42 ms·

YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech

364 points by nickthegreek 6y ago

telaelit 6y ago
It's about time.
fvdessen 6y ago
I haven't watched Stefan in a long time, is he now producing content in the same register as David Duke & Richard Spencer ? It did not seem to be the case a few years ago.
- swivelmaster 6y ago
  He's always been pretty awful and white-supremacist-adjacent.
  - nailer 6y ago
    This "adjacent" concept has no meaning. Paraphrasing a point I made on Twitter recently: - Richard Spencer: evil. Created 'alt right' movement. - Ben Shapiro: called 'alt right' because he's right wing - Joe Rogan: called 'alt right' because he talked to Ben - Bernie Sanders supporters: called 'alt right' because Joe endorsed Bernie. Ergo: by this logic Karl Marx could be considered 'alt right' Molyneaux might be awful, he might be fine. But the argument one way or the other must be made on his own merits, not those around him. ---- Edit: Replying to dralley due to rate limit:" I have included an example where there are four links. But 'adjacent' is a plainly silly idea if there is only one link. If 'adjacent' being silly isn't already obvious, you may be very left wing (since 'adjacent' seems to be a popular argument on the left). So consider: former KKK member Robert Byrd is in a photo being friendly with Hillary Clinton [1]. Is Hillary Clinton alt-right adjacent? Plainly Hillary Clinton is not alt-right adjacent. That argument would be absurd to make. Guilt by association is evil. To determine whether Stefan Molyneux's ideas are good or bad, we should consider Stefan Molyneux's ideas. Not anyone else's. You've included a video of Stefan Molyneux speaking. That's good - we can find out what he has to say for himself. What someone else has to say is irrelevant. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
    - absurdturd 6y ago
      He didn't "talk" to Ben, he broadcast Ben's ideas to millions of listeners (the majority of which happen to be white).
      - toxik 6y ago
        Joe Rogan is now alt right? That is a quixotic ambition. Let the fools make fools of themselves. When there are stupid ideas proposed in the podcast, I just laugh at it or talk to somebody about it. As an example, I listened to one of those white supremacy former academics, can’t remember who, and he quips midway through the lecture that Western society developed faster because... we are unique in having a sense of shame. I kid you not. It doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to detect bullshit. Rogan talks to interesting guests all the time, if you label him adversarial, you will have rejected a lot of people.
        absurdturd 6y ago
        Didn't say he was alt right, but he doesn't use his massive platform responsibly. There's a difference between interviewing a presidential candidate and interviewing a white supremacist.
        nailer 6y ago
        Are you saying Joe interviewed a white supremacist? Who?
      - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
        What is wrong with that? He did the same with Sanders and they were both interesting.
        absurdturd 6y ago
        I mean there's the problem right there — you're talking about Bernie Sanders and Ben Shapiro as if they're two people equally deserving of equal space on an enormous platform of listeners.
- Edd314159 6y ago
  I used to listen to Stefan Molyneux about 10 years ago because he had some interesting views on free market economics. Now I look him up on Wikipedia and find out he's turned into a white nationalist. What the hell happened?
  - agoristen 6y ago
    What happened is wikipedia turned into a leftist propaganda outlet.
  - evanlivingston 6y ago
    Perhaps there is an association between strongly supporting principles of free markets and problematic ethics.
    - ur-whale 6y ago
      Aka, I'll hitch my political wagon to any passing train as long as it gets me there.
      - basch 6y ago
        Or freedoms to be bad. Freedoms to say bad things, freedoms to lie, freedoms to pollute the environment, freedoms to sell harmful things. They all share a "for my benefit, the collateral damage inflicted on others be damned" element.
    - sparkie 6y ago
      There is a strong association between free market principles and the principle of non-aggression. Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed. Tell me where the problematic ethics are again? (FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them or what they may have said. I'm only defending the Non-aggression principle, which implies that markets are free.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hartator 6y ago
  Yes, I don't remember Stefan Molyneux saying anything racist. Can someone share an example?
  - user982 6y ago
    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Causality1 6y ago
      Wow that guy's an idiot. He actually claims the Iraq War was a failure because Iraqis have IQs in the 80s and are therefore incapable of accepting democracy. Racism aside, if you've done even a bit of reading on IQ you know it's been rising for decades if not longer. His Jeffersonian Democracy was built by people with an IQ that would be in the 80s today.
      - burkaman 6y ago
        Can you point to some of that reading? Pedantically, that goes against the definition of IQ, where 100 is always average so it can't really increase over time, but your general point about people getting smarter doesn't intuitively make sense to me. Obviously we have more knowledge and resources to build on today, but I've never seen any reason to believe modern humans are smarter from birth than humans born 300 years ago.
        user982 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        6y ago
- pingpongchef 6y ago
  Not at all but Molyneux disagrees with so many left-of-center ideas that the effort needed to effectively detail how Molyneux is different is great, so he gets lumped in with them.
  - opnitro 6y ago
    "The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1181003746983043074 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/118100374698304307... "If we had been allowed to talk about race and IQ, the invasion of Iraq would never have occurred, because no one would have been under the illusion that a Jeffersonian Republic was going to emerge from a population with an IQ in the 80s. Opposing science got >500k people killed." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1082489068741513217 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/108248906874151321... EDIT: added a second quote
    - neonate 6y ago
      Ugh. Those are awful.
      - opnitro 6y ago
        Yup, he's bad folks
    - pingpongchef 6y ago
      Your argument is incomplete. I don't dispute that he said those things but what do you claim is the similarity to Spencer or Duke?
      - opnitro 6y ago
        Yeah, they're both very racist, to the level of supposing that that white society is inherently superior. The first quote implies a the existence of a conspiracy to lower white birthrates. The second states clearly that Iraqi people would not be capable of forming a just society due to "low IQ". These are definitionally white supremacist talking points. EDIT: spelling
- burkaman 6y ago
  If I had to rank them, I would agree that David Duke and Richard Spencer are a little more blatantly racist than Stefan Molyneux, but why does that matter? If they're all violating the hate speech policy, then they should all be banned, even if David Duke is violating it more.
- empath75 6y ago
  Polite white nationalism is still white nationalism.
- DanCarvajal 6y ago
  Ten years ago I met him once as a libertarian/free-market conference, he was there with his kids. He seemed like an adorable father at the time. Wow can people change.
- karyon 6y ago
  Here's a collection of quotes (from another comment downthread for visibility): https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi... a little teaser: > Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane > The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux is also great.
stillbourne 6y ago
You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message. Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided). Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation? Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate. EditEdit: I'm trying to reply to everything as quickly as I can but HN is telling me I'm posting to fast.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided). So we're going to start see ADA accommodations for white supremacists claiming they're mentally handicapped and therefore shouldn't be censored?
zozbot234 6y ago
Keep in mind that YT had been funneling viewers towards extreme, bizarre, fringe videos for a long time - including quite a bit of hateful content. This is something of their own doing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rH61W3epxeHMjg4 6y ago
  YouTube radicalization is a myth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4hq5uVsb5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4hq5uVsb5k
- ars 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you are watching, but I have never been funneled to anything even remotely like that. YT sends you videos based on your watch history. If you watch hate videos to see what kind of stuff people are saying then you should delete them from your history to avoid YT finding you more.
  - masklinn 6y ago
    Multiple experiments have demonstrated that as you follow recommendations it drives you more and more towards extreme content. If you don’t follow recs it obviously has no “drive” to keep you on as you’re not following the journey. Basically the recommendations system always tries to drive you towards slightly more “engaging” content. Zeynep Tufekci, amongst others, published about it back in 2018.
    - tantalor 6y ago
      Sure but you could say the same of woodworking videos, marble racing videos, or any niche topic. This is not a surprising outcome; it is totally expected.
      - masklinn 6y ago
        > Sure but you could say the same of woodworking videos, marble racing videos I was replying to someone stating it does not happen. > or any niche topic. It is absolutely not limited to niche topics. > This is not a surprising outcome; it is totally expected. The drive towards extremism is absolutely not “expected”.
