y agoFrom speaking and publishing his videos? No. From participating in a private online community that doesn't want people peeing in the pool? Sure. Harm done to Paul in exchange for others' benefit. Seems like an easy choice.
- ssyphon 9y agoYes.
- threeseed 9y agoYes it absolutely should. His behaviour was unconscionable, immoral, illegal and sets a terrible example for the young kids who largely make up his audience. By allowing this content YouTube is defacto endorsing it which then encourages others to follow in his footsteps. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- DennisAleynikov 9y agoYou literally dont have to watch his content. why do people jump to bans to try and shut up poplar idiots. same goes for the most popular of idiots, Trump. I see frothing at the mouth when people mention banning him from twitter! whats the point???
- Jack000 9y agobecause the money and views directly enable this negative behaviour? These people are free to be assholes all they want, but they shouldn't be funded by youtube.
- jackvalentine 9y agoI think because in their mind a ban is a nice line in the sand thing. Never mind that a global platform like YouTube has an impossible tension of thousands of subcultures, countries, advertisers and other stakeholders to try and balance. That’s the big mistake of these Web 2.0 platforms in my opinion - they try to be both a virally growing platform and a community but always wait until something bad happens before making the rules apparent. It’s an unresolvable problem in my opinion.
- hugozap 9y agoIt's not about "not watching his content" he is clearly harassing people ( at least in the Japan videos ). Most communities ban people who commit abuse, this is no different.
- mc32 9y agoI'm a somewhat admirer of Japanese culture. I don't agree with that. Yet, I wonder, would you be in support of banning all people who disrespect American people or American culture? I think if you do want to also ban them, while sympathetic, I would find it odd and disagree.
- hugozap 9y agoIf someone bullies people and uploads the videos for profit should that person be banned? Because that's the case here. Taking advantage of the non confrontational nature of someone to harass them is a valid reason to ban someone.
- DennisAleynikov 9y agosince when is being an asshole online a bannable offense. especially going outside to be an idiot and filming it? its just you doing obnoxious things, and there are laws against public neusaince but thats not at play here.
- Jack000 9y agosince.. always? moderation is the reason reddit/hn even exists. Nearly every online community is moderated in some way to kick out trolls and assholes, and the ones that don't quickly become like 4chan or voat.
- martin_bech 9y agoSo censor the crap out of everything, on what supposedly is an open platform?
- hugozap 9y agoBan everyone who uploads videos of them harassing people. That's what he is doing in those videos.
- ewjordan 9y agoBeing disrespectful, while supremely offensive to me and a very good reason not to watch Logan Paul (or let your kids watch him), does not meet my personal bar of "should be banned". Mainstream media routinely gives the mic to people acting far more offensively, and with actual malicious intent rather than mere youthful stupidity. Free speech is not something that private companies need to protect as far as the law goes, but I think it's an ideal that they should try to hold dear nonetheless, as much as possible. "Acted disrespectfully towards a group" is way too wiggly and subjective as an offense to start banning people over. Edit: just to be clear, I think the suicide video is clearly over the line. I'm only talking about his general shithead-ness the rest of the time.
- r00fus 9y ago> does not meet my personal bar of "should be banned" Does demonetization mean "banned" to you?
- x0x0 9y agoYeah, there's a deliberate blurring of "not able to speak" with "people don't want to be associated with paying him to speak" going on here.
- toomanybeersies 9y agoI don't agree with GP that he should be banned, but it seems like a perfectly fine decision for YT to remove him from premium advertising. Not just for optics reasons, but because there's nothing wrong with a company taking a stance on crass and offensive (to some people) content.
- hugozap 9y agoBy disrespectful I meant harassing people. Bullies are banned from communities and it has nothing to do with free speech.