3 ms·
Being 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
by ewjordan 9y ago
Being 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.