arprocter 6y ago
Strange coincidence, considering what happened on reddit earlier
- mattigames 6y ago
  There is safety in numbers, they can argue that reddit did it as well (either in court or somewhere else)
  - arprocter 6y ago
    It makes the 'we take our rules seriously' talk look stupid - they only took action because someone else did first
ra1n85 6y ago
Twitch and Reddit enacted bans simultaneously: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-trump-forum-in-crackdown-on-hate-speech-344698 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-tru... https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-account-174145621.html https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-accoun... Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  "coincidence"
- rickbutton 6y ago
  Why? There is a massive political movement for racial equality happening all over the country. They are responding to pressure from consumers, which they very much should, because all of these companies have ignored these issues for decades. They aren't coordinating with each other in some conspiracy to silence white supremacists. The -people- want white supremacists to be deplatformed (a good thing!).
  - patrickaljord 6y ago
    The fact that it all happened on the same day does imply some kind of coordination though.
  - disposekinetics 6y ago
    This is why you never give into the mob, even when their point is a good one. That's how individual rights are lost to the collective.
    - throwaway29102 6y ago
      Yaaaaaas...this one salty
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      No one has a right to post on Reddit or Youtube. If we want to be concerned about individual rights, we should at least be somewhat accurate about the definition of the word.
claudiawerner 6y ago
Since these threads often turn out the same way once they get popular enough (assuming they don't get flagged first), a while ago I wrote a comment[0] which can help sum up some arguments from "both sides" of the debate over Internet censorship, and I hope it's useful to those who would otherwise repeat a discussion that's been had many times before in these comment sections. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757
chrisco255 6y ago
It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is left with the world. Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range of opinions that lean to the right. It's extremely important that society be balanced and not tilted to the extremes of either ideology. This process of selective banning and purging will not end well for Silicon Valley. The problem is they are not approaching the left's extremists with the same fervor. In fact they're turning a blind eye to the vicious hate against cops and conservatives on their own platforms. And a lot of this hate is disproportionate to reality. That is, the perception of the problem exceeds the actual statistical problem. I'm of the strong opinion that a society needs it's left and right brain to function properly and constructively in order to tackle the diverse set of problems we face. If there is no push-pull give and take between these two groups, then society will become unstable and increasingly more polarized. I'm a free market capitalist, but with Silicon Valley's recent muscular intervention into free speech, and the overwhelming propaganda power they possess, I fully support the break up of big tech monopolies in social media, search, and app stores.
- lowtolerance 6y ago
  Thoughts and prayers /s
- meroes 6y ago
  adapt or be left out
  - YarickR2 6y ago
    Well. We had several ideological purges earlier in 20th century, and I can tell what will happen next: every netizen will be triaged by a progressive troika, and sent to rehabilitation and education camps. Internet versions (excommunication), or real life ones .
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sunseb 6y ago
Free speech... only if you are "woke".
mchusma 6y ago
This is not directly related, but I saw the policy: "videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status" I'm curious if anyone know the root of "veteran" on this list? I am just not familiar with that kind of -ism (veteran-ism?).
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  You can't discriminate against someone for having served in the military in the US. Someone who served in the military is a veteran. Also, the phrasing of their policy is strange. Apparently you can argue all you want that racial group X is inferior all you want, but if you don't try to exclude them from something, that is okay.
- whateveracct 6y ago
  I think veterans are considered a suspect class & there exists legislation protecting against discrimination.
  - mmmmmbop 6y ago
    I wonder if this policy is valid outside the US. If so, are you allowed to discriminate against veterans of the Wehrmacht, or the SS?
- epc 6y ago
  Veterans are a protected class (at least under labor law) in the US based on a 1974 (VEVRAA).
  - lowmemcpu 6y ago
    I'm surprised that makes the jump from employment/labor law to speech/politics policies. Strawman: If I were a politician campaigning and were to say something like, "Veterans do not deserve benefits and I don't think we should fund veteran benefits" or "Veterans do not deserve our blind respect", am I now discriminating and will get banned from the platform?
jMyles 6y ago
There's a problem here that is too rarely discussed: When we do finally achieve substantial decentralized agency for ideas and media, which cannot be censored, it will be tainted in its roots by the fact that these jackasses are the people who will flock to it first. How can we build a censorship-resistant society where the most creative, peaceful, unifying ideas are the basis of our dialogue?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- andrekandre 6y ago
  i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience and time to go through so, in an "open market" it becomes harder to shut down bad ideas with "open debate" (which i would argue we need a way to do, now more than ever) i think until there is some way to do this in a general way - some kind of "anti-twitter" - these kinds of bannings will just keep happening because no one seems to really know how what to do otherwise...
  - jMyles 6y ago
    > i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience and time to go through I can't help but notice that the inflammation of this kind of content dovetails nicely with the profit motive of the medium in question. If we were able to open and audit the entirety of the algorithmic decision-making regarding what appears in users' feeds, does any of us doubt that hostilities and insecurities are amplified?
- pnako 6y ago
  I have the same problem with my BBQ. I bought it to keep my food cold, but systematically it heats the food to the point where it becomes burned. Just in case my attempt at analogy is not clear: on a free speech network you'll get free speech.
nailer 6y ago
Oddly /r/sino, a CCP, anti-democracy, anti-human rights subreddit that often brigades /r/hongkong is still up. Edit: oops, this should have been a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681872
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
noxer 6y ago
Soon to be found on Telegram I guess. Seem to be the only growing platform that does not ban opinions. Probably because they do not need to make advertisers happy. Conclusion: Ads still ruin the internet.
- robotron 6y ago
  Conclusion: white nationalists ruin the internet
- pureagave 6y ago
  Ads run the internet and fueling rage and hate helps social networks keep engagement high (and sell more ads).
- zapnuk 6y ago
  It's disgusting to see racism, transphobia, misogyny, and general hate speech spread by Molyneux and others be normalized as 'opinions'. They aren't interested in discourse, they only want to spread their garbage while cowordly hiding behind a dated concept of free (hate) speech. Molyneux especially dodges every debate where his oposition is somewhat knowledgeable.
  - iratewizard 6y ago
    >dated concept of free (hate) speech Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.
    - zapnuk 6y ago
      Some content fosters the development of extremists/terrorists. This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators. We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly leads to more violence.
jhonatan08 6y ago
Sometimes I wonder if there are better solutions rather than bans. Banning sounds like sweeping the dirt under the rug. I am afraid haters might concentrate in underground social networks, away from the spotlights, creating a "us and them" situation.
- superkuh 6y ago
  Don't worry, the payment processors and corporate banks with federal charters simply will refuse to deal with them. They won't be able to buy services or connectivity. And then when they try to set up their own payment networks they'll be charged with trumped up KYC law infractions and put in prison.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    Can't they still accept paper checks? I think banks are obligated to honor them. Groups like the KKK and the Daily Stormer have managed to stay in business.
howmayiannoyyou 6y ago
Molyneux earned the ban. I've personally reported him several times. Not to say the other didn't also deserve it, but Molyneux was on my radar.
- qez 6y ago
  What did he do to deserve a ban?
  - IkmoIkmo 6y ago
    > https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux Stuff like: > The Left is infested with pedophiles - they promote the welfare state and feminism in order to get protective fathers out of the home, so they have easier sexual access to the children of single mothers. > The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates. You can have freedom of speech, just do it on your own platform if you want to say such nonsense. Makes sense to me that a mainstream commercial platform like Youtube with normal community guidelines wouldn't allow this stuff. I mean, there's some de facto holocaust apologetics in there, some stuff about arabs being too low IQ to accept the US bringing democracy through invasion, some stuff about the 2008 financial crisis being caused by minorities having too low an IQ etc etc. It's all pretty sad. Not everyone deserves a platform with extremely-cheap infrastructure to reach hundreds of millions of people like on Youtube with a message like this, easily ban-worthy if you ask me.
