4 ms·

Whether or not you agree with him is one thing. Youtube, Facebook, and other companies are treading a very thin line around Provider vs Publisher. Sure, most pe

by xf1cf 6y ago

Whether or not you agree with him is one thing. Youtube, Facebook, and other companies are treading a very thin line around Provider vs Publisher. Sure, most people might think that Icke doesn't make much sense, but how long until something _you_ like is censored off the platform? If you truly do believe in a table for rational discussion all ideas should be considered regardless of how far-out they may seen. By banning various controversial figures from one side, but allowing other controversial figures from the other side to continue, is diametrically opposed to the idea of "open discussion" you claim to be supporting in your argument. You may not care. But then you are not a proponent of free speech on a platform. When the platform becomes a global nerve center for content the argument "they are a private company and can do what they want" must be looked at with significantly more scrutiny. It would be extremely naive to not believe that YouTube not only knows they have this level of control, but are actively seeking to exploit it.

chrisoverzero 6y ago
>[…] a very thin line around Provider vs Publisher. Nope. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...
DonHopkins 6y ago
If something _you_ like is censored for the same reason David Icke was censored, then you can get the fuck off YouTube and Facebook yourself, and throw your little right wing victimhood hissy fit as the door hits you on the way out, just like Milo Yiannopoulos did, then subscribe to his mailing list or read his blog or buy his book. YouTube and Facebook aren't obligated to tolerate him spreading his filth on their service, and if you think they are, you have no idea what the First Amendment really means.
- xf1cf 6y ago
  A service used by literally billions of people is a propaganda machine for those that control it. It is not a private platform anymore. Youtube can influence public opinion in one way or another by simply manipulating their ranking algorithm. I know it's probably hard to choke down, but YouTube can swing elections and change policy with a click of a button. There are significant regulations on television. We can apply these same regulations to YouTube. It would be extremely naive to not believe that YouTube not only knows they have this level of control, but are actively seeking to exploit it. Assuming they are a rational actor this is precisely what they would be doing. EDIT: What I am saying is simply this: if their aim is to remove controversial characters then remove all of them. If they selectively ban controversial characters that identify with only one side of the horseshoe, then they are manipulating public opinion.
  - DonHopkins 6y ago
    You have no clue what the First Amendment really means. Why don't you look it up? I know you have a web browser. Deplatforming works, and you can still read what Milo Yiannopoulos has to say, and what his critics have to say, but he just can't make any more money by saying it. YouTube does NOT owe him a living. That's NOT how the First Amendment works. Now go google it, and educate yourself. If you don't think it's fair that the First Amendment doesn't say what you want it to, and feel so sorry for him, then you can still donate your money to Milo Yiannopoulos and David Icke directly. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-says-hes-broke https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-... Milo Yiannopoulos Says He's Broke “I can’t put food on the table this way.” Silicon Valley appears to have blown up Milo Yiannopoulos’s business model. The disgraced right-wing troll is complaining that the major social media companies have effectively cut off his alt-right audience — and crushed his ability to make a decent living. The former Breitbart tech writer shared the complaints on Telegram, a messaging app where some alt-right allies have set up shop after getting the boot by larger tech platforms. Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in 2016 for directing racist abuse at the comedian Leslie Jones, losing nearly 400,000 followers. He was banned from Facebook in May. “I spent years growing and developing and investing in my fan base, and they just took it away in a flash,” wrote Yiannopoulos, who’s previously rubbed shoulders with neo-Nazis and white nationalists. “It’s nice to have a little private chat with my gold star homies but I can’t make a career out of a handful of people like that. I can’t put food on the table this way.” "I'ts just not a good use of my time to be here." "Talking to the same 1,000 people none of whom buy books, tickets or anything or donate. The provocateur made no mention of the harassment that landed him in social media jail. Nor did he touch on being forced out of Breitbart the following year, after he made comments that seemed to endorse pedophilia. While Telegram allows Yiannopoulos to share such important commentary with more than 19,000 followers directly, it does not offer the mass reach of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. The same goes for Gab and other social networks set up in protest of Big Tech’s increasingly aggressive content-moderation efforts. “I can’t find anyone who’s managing to grow a really big channel here,” wrote Yiannopoulos, whose Telegram posts typically reach around 2,000 pairs of eyeballs. “Everyone is hitting a wall. There’s no future to Telegram for social media refugees if this is the best it gets.” "I spent years growing and developing and investing in my fan base and they just took it away in a flash" "This 19k bullshit here is not going to cut it." "It's nice to have a little private chat with my gold star homies but I can't make a career out of a handful of people like that. I can't put food on the table this way." The rant offers some hope to progressive activists who’ve pushed tech companies to take a harder line against users who traffic in hate speech. A gaggle of right-wing commentators turned such incendiary content into cold hard cash, parlaying engaged social media audiences into speaking gigs, book deals, or direct contributions from fans through services like Patreon. Efforts to regulate that cottage industry have backfired in some cases. In June, YouTube’s bungled demonetization of a channel run by the conservative comedian Steven Crowder, who obsessively bullied Vox journalist Carlos Maza, drew calls of censorship from across right-wing political media. The outcry helped Crowder amass legions of new followers and paying subscribers. "- Gab: relentlessly, exhaustingly hostile and jam packed full of teen racists who totally dictate the tone and discussion (I can't post without being called a pedo kike infiltrator half a dozen times) -Parler: zero interaction, no one is there. -Telegram: a wasteland" "None of them drive traffic. None of them have audiences who buy or commit to anything." "Unless something monymental changes, we are just going to be driven off the internet forever." The more comprehensive deplatforming of Yiannopoulos, however, appears to have torpedoed the economics driving his whole operation. And it’s possible he may not be the only one. The pro-Trump con artist Jacob Wohl, who was banned from Twitter for operating fake accounts earlier this year, re-shared the thread with a simple comment, “I agree with all of this.” Yiannopoulos laid blame not only on Big Tech’s countermeasures but also the pro-Trump internet’s inability to successfully strike back. “I’m clinging on for dear life. And I’ll never give up,” said Yiannopoulos, who did not immediately respond to VICE News’ direct message seeking comment. “But holy fucking hell the base in America SUCKS. Frankly they deserve to lose their country and if by some miracle we manage to save it, it’ll be no thanks whatsoever to voters, readers, subscribers and ENTIRELY thanks to the few brave souls battling on the front lines, beyond all reason and hope. “It’s years too late,” he added. “The time to act was when I got booted off Twitter. Nobody did.”
- mythrwy 6y ago
  What a strange comment. Is David Icke a right winger? A nut and probably an anti-Semite ya, I would agree with that. Would it be ok then for left wing nuts to get the boot also? Or only certain political leanings get booted with the cheering section saying "good"!
  - cambalache 6y ago
    It is always only the people that I dont agree with. If you censor other people is totalitarianism and a scandal. That is why I laugh when techies criticize politicians. As abysmal and corrupt as the politicians are I would prefer 100 times to live in this world compared to one ruled by "benevolent" techies. Can you imagine, Facebook, Google, the Ycombinator partners, Thiel and company setting the rules and managing the government? Shudders!

