5 ms·

I'm not some crazy tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but it's certainly telling that Wojcicki spoke at Recode (which is owned by Vox) but didn't give Cro

by dvt 7y ago

I'm not some crazy tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but it's certainly telling that Wojcicki spoke at Recode (which is owned by Vox) but didn't give Crowder the same courtesy. This just screams conflict of interest (and will only give Crowder more ammunition), but whatever. Second, it's clear that YouTube, much like Google, et al. are still attempting to keep their classification as a murky "grey area" where they aren't really platforms, but they aren't really publishers, so they can make tons of money, but not seriously answer to the public either. Classic corporatism. And until our representatives in DC really wake up, I can't really fault them for it. Our lawmakers barely understand how adding a friend on Facebook works, and I'm sure Silicon Valley enjoys printing money on the back of this ignorance. Third, it's incredibly clear that there's an ideologically-liberal slant in tech. I've met both Muslims as well as Christians that were simply afraid of the status quo to speak out even though some of these policies made them uncomfortable. I really wish we could be more honest about this. As a staunch Millian[1], I contend that diversity of thought is a good thing. Finally, (imo) anyone who seriously thinks Crowder should've been censored/deplatformed is just being unfair. He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc. [1] https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

untog 7y ago
> He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc. I'm sorry, what? > Last week, Maza called out the abuse in a supercut of comments Crowder has made on his popular YouTube channel in the last two years. They include: “lispy sprite,” “little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” “Mr. Lispy queer from Vox,” “an angry little queer,” “gay Mexican,” and “gay Latino from Vox.” https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right-wing-youtube-star-can-continue-his-racist-and-homophobic-abuse https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right... It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I'm missing some information that would make the comparison even slightly accurate?
- mikeEnoch 7y ago
  Carlos Maza’s twitter and ig handle is “gaywonk”. He also speaks with a lisp. He also makes it a point to always point out that he’s “queer” and “latino”. Calling him those things is not an insult. This is what his whole identity and claim to fame is.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- dvt 7y ago
  > It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I missed them using slurs on air? Colbert literally called Donald Trump Putin's "c--k holster" on live TV (but was obviously bleeped). Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a "feckless c--t." Both of these are easily Google-able. Again, I'm not a fan of this kind of language on either side, but let's at least be fair.
  - untog 7y ago
    So, two late night hosts (one of which isn't John Oliver) have used obscenities directed at a person once each. And that's comparable to Crowder's output? He's very obviously been targeting that guy repeatedly, for a long time.
    - dvt 7y ago
      I gave you two examples (the ones most cited by conservative media), and I'm sure you can dig more up. But if that's your line of reasoning, you're headed towards the sorites paradox, and that's not a good place to be.
      - untog 7y ago
        It is not "heading towards the sorites paradox" to suggest that there is a difference between a one off insult and repeated, targeted harassment.
        dvt 7y ago
        Do you really think you're being fair when you're framing one as a "one-off insult" and the other as "targetted harassment"? Not to mention that I watch John Oliver ever week and just about every episode (without fault) he makes fun of Trump or someone in his cohort. Is that also "repeated, targeted harassment"?
        pdkl95 7y ago
        I don't think John Oliver ever incited his fans to dox and harass/denial-of-service anyone. He's gone after a few organizations and government agencies like the FCC that had already asked for comments from the public. Perhaps more important is that John Oliver is inciting people into political action; political speech by the press - even hen the press tells jokes - is protected very strongly in the US because it's named in the 1st Amendment. Crowder doesn't seem to be making a politically statement and generally seems to have acted like an asshole that says homophobic slurs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200019
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
adventist 7y ago
You're going to get massively downvoted because you're going against the Leftist agenda in a round-about sort of way. You either support the leftist zeitgeist or you should not say anything at all.
fucking_tragedy 7y ago
> Second, it's clear that YouTube, much like Google, et al. are still attempting to keep their classification as a murky "grey area" where they aren't really platforms, but they aren't really publishers, so they can make tons of money, but not seriously answer to the public either This distinction you and others are trying to draw between "publishers" and "platforms" is a red herring. The Communications Decency Act is very explicit about why this is a red herring: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It does not matter how much curation, promotion, or removal of content Google, Facebook et al. engage in. They will never be held liable for the content their users upload, beyond existing criminal and civil liabilities such as those imposed by the DMCA. By virtue of being a provider of an interactive computer service, they will never be treated as publishers.

by dvt 7y ago

untog 7y ago

> He's pretty offensive, but doesn't really go much further than Colbert, John Oliver, etc. I'm sorry, what? > Last week, Maza called out the abuse in a supercut of comments Crowder has made on his popular YouTube channel in the last two years. They include: “lispy sprite,” “little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” “Mr. Lispy queer from Vox,” “an angry little queer,” “gay Mexican,” and “gay Latino from Vox.” https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right-wing-youtube-star-can-continue-his-racist-and-homophobic-abuse https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right... It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I'm missing some information that would make the comparison even slightly accurate?

mikeEnoch 7y ago
Carlos Maza’s twitter and ig handle is “gaywonk”. He also speaks with a lisp. He also makes it a point to always point out that he’s “queer” and “latino”. Calling him those things is not an insult. This is what his whole identity and claim to fame is.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dvt 7y ago
> It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I missed them using slurs on air? Colbert literally called Donald Trump Putin's "c--k holster" on live TV (but was obviously bleeped). Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a "feckless c--t." Both of these are easily Google-able. Again, I'm not a fan of this kind of language on either side, but let's at least be fair.
- untog 7y ago
  So, two late night hosts (one of which isn't John Oliver) have used obscenities directed at a person once each. And that's comparable to Crowder's output? He's very obviously been targeting that guy repeatedly, for a long time.
  - dvt 7y ago
    I gave you two examples (the ones most cited by conservative media), and I'm sure you can dig more up. But if that's your line of reasoning, you're headed towards the sorites paradox, and that's not a good place to be.
    - untog 7y ago
      It is not "heading towards the sorites paradox" to suggest that there is a difference between a one off insult and repeated, targeted harassment.
      - dvt 7y ago
        Do you really think you're being fair when you're framing one as a "one-off insult" and the other as "targetted harassment"? Not to mention that I watch John Oliver ever week and just about every episode (without fault) he makes fun of Trump or someone in his cohort. Is that also "repeated, targeted harassment"?
        pdkl95 7y ago
        I don't think John Oliver ever incited his fans to dox and harass/denial-of-service anyone. He's gone after a few organizations and government agencies like the FCC that had already asked for comments from the public. Perhaps more important is that John Oliver is inciting people into political action; political speech by the press - even hen the press tells jokes - is protected very strongly in the US because it's named in the 1st Amendment. Crowder doesn't seem to be making a politically statement and generally seems to have acted like an asshole that says homophobic slurs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200019
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

adventist 7y ago

You're going to get massively downvoted because you're going against the Leftist agenda in a round-about sort of way. You either support the leftist zeitgeist or you should not say anything at all.

fucking_tragedy 7y ago

> Second, it's clear that YouTube, much like Google, et al. are still attempting to keep their classification as a murky "grey area" where they aren't really platforms, but they aren't really publishers, so they can make tons of money, but not seriously answer to the public either This distinction you and others are trying to draw between "publishers" and "platforms" is a red herring. The Communications Decency Act is very explicit about why this is a red herring: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It does not matter how much curation, promotion, or removal of content Google, Facebook et al. engage in. They will never be held liable for the content their users upload, beyond existing criminal and civil liabilities such as those imposed by the DMCA. By virtue of being a provider of an interactive computer service, they will never be treated as publishers.