techlaw 6y ago
One hopeful thing that might come from this time of forced isolation: time and space to reflect on what is genuinely meaningful to us in the long term as individuals and as communities.
s9w 6y ago
"hate speech" is a made up word and neither illegal or "bad". You're applauding a rebranded social score and a secondary justice system.
- lukifer 6y ago
  I can form a trivial argument for why almost any hot-button political opinion is "hate speech", even through the most charitable definition of "advocating violence or diminishing essential human dignity". - Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe women are "less-than". - Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you believe pre-birth infants are "less-than". - Pro-War: You don't respect the sacrifices of American troop or those who died on 9/11, because you believe privileged Westerners are "less-than". - Anti-War: You don't respect the lives of civilians who die in drone strikes, because you believe Muslims are "less-than". Lately, I've been cross-referencing the language of dehumanization with how uncontroversial it is to express an opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "necessary evils". And perhaps they were (I've heard the arguments and I'm aware of the historical complexity); yet most Americans suffer little consternation to disregard the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, in a way that would be horrifying if it was (a) present day, and/or (b) the actions of some out-group rather than our own heroic Nazi-fighting forces. All that said: I think it's also pretty naive to pretend that emotionally inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. Lately I've been thinking about a different category: while "hate speech" is shunned in most corners of polite society, our moral tribes largely tolerate (if not encourage) "fear speech": "[Trump / Antifa] is coming to get you". Each side's fear exacerbates the other in a positive feedback loop, akin to the Cycle of Violence.
  - rubatuga 6y ago
    The necessary evils bit is probably a way to relieve our cognitive dissonance. Anyways, do you have evidence to support your fear and hatred cycle, as well as its prevalence in western society?
- mactrey 6y ago
  > "hate speech" is a made up word Most words and phrases were made up, at some point. "Hate speech" still has a coherent meaning. > and neither illegal Nobody said it was illegal. YouTube is free to ban content creators that haven't broken the law. You agree to those terms when you use the site. > or "bad" I understand that the phrase "hate speech" confuses you. But these content creators openly advocate white supremacism. If you don't think that is "bad" I think you should take a deep look inward. > You're applauding Yes. > a rebranded social score No. YouTube is not assigning a "social score" - they are refusing to pay web hosting fees for racists. That has no effect on any other aspect of these people's lives - their ability to find jobs, make friends, start businesses, etc. is unaffected. > and a secondary justice system The comparison of YouTube consequences to the justice system is laughable. YouTube is saying "host your content elsewhere, there are lots of options." The justice system hands down things like forced confinement and the death penalty. There is really no comparison.
thinkingemote 6y ago
Have twitch and YouTube also followed Reddit in allowing hate speech again majority groups? I mean the action is coordinated but have the policies?
- erichocean 6y ago
  I don't think so, the policies are set by each social media company, but the targets of those policies are primarily determined by the SPLC and the ADL. This makes hate speech enforcement fair and uniform across all of the major social networks, and also reduces liability for the social networks since they can point to an objective 3rd-party as the cause of the suspensions.
  - memimo 6y ago
    The SPLC is a hate group
ss7pro 6y ago
Welcome to Soviet Union this time DR ven by capitalism and profits.
Animats 6y ago
"Videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status." Not for suggesting a group be attacked. Not "hate". For expressing an opinion on a political subject. Prohibiting that is scary. This is not a good thing, and we will probably regret it in a few years. Trump would like to shut down criticism of himself, and has tried. Black Lives Matter might be muzzled for inciting to riot. This can backfire, badly. "Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where ... all the children are above average."
syshum 6y ago
Hmm this comes on the same day as Reddit Purge... I wonder if there was some Coordination there. Some AG's might want to look in that for for their Anti-Trust Investigations
gguevaraa 6y ago
Christ, spez is getting hammered in the announcements. I mean seriously, he's basically saying it's alright to be discriminatory against the "majority", whatever that means. Dude doesn't even clarify what that means, just skirts around the question. Lot of people are wondering why r/BlackPeopleTwitter or r/politics haven't been banned despite blatant racism or calls to violence. People are pretty pissed at spez, to say the least. Also, kudos to that one user pointing out how 10 mods oversee 90% of subreddits.[1] I've linked the thread[0]. The comments pointing the insanity are highlighted What a trainwreck but oh well, enjoy being the next Digg plebbit. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/updat... [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/fwe18po/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/updat... Edit: "Spez, answer the fucking question. So is it according to reddit policy, a white person can’t say “all black people are bad” but a black person can say “all white people are bad”? If this is the case, this is racist" (LMAO)
- FiloSottile 6y ago
  Not sure if you're missing it, but yeah, reverse racism is not a thing. The concept of racism is meaningful in the historical and societal context of systemic oppression. A black person saying "all white people are bad" is not feeding into and exploiting hundreds of years of prejudice stacked against an under-privileged group. Edit: a black person in the US, different cultures are different contexts.
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    Is this sarcasm? Because I can give you a couple examples of well documented, savage, systemic oppression of white people. Are you one of those that thinks history begins in the US 250 years ago?
    - gambiting 6y ago
      Even if it did, he's forgetting that US was incredibly racist towards the Irish, and they are as white as they come. Racism is racism, no matter who does it towards whom.
cjslep 6y ago
When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer. For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and shed tears about how they were being pushed to the edge and ostracized from the local communities. Most of the town ignored these common pleas. We knew how to deal with them and ignore them, we had our inoculated culture. A few businesses were locally known to be "Klan friendly", but it should surprise no one that they are not rich mega-corps. It seems that in the internet age, this sort of culture of inoculation has not been passed on to the outside world communities, though the far-right ideologies may have. It is normal to decline the business of people you don't want to do business with. It is normal for it to be the fringe believers -- the ones that by their own choice are pushing themselves to live on that fringe. It is the simple free-market economy of supply and demand telling them that their demand is not necessary. However, my father also taught me to be careful with this pushing of the fringe. It is a delicate balance of liberty with liberty-destroying ideology. The paradox of tolerance, etc. It should be very closely watched. It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". They will shed tears in public and privately rejoice at the welcoming change. It is a grant of liberty they suddenly inherited with tech to have had such a huge audience and defenders of their speech on private platforms all this time. It is only now that the culture of inoculation is catching up. We should watch it closely & carefully though. We shouldn't be shedding tears for them.
- rickbutton 6y ago
  100%. If you are still in this thread defending the ability for white supremacists to spew racism and hate on these platforms, then that means that you wish for them to continue relaying their awful message, in which case you are a white supremacist by definition. These awful people do not "add to the discourse" in a meaningful way. Their insane ideas should not be entertained.
  - alexryan 6y ago
steveeq1 6y ago
So youtube is going to ban gangsta rap music for the same reasons, right?
- scollet 6y ago
  What is your aversion to rap music and how is it relevant to this case?
kyle_martin1 6y ago
This is suspicious. So much for free-speech and open debate. Just let people hear both sides and make up their own minds.
- Inu 6y ago
  Remember when Noam Chomsky argued for allowing Holocaust deniers to lecture at universities, so that students could make their own judgement and disproof absurd theories? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair Guess it was a different time.
madballster 6y ago
A year or two ago, Canadian conservative professor and YT superstar Jordan Peterson announced he was going to free conservative and "alternative content producers" from the yoke of Valley owned online media companies by creating his own, conservative media platform. What ever happened to this? Vaporware? It appears conservative content creators knew their days were counted on advertising-financed mainstream media outlets, yet they did not prepare accordingly. Obviously there is a market for their content, what is so hard in organizing and creating their own media outlet?