by xf1cf 6y ago

chrisoverzero 6y ago

>[…] a very thin line around Provider vs Publisher. Nope. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

DonHopkins 6y ago

If something _you_ like is censored for the same reason David Icke was censored, then you can get the fuck off YouTube and Facebook yourself, and throw your little right wing victimhood hissy fit as the door hits you on the way out, just like Milo Yiannopoulos did, then subscribe to his mailing list or read his blog or buy his book. YouTube and Facebook aren't obligated to tolerate him spreading his filth on their service, and if you think they are, you have no idea what the First Amendment really means.

xf1cf 6y ago
A service used by literally billions of people is a propaganda machine for those that control it. It is not a private platform anymore. Youtube can influence public opinion in one way or another by simply manipulating their ranking algorithm. I know it's probably hard to choke down, but YouTube can swing elections and change policy with a click of a button. There are significant regulations on television. We can apply these same regulations to YouTube. It would be extremely naive to not believe that YouTube not only knows they have this level of control, but are actively seeking to exploit it. Assuming they are a rational actor this is precisely what they would be doing. EDIT: What I am saying is simply this: if their aim is to remove controversial characters then remove all of them. If they selectively ban controversial characters that identify with only one side of the horseshoe, then they are manipulating public opinion.
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  You have no clue what the First Amendment really means. Why don't you look it up? I know you have a web browser. Deplatforming works, and you can still read what Milo Yiannopoulos has to say, and what his critics have to say, but he just can't make any more money by saying it. YouTube does NOT owe him a living. That's NOT how the First Amendment works. Now go google it, and educate yourself. If you don't think it's fair that the First Amendment doesn't say what you want it to, and feel so sorry for him, then you can still donate your money to Milo Yiannopoulos and David Icke directly. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-says-hes-broke https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-... Milo Yiannopoulos Says He's Broke “I can’t put food on the table this way.” Silicon Valley appears to have blown up Milo Yiannopoulos’s business model. The disgraced right-wing troll is complaining that the major social media companies have effectively cut off his alt-right audience — and crushed his ability to make a decent living. The former Breitbart tech writer shared the complaints on Telegram, a messaging app where some alt-right allies have set up shop after getting the boot by larger tech platforms. Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in 2016 for directing racist abuse at the comedian Leslie Jones, losing nearly 400,000 followers. He was banned from Facebook in May. “I spent years growing and developing and investing in my fan base, and they just took it away in a flash,” wrote Yiannopoulos, who’s previously rubbed shoulders with neo-Nazis and white nationalists. “It’s nice to have a little private chat with my gold star homies but I can’t make a career out of a handful of people like that. I can’t put food on the table this way.” "I'ts just not a good use of my time to be here." "Talking to the same 1,000 people none of whom buy books, tickets or anything or donate. The provocateur made no mention of the harassment that landed him in social media jail. Nor did he touch on being forced out of Breitbart the following year, after he made comments that seemed to endorse pedophilia. While Telegram allows Yiannopoulos to share such important commentary with more than 19,000 followers directly, it does not offer the mass reach of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. The same goes for Gab and other social networks set up in protest of Big Tech’s increasingly aggressive content-moderation efforts. “I can’t find anyone who’s managing to grow a really big channel here,” wrote Yiannopoulos, whose Telegram posts typically reach around 2,000 pairs of eyeballs. “Everyone is hitting a wall. There’s no future to Telegram for social media refugees if this is the best it gets.” "I spent years growing and developing and investing in my fan base and they just took it away in a flash" "This 19k bullshit here is not going to cut it." "It's nice to have a little private chat with my gold star homies but I can't make a career out of a handful of people like that. I can't put food on the table this way." The rant offers some hope to progressive activists who’ve pushed tech companies to take a harder line against users who traffic in hate speech. A gaggle of right-wing commentators turned such incendiary content into cold hard cash, parlaying engaged social media audiences into speaking gigs, book deals, or direct contributions from fans through services like Patreon. Efforts to regulate that cottage industry have backfired in some cases. In June, YouTube’s bungled demonetization of a channel run by the conservative comedian Steven Crowder, who obsessively bullied Vox journalist Carlos Maza, drew calls of censorship from across right-wing political media. The outcry helped Crowder amass legions of new followers and paying subscribers. "- Gab: relentlessly, exhaustingly hostile and jam packed full of teen racists who totally dictate the tone and discussion (I can't post without being called a pedo kike infiltrator half a dozen times) -Parler: zero interaction, no one is there. -Telegram: a wasteland" "None of them drive traffic. None of them have audiences who buy or commit to anything." "Unless something monymental changes, we are just going to be driven off the internet forever." The more comprehensive deplatforming of Yiannopoulos, however, appears to have torpedoed the economics driving his whole operation. And it’s possible he may not be the only one. The pro-Trump con artist Jacob Wohl, who was banned from Twitter for operating fake accounts earlier this year, re-shared the thread with a simple comment, “I agree with all of this.” Yiannopoulos laid blame not only on Big Tech’s countermeasures but also the pro-Trump internet’s inability to successfully strike back. “I’m clinging on for dear life. And I’ll never give up,” said Yiannopoulos, who did not immediately respond to VICE News’ direct message seeking comment. “But holy fucking hell the base in America SUCKS. Frankly they deserve to lose their country and if by some miracle we manage to save it, it’ll be no thanks whatsoever to voters, readers, subscribers and ENTIRELY thanks to the few brave souls battling on the front lines, beyond all reason and hope. “It’s years too late,” he added. “The time to act was when I got booted off Twitter. Nobody did.”
mythrwy 6y ago
What a strange comment. Is David Icke a right winger? A nut and probably an anti-Semite ya, I would agree with that. Would it be ok then for left wing nuts to get the boot also? Or only certain political leanings get booted with the cheering section saying "good"!
- cambalache 6y ago
  It is always only the people that I dont agree with. If you censor other people is totalitarianism and a scandal. That is why I laugh when techies criticize politicians. As abysmal and corrupt as the politicians are I would prefer 100 times to live in this world compared to one ruled by "benevolent" techies. Can you imagine, Facebook, Google, the Ycombinator partners, Thiel and company setting the rules and managing the government? Shudders!