- akvadrako 6y ago
  He did create it, but I haven't seen anything of value on there: https://www.thinkspot.com/ https://www.thinkspot.com/ JP has also been out of the picture for the past year or so. I think the main issue is most conservatives just aren't interested in a siloed forum; the whole point in commenting is to convince others.
VectorLock 6y ago
Stefan Molyneux not to be confused with Peter Molyneux.
bofadeez 6y ago
Meanwhile flat earth videos are okay
- rukittenme 6y ago
  I mean are flat earthers really so evil that they need to be scrubbed from existence? If somebody is dumb enough to believe the earth is flat then they're surely not in any position where knowing the earth is round would be important to their job. If anything these videos should continue to exist as a siren call for increased education funding and initiatives.
- zapnuk 6y ago
  Flat earthers don't have the effect that their viewers go around shooting people. Far-right content creators on the other hand enable terrorists like the Christchurch perpetrator.
  - DarthGhandi 6y ago
    I've seen dozens of instances of serious racial violence by blm activists recorded in the last few weeks and cheered on by thousands of YouTube videos demanding even more, surely that counts as "enabling terrorists"? Hate crimes units across the country are investigating racially motivated attacks spurring entirely from blm. You won't see these people happily wanting a race war being banned though. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksuhDS1SqUI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksuhDS1SqUI Some of the leaders are literally calling for whites to wiped out. https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-human-should-be-wiped-joseph-curl https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-hu... https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-hypocrisy-cheering-violence/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-hy...
    - zapnuk 6y ago
      The fact that you don't even reference a popular youtube content creators to support your stupid argument shows its value. Also, both last links are from a cherry-picking entertainment and blog sites, not news sites that actually have editors and the desire to check sources.
sunseb 6y ago
Have a look at that to understand what's going on and where this madness is heading : https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1340&v=2vyBLCqyUes https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1340&v=2vyBLCqyU...
golemiprague 6y ago
This headline and discussion is itself a type of propaganda, it tries to show as if the people who are banned are the most extreme right wing, which is not the case. Along with them 2000 subreddits have been deleted, some of them are far from being extreme right wing. People like the guy who wrote the IT crowd and father Ted was banned from twitter over some trans people related twits. Trump himself was banned from Twitch. So the headline should be "SV companies are purging anybody who is right to the centre", not some very extreme right wingers.
vmchale 6y ago
Good riddance!
- quadrifoliate 6y ago
  Yeah. By his own admission, Richard Spencer wants the creation of a white ethnostate in America [1]. A lot of debates featuring this person were going on in college campuses across the country after the 2016 election moved the Overton window enough for people like him to get an audience. I was not born white, and there is no way I can become racially white. So from a purely self-interested point of view, I'm glad that his "robust philosophical discussions" about this topic are no longer available to Americans. [1] https://time.com/4293564/the-billionaire-and-the-bigots/ https://time.com/4293564/the-billionaire-and-the-bigots/
  - kypro 6y ago
    Meanwhile, I could name serval black activists (some on YouTube) who advocate for Black separatist movements inside the US who have had no, to very little push back from these companies. Personally I don't really mind people advocating for the creation of a state based on what they perceive as insurmountable ethnic and cultural differences. I think it would be hard to argue peaceful separatist movements have been a force for evil in the world -- quite the opposite in fact. The only threat from separatists movement in the US -- whether that is the creation of Native American states, European States, or an African State -- would be whether the path to creating such a state is violent. So I struggle on the whole to say, no, Native Americans cannot have their own state. Likewise, if Europeans feel their culture or ethnic group is at threat then I am fine with them advocating for a peaceful separatist movement.
henearkr 6y ago
Bravo Google! Well done :)
say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
I guess internet media companies are eager to sort out bugs prior to the 2020 election campaign chaos fueled by interference from foreign political allies
0x8BADF00D 6y ago
Far right according to whom? Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB defector, speaks of ideological subversion or active measures employed by the Soviet Union against enemy countries. The first step is demoralization, which takes 15-20 years to complete. This is basically the indoctrination phase where the intelligentsia and academics are brainwashed about the virtues of Marxist-Leninist thought, and are trained to despise the existing prevailing system of that country. The 1960s counterculture revolution was the start of the demoralization phase. The second step is to destabilize the country. This stage usually takes 2-5 years. This step involves attacks on the country’s economic system, foreign relations, and defense. The third step is crisis, which would only take up to 6 weeks. This step involves a violent change in the economy, power structures, etc. The final step is normalization, in which the new ideological system supplants the old and becomes the new norm. I would argue we are almost at the end of stage 3, where Joe Biden will appoint many Marxists to his cabinet. Soon everything capitalist and democratic will be classified as far right, due to the aforementioned ideological subversion.
- puranjay 6y ago
  I have seen practically this same post on /Pol/ and I really appreciate NOT having it on HN.
  - core-questions 6y ago
    Your post is a symptom of the problem. If you can't read a paragraph like that without experiencing an emotional reaction and a need to hide it from yourself and others, it is you who is immature and should stay out of discussion forums, not the other poster. No rude words were used; the hide comment button is right there if you'd like to close it and the tree stemming from it and move on. Posts like your own really strike me as having essentially the emotional maturity of a small child - if you don't like something, you want to hit it, or cry to an authority to hit it for you. Actually engaging with the comment, or having the strength to accept that people post stuff you don't like and moving on, are obviously just a little bit too difficult for some folks.
    - 6y ago
CryptoPunk 6y ago
When has Stefan Molyneux ever promoted hate speech?
geronimoe 6y ago
I don't think people would have a problem with this if the political public squares (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc) - and that IS what they are - applied these policy changes to everyone equally. What's happened is we've already gone over the edge. Racism has been redefined to only be effectively possible by white people in the West. The intention of this change is racist in itself. Putting aside freedom of speech, what people likely have a problem with is all the OTHER racists on YouTube NOT getting banned and instead being PROPPED UP. These bans are political, not civil justice. If these racists were A) a real problem, and B) not singled out as a faction among multiple other racist factions, then people might believe this is fair. To those that contend that criteria A has been met: The modern rise of white supremacists in the West is being spurred by racist politics; it's almost as if they want to corner these people into extremist ideas. I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism, and that's by understanding the root causes of it and addressing them. These bans are a farce, and meant to consolidate far-leftist power - not liberal power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nkurz 6y ago
  > I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism For those who are unfamiliar, Davis is a black American who has directly befriended and changed the minds of a number of Ku Klux Klan members. He has a collection of their former robes that serve as trophies. In my view, he's a stunning role model. This article describes his approach in more detail: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-audacity-of-talking-about-race-with-the-klu-klux-klan/388733/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-aud.... If you search his name, you'll find a lot more, including a fascinating documentary: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/accidental-courtesy/ https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/accidental-courtes....
  - gsk22 6y ago
    He is definitely an inspiring story, but I wouldn't call him a role model. It is not the burden of each person who is a minority to befriend those who hate them, and his approach is undeniably a dangerous one.
mikhailfranco 6y ago
Chess channel agadmator was taken down by a YouTube bot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8 He speculates the bot detected phrases like "white will always be better here...", etc., then goes on to say that in his ~1800 uploads "it's pretty much black and white to the death in every video". He appealed, but was immediately rejected by the automated appeals system. The channel was restored when further responses and feedback from subscribers eventually got a human in the loop at YouTube.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwawaymanbot 6y ago
Good Riddance! They had it cushy for a long time... now reality bites. This is the West, we fought wars against Fascism. Our biggest mistake was tolerating them a 2nd time.

364 points by nickthegreek 6y ago

It's about time.

I haven't watched Stefan in a long time, is he now producing content in the same register as David Duke & Richard Spencer ? It did not seem to be the case a few years ago.

swivelmaster 6y ago
He's always been pretty awful and white-supremacist-adjacent.
- nailer 6y ago
  This "adjacent" concept has no meaning. Paraphrasing a point I made on Twitter recently: - Richard Spencer: evil. Created 'alt right' movement. - Ben Shapiro: called 'alt right' because he's right wing - Joe Rogan: called 'alt right' because he talked to Ben - Bernie Sanders supporters: called 'alt right' because Joe endorsed Bernie. Ergo: by this logic Karl Marx could be considered 'alt right' Molyneaux might be awful, he might be fine. But the argument one way or the other must be made on his own merits, not those around him. ---- Edit: Replying to dralley due to rate limit:" I have included an example where there are four links. But 'adjacent' is a plainly silly idea if there is only one link. If 'adjacent' being silly isn't already obvious, you may be very left wing (since 'adjacent' seems to be a popular argument on the left). So consider: former KKK member Robert Byrd is in a photo being friendly with Hillary Clinton [1]. Is Hillary Clinton alt-right adjacent? Plainly Hillary Clinton is not alt-right adjacent. That argument would be absurd to make. Guilt by association is evil. To determine whether Stefan Molyneux's ideas are good or bad, we should consider Stefan Molyneux's ideas. Not anyone else's. You've included a video of Stefan Molyneux speaking. That's good - we can find out what he has to say for himself. What someone else has to say is irrelevant. [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
  - absurdturd 6y ago
    He didn't "talk" to Ben, he broadcast Ben's ideas to millions of listeners (the majority of which happen to be white).
    - toxik 6y ago
      Joe Rogan is now alt right? That is a quixotic ambition. Let the fools make fools of themselves. When there are stupid ideas proposed in the podcast, I just laugh at it or talk to somebody about it. As an example, I listened to one of those white supremacy former academics, can’t remember who, and he quips midway through the lecture that Western society developed faster because... we are unique in having a sense of shame. I kid you not. It doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to detect bullshit. Rogan talks to interesting guests all the time, if you label him adversarial, you will have rejected a lot of people.
      - absurdturd 6y ago
        Didn't say he was alt right, but he doesn't use his massive platform responsibly. There's a difference between interviewing a presidential candidate and interviewing a white supremacist.
        nailer 6y ago
        Are you saying Joe interviewed a white supremacist? Who?
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
      What is wrong with that? He did the same with Sanders and they were both interesting.
      - absurdturd 6y ago
        I mean there's the problem right there — you're talking about Bernie Sanders and Ben Shapiro as if they're two people equally deserving of equal space on an enormous platform of listeners.
Edd314159 6y ago
I used to listen to Stefan Molyneux about 10 years ago because he had some interesting views on free market economics. Now I look him up on Wikipedia and find out he's turned into a white nationalist. What the hell happened?
- agoristen 6y ago
  What happened is wikipedia turned into a leftist propaganda outlet.
- evanlivingston 6y ago
  Perhaps there is an association between strongly supporting principles of free markets and problematic ethics.
  - ur-whale 6y ago
    Aka, I'll hitch my political wagon to any passing train as long as it gets me there.
    - basch 6y ago
      Or freedoms to be bad. Freedoms to say bad things, freedoms to lie, freedoms to pollute the environment, freedoms to sell harmful things. They all share a "for my benefit, the collateral damage inflicted on others be damned" element.
  - sparkie 6y ago
    There is a strong association between free market principles and the principle of non-aggression. Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed. Tell me where the problematic ethics are again? (FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them or what they may have said. I'm only defending the Non-aggression principle, which implies that markets are free.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hartator 6y ago
Yes, I don't remember Stefan Molyneux saying anything racist. Can someone share an example?
- user982 6y ago
  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Causality1 6y ago
    Wow that guy's an idiot. He actually claims the Iraq War was a failure because Iraqis have IQs in the 80s and are therefore incapable of accepting democracy. Racism aside, if you've done even a bit of reading on IQ you know it's been rising for decades if not longer. His Jeffersonian Democracy was built by people with an IQ that would be in the 80s today.
    - burkaman 6y ago
      Can you point to some of that reading? Pedantically, that goes against the definition of IQ, where 100 is always average so it can't really increase over time, but your general point about people getting smarter doesn't intuitively make sense to me. Obviously we have more knowledge and resources to build on today, but I've never seen any reason to believe modern humans are smarter from birth than humans born 300 years ago.
      - user982 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - 6y ago
pingpongchef 6y ago
Not at all but Molyneux disagrees with so many left-of-center ideas that the effort needed to effectively detail how Molyneux is different is great, so he gets lumped in with them.
- opnitro 6y ago
  "The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1181003746983043074 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/118100374698304307... "If we had been allowed to talk about race and IQ, the invasion of Iraq would never have occurred, because no one would have been under the illusion that a Jeffersonian Republic was going to emerge from a population with an IQ in the 80s. Opposing science got >500k people killed." - https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1082489068741513217 https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/108248906874151321... EDIT: added a second quote
  - neonate 6y ago
    Ugh. Those are awful.
    - opnitro 6y ago
      Yup, he's bad folks
  - pingpongchef 6y ago
    Your argument is incomplete. I don't dispute that he said those things but what do you claim is the similarity to Spencer or Duke?
    - opnitro 6y ago
      Yeah, they're both very racist, to the level of supposing that that white society is inherently superior. The first quote implies a the existence of a conspiracy to lower white birthrates. The second states clearly that Iraqi people would not be capable of forming a just society due to "low IQ". These are definitionally white supremacist talking points. EDIT: spelling
burkaman 6y ago
If I had to rank them, I would agree that David Duke and Richard Spencer are a little more blatantly racist than Stefan Molyneux, but why does that matter? If they're all violating the hate speech policy, then they should all be banned, even if David Duke is violating it more.
empath75 6y ago
Polite white nationalism is still white nationalism.
DanCarvajal 6y ago
Ten years ago I met him once as a libertarian/free-market conference, he was there with his kids. He seemed like an adorable father at the time. Wow can people change.
karyon 6y ago
Here's a collection of quotes (from another comment downthread for visibility): https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi... a little teaser: > Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane > The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux is also great.

stillbourne 6y ago

You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message. Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided). Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation? Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate. EditEdit: I'm trying to reply to everything as quickly as I can but HN is telling me I'm posting to fast.

cptskippy 6y ago
> The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided). So we're going to start see ADA accommodations for white supremacists claiming they're mentally handicapped and therefore shouldn't be censored?

zozbot234 6y ago

Keep in mind that YT had been funneling viewers towards extreme, bizarre, fringe videos for a long time - including quite a bit of hateful content. This is something of their own doing.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rH61W3epxeHMjg4 6y ago
YouTube radicalization is a myth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4hq5uVsb5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4hq5uVsb5k
ars 6y ago
I'm not sure what you are watching, but I have never been funneled to anything even remotely like that. YT sends you videos based on your watch history. If you watch hate videos to see what kind of stuff people are saying then you should delete them from your history to avoid YT finding you more.
- masklinn 6y ago
  Multiple experiments have demonstrated that as you follow recommendations it drives you more and more towards extreme content. If you don’t follow recs it obviously has no “drive” to keep you on as you’re not following the journey. Basically the recommendations system always tries to drive you towards slightly more “engaging” content. Zeynep Tufekci, amongst others, published about it back in 2018.
  - tantalor 6y ago
    Sure but you could say the same of woodworking videos, marble racing videos, or any niche topic. This is not a surprising outcome; it is totally expected.
    - masklinn 6y ago
      > Sure but you could say the same of woodworking videos, marble racing videos I was replying to someone stating it does not happen. > or any niche topic. It is absolutely not limited to niche topics. > This is not a surprising outcome; it is totally expected. The drive towards extremism is absolutely not “expected”.

arprocter 6y ago

Strange coincidence, considering what happened on reddit earlier

mattigames 6y ago
There is safety in numbers, they can argue that reddit did it as well (either in court or somewhere else)
- arprocter 6y ago
  It makes the 'we take our rules seriously' talk look stupid - they only took action because someone else did first

ra1n85 6y ago

Twitch and Reddit enacted bans simultaneously: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-trump-forum-in-crackdown-on-hate-speech-344698 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-tru... https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-account-174145621.html https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-accoun... Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this.

searchableguy 6y ago
"coincidence"
rickbutton 6y ago
Why? There is a massive political movement for racial equality happening all over the country. They are responding to pressure from consumers, which they very much should, because all of these companies have ignored these issues for decades. They aren't coordinating with each other in some conspiracy to silence white supremacists. The -people- want white supremacists to be deplatformed (a good thing!).
- patrickaljord 6y ago
  The fact that it all happened on the same day does imply some kind of coordination though.
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  This is why you never give into the mob, even when their point is a good one. That's how individual rights are lost to the collective.
  - throwaway29102 6y ago
    Yaaaaaas...this one salty
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    No one has a right to post on Reddit or Youtube. If we want to be concerned about individual rights, we should at least be somewhat accurate about the definition of the word.

claudiawerner 6y ago

Since these threads often turn out the same way once they get popular enough (assuming they don't get flagged first), a while ago I wrote a comment[0] which can help sum up some arguments from "both sides" of the debate over Internet censorship, and I hope it's useful to those who would otherwise repeat a discussion that's been had many times before in these comment sections. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757

chrisco255 6y ago

It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is left with the world. Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range of opinions that lean to the right. It's extremely important that society be balanced and not tilted to the extremes of either ideology. This process of selective banning and purging will not end well for Silicon Valley. The problem is they are not approaching the left's extremists with the same fervor. In fact they're turning a blind eye to the vicious hate against cops and conservatives on their own platforms. And a lot of this hate is disproportionate to reality. That is, the perception of the problem exceeds the actual statistical problem. I'm of the strong opinion that a society needs it's left and right brain to function properly and constructively in order to tackle the diverse set of problems we face. If there is no push-pull give and take between these two groups, then society will become unstable and increasingly more polarized. I'm a free market capitalist, but with Silicon Valley's recent muscular intervention into free speech, and the overwhelming propaganda power they possess, I fully support the break up of big tech monopolies in social media, search, and app stores.

lowtolerance 6y ago
Thoughts and prayers /s
meroes 6y ago
adapt or be left out
- YarickR2 6y ago
  Well. We had several ideological purges earlier in 20th century, and I can tell what will happen next: every netizen will be triaged by a progressive troika, and sent to rehabilitation and education camps. Internet versions (excommunication), or real life ones .
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sunseb 6y ago

Free speech... only if you are "woke".

mchusma 6y ago

This is not directly related, but I saw the policy: "videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status" I'm curious if anyone know the root of "veteran" on this list? I am just not familiar with that kind of -ism (veteran-ism?).

oh_sigh 6y ago
You can't discriminate against someone for having served in the military in the US. Someone who served in the military is a veteran. Also, the phrasing of their policy is strange. Apparently you can argue all you want that racial group X is inferior all you want, but if you don't try to exclude them from something, that is okay.
whateveracct 6y ago
I think veterans are considered a suspect class & there exists legislation protecting against discrimination.
- mmmmmbop 6y ago
  I wonder if this policy is valid outside the US. If so, are you allowed to discriminate against veterans of the Wehrmacht, or the SS?
epc 6y ago
Veterans are a protected class (at least under labor law) in the US based on a 1974 (VEVRAA).
- lowmemcpu 6y ago
  I'm surprised that makes the jump from employment/labor law to speech/politics policies. Strawman: If I were a politician campaigning and were to say something like, "Veterans do not deserve benefits and I don't think we should fund veteran benefits" or "Veterans do not deserve our blind respect", am I now discriminating and will get banned from the platform?

jMyles 6y ago

There's a problem here that is too rarely discussed: When we do finally achieve substantial decentralized agency for ideas and media, which cannot be censored, it will be tainted in its roots by the fact that these jackasses are the people who will flock to it first. How can we build a censorship-resistant society where the most creative, peaceful, unifying ideas are the basis of our dialogue?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
andrekandre 6y ago
i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience and time to go through so, in an "open market" it becomes harder to shut down bad ideas with "open debate" (which i would argue we need a way to do, now more than ever) i think until there is some way to do this in a general way - some kind of "anti-twitter" - these kinds of bannings will just keep happening because no one seems to really know how what to do otherwise...
- jMyles 6y ago
  > i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience and time to go through I can't help but notice that the inflammation of this kind of content dovetails nicely with the profit motive of the medium in question. If we were able to open and audit the entirety of the algorithmic decision-making regarding what appears in users' feeds, does any of us doubt that hostilities and insecurities are amplified?
pnako 6y ago
I have the same problem with my BBQ. I bought it to keep my food cold, but systematically it heats the food to the point where it becomes burned. Just in case my attempt at analogy is not clear: on a free speech network you'll get free speech.

nailer 6y ago

Oddly /r/sino, a CCP, anti-democracy, anti-human rights subreddit that often brigades /r/hongkong is still up. Edit: oops, this should have been a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681872 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681872

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

noxer 6y ago

Soon to be found on Telegram I guess. Seem to be the only growing platform that does not ban opinions. Probably because they do not need to make advertisers happy. Conclusion: Ads still ruin the internet.

robotron 6y ago
Conclusion: white nationalists ruin the internet
pureagave 6y ago
Ads run the internet and fueling rage and hate helps social networks keep engagement high (and sell more ads).
zapnuk 6y ago
It's disgusting to see racism, transphobia, misogyny, and general hate speech spread by Molyneux and others be normalized as 'opinions'. They aren't interested in discourse, they only want to spread their garbage while cowordly hiding behind a dated concept of free (hate) speech. Molyneux especially dodges every debate where his oposition is somewhat knowledgeable.
- iratewizard 6y ago
  >dated concept of free (hate) speech Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.
  - zapnuk 6y ago
    Some content fosters the development of extremists/terrorists. This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators. We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly leads to more violence.

jhonatan08 6y ago

Sometimes I wonder if there are better solutions rather than bans. Banning sounds like sweeping the dirt under the rug. I am afraid haters might concentrate in underground social networks, away from the spotlights, creating a "us and them" situation.

superkuh 6y ago
Don't worry, the payment processors and corporate banks with federal charters simply will refuse to deal with them. They won't be able to buy services or connectivity. And then when they try to set up their own payment networks they'll be charged with trumped up KYC law infractions and put in prison.
- manfredo 6y ago
  Can't they still accept paper checks? I think banks are obligated to honor them. Groups like the KKK and the Daily Stormer have managed to stay in business.

howmayiannoyyou 6y ago

Molyneux earned the ban. I've personally reported him several times. Not to say the other didn't also deserve it, but Molyneux was on my radar.

qez 6y ago
What did he do to deserve a ban?
- IkmoIkmo 6y ago
  > https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux Stuff like: > The Left is infested with pedophiles - they promote the welfare state and feminism in order to get protective fathers out of the home, so they have easier sexual access to the children of single mothers. > The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates. You can have freedom of speech, just do it on your own platform if you want to say such nonsense. Makes sense to me that a mainstream commercial platform like Youtube with normal community guidelines wouldn't allow this stuff. I mean, there's some de facto holocaust apologetics in there, some stuff about arabs being too low IQ to accept the US bringing democracy through invasion, some stuff about the 2008 financial crisis being caused by minorities having too low an IQ etc etc. It's all pretty sad. Not everyone deserves a platform with extremely-cheap infrastructure to reach hundreds of millions of people like on Youtube with a message like this, easily ban-worthy if you ask me.

techlaw 6y ago

One hopeful thing that might come from this time of forced isolation: time and space to reflect on what is genuinely meaningful to us in the long term as individuals and as communities.

s9w 6y ago

"hate speech" is a made up word and neither illegal or "bad". You're applauding a rebranded social score and a secondary justice system.

lukifer 6y ago
I can form a trivial argument for why almost any hot-button political opinion is "hate speech", even through the most charitable definition of "advocating violence or diminishing essential human dignity". - Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe women are "less-than". - Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you believe pre-birth infants are "less-than". - Pro-War: You don't respect the sacrifices of American troop or those who died on 9/11, because you believe privileged Westerners are "less-than". - Anti-War: You don't respect the lives of civilians who die in drone strikes, because you believe Muslims are "less-than". Lately, I've been cross-referencing the language of dehumanization with how uncontroversial it is to express an opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "necessary evils". And perhaps they were (I've heard the arguments and I'm aware of the historical complexity); yet most Americans suffer little consternation to disregard the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, in a way that would be horrifying if it was (a) present day, and/or (b) the actions of some out-group rather than our own heroic Nazi-fighting forces. All that said: I think it's also pretty naive to pretend that emotionally inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. Lately I've been thinking about a different category: while "hate speech" is shunned in most corners of polite society, our moral tribes largely tolerate (if not encourage) "fear speech": "[Trump / Antifa] is coming to get you". Each side's fear exacerbates the other in a positive feedback loop, akin to the Cycle of Violence.
- rubatuga 6y ago
  The necessary evils bit is probably a way to relieve our cognitive dissonance. Anyways, do you have evidence to support your fear and hatred cycle, as well as its prevalence in western society?
mactrey 6y ago
> "hate speech" is a made up word Most words and phrases were made up, at some point. "Hate speech" still has a coherent meaning. > and neither illegal Nobody said it was illegal. YouTube is free to ban content creators that haven't broken the law. You agree to those terms when you use the site. > or "bad" I understand that the phrase "hate speech" confuses you. But these content creators openly advocate white supremacism. If you don't think that is "bad" I think you should take a deep look inward. > You're applauding Yes. > a rebranded social score No. YouTube is not assigning a "social score" - they are refusing to pay web hosting fees for racists. That has no effect on any other aspect of these people's lives - their ability to find jobs, make friends, start businesses, etc. is unaffected. > and a secondary justice system The comparison of YouTube consequences to the justice system is laughable. YouTube is saying "host your content elsewhere, there are lots of options." The justice system hands down things like forced confinement and the death penalty. There is really no comparison.

thinkingemote 6y ago

Have twitch and YouTube also followed Reddit in allowing hate speech again majority groups? I mean the action is coordinated but have the policies?

erichocean 6y ago
I don't think so, the policies are set by each social media company, but the targets of those policies are primarily determined by the SPLC and the ADL. This makes hate speech enforcement fair and uniform across all of the major social networks, and also reduces liability for the social networks since they can point to an objective 3rd-party as the cause of the suspensions.
- memimo 6y ago
  The SPLC is a hate group

ss7pro 6y ago

Welcome to Soviet Union this time DR ven by capitalism and profits.

Animats 6y ago

"Videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status." Not for suggesting a group be attacked. Not "hate". For expressing an opinion on a political subject. Prohibiting that is scary. This is not a good thing, and we will probably regret it in a few years. Trump would like to shut down criticism of himself, and has tried. Black Lives Matter might be muzzled for inciting to riot. This can backfire, badly. "Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where ... all the children are above average."

syshum 6y ago

Hmm this comes on the same day as Reddit Purge... I wonder if there was some Coordination there. Some AG's might want to look in that for for their Anti-Trust Investigations

gguevaraa 6y ago

Christ, spez is getting hammered in the announcements. I mean seriously, he's basically saying it's alright to be discriminatory against the "majority", whatever that means. Dude doesn't even clarify what that means, just skirts around the question. Lot of people are wondering why r/BlackPeopleTwitter or r/politics haven't been banned despite blatant racism or calls to violence. People are pretty pissed at spez, to say the least. Also, kudos to that one user pointing out how 10 mods oversee 90% of subreddits.[1] I've linked the thread[0]. The comments pointing the insanity are highlighted What a trainwreck but oh well, enjoy being the next Digg plebbit. [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/updat... [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/fwe18po/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/updat... Edit: "Spez, answer the fucking question. So is it according to reddit policy, a white person can’t say “all black people are bad” but a black person can say “all white people are bad”? If this is the case, this is racist" (LMAO)

FiloSottile 6y ago
Not sure if you're missing it, but yeah, reverse racism is not a thing. The concept of racism is meaningful in the historical and societal context of systemic oppression. A black person saying "all white people are bad" is not feeding into and exploiting hundreds of years of prejudice stacked against an under-privileged group. Edit: a black person in the US, different cultures are different contexts.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Is this sarcasm? Because I can give you a couple examples of well documented, savage, systemic oppression of white people. Are you one of those that thinks history begins in the US 250 years ago?
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Even if it did, he's forgetting that US was incredibly racist towards the Irish, and they are as white as they come. Racism is racism, no matter who does it towards whom.

cjslep 6y ago

When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer. For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and shed tears about how they were being pushed to the edge and ostracized from the local communities. Most of the town ignored these common pleas. We knew how to deal with them and ignore them, we had our inoculated culture. A few businesses were locally known to be "Klan friendly", but it should surprise no one that they are not rich mega-corps. It seems that in the internet age, this sort of culture of inoculation has not been passed on to the outside world communities, though the far-right ideologies may have. It is normal to decline the business of people you don't want to do business with. It is normal for it to be the fringe believers -- the ones that by their own choice are pushing themselves to live on that fringe. It is the simple free-market economy of supply and demand telling them that their demand is not necessary. However, my father also taught me to be careful with this pushing of the fringe. It is a delicate balance of liberty with liberty-destroying ideology. The paradox of tolerance, etc. It should be very closely watched. It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". They will shed tears in public and privately rejoice at the welcoming change. It is a grant of liberty they suddenly inherited with tech to have had such a huge audience and defenders of their speech on private platforms all this time. It is only now that the culture of inoculation is catching up. We should watch it closely & carefully though. We shouldn't be shedding tears for them.

rickbutton 6y ago
100%. If you are still in this thread defending the ability for white supremacists to spew racism and hate on these platforms, then that means that you wish for them to continue relaying their awful message, in which case you are a white supremacist by definition. These awful people do not "add to the discourse" in a meaningful way. Their insane ideas should not be entertained.
- alexryan 6y ago

steveeq1 6y ago

So youtube is going to ban gangsta rap music for the same reasons, right?

scollet 6y ago
What is your aversion to rap music and how is it relevant to this case?

kyle_martin1 6y ago

This is suspicious. So much for free-speech and open debate. Just let people hear both sides and make up their own minds.

Inu 6y ago
Remember when Noam Chomsky argued for allowing Holocaust deniers to lecture at universities, so that students could make their own judgement and disproof absurd theories? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair Guess it was a different time.

madballster 6y ago

A year or two ago, Canadian conservative professor and YT superstar Jordan Peterson announced he was going to free conservative and "alternative content producers" from the yoke of Valley owned online media companies by creating his own, conservative media platform. What ever happened to this? Vaporware? It appears conservative content creators knew their days were counted on advertising-financed mainstream media outlets, yet they did not prepare accordingly. Obviously there is a market for their content, what is so hard in organizing and creating their own media outlet?

akvadrako 6y ago
He did create it, but I haven't seen anything of value on there: https://www.thinkspot.com/ https://www.thinkspot.com/ JP has also been out of the picture for the past year or so. I think the main issue is most conservatives just aren't interested in a siloed forum; the whole point in commenting is to convince others.

VectorLock 6y ago

Stefan Molyneux not to be confused with Peter Molyneux.

bofadeez 6y ago

Meanwhile flat earth videos are okay

rukittenme 6y ago
I mean are flat earthers really so evil that they need to be scrubbed from existence? If somebody is dumb enough to believe the earth is flat then they're surely not in any position where knowing the earth is round would be important to their job. If anything these videos should continue to exist as a siren call for increased education funding and initiatives.
zapnuk 6y ago
Flat earthers don't have the effect that their viewers go around shooting people. Far-right content creators on the other hand enable terrorists like the Christchurch perpetrator.
- DarthGhandi 6y ago
  I've seen dozens of instances of serious racial violence by blm activists recorded in the last few weeks and cheered on by thousands of YouTube videos demanding even more, surely that counts as "enabling terrorists"? Hate crimes units across the country are investigating racially motivated attacks spurring entirely from blm. You won't see these people happily wanting a race war being banned though. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksuhDS1SqUI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksuhDS1SqUI Some of the leaders are literally calling for whites to wiped out. https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-human-should-be-wiped-joseph-curl https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-hu... https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-hypocrisy-cheering-violence/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-hy...
  - zapnuk 6y ago
    The fact that you don't even reference a popular youtube content creators to support your stupid argument shows its value. Also, both last links are from a cherry-picking entertainment and blog sites, not news sites that actually have editors and the desire to check sources.

sunseb 6y ago

Have a look at that to understand what's going on and where this madness is heading : https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1340&v=2vyBLCqyUes https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1340&v=2vyBLCqyU...

golemiprague 6y ago

This headline and discussion is itself a type of propaganda, it tries to show as if the people who are banned are the most extreme right wing, which is not the case. Along with them 2000 subreddits have been deleted, some of them are far from being extreme right wing. People like the guy who wrote the IT crowd and father Ted was banned from twitter over some trans people related twits. Trump himself was banned from Twitch. So the headline should be "SV companies are purging anybody who is right to the centre", not some very extreme right wingers.

vmchale 6y ago

Good riddance!

quadrifoliate 6y ago
Yeah. By his own admission, Richard Spencer wants the creation of a white ethnostate in America [1]. A lot of debates featuring this person were going on in college campuses across the country after the 2016 election moved the Overton window enough for people like him to get an audience. I was not born white, and there is no way I can become racially white. So from a purely self-interested point of view, I'm glad that his "robust philosophical discussions" about this topic are no longer available to Americans. [1] https://time.com/4293564/the-billionaire-and-the-bigots/ https://time.com/4293564/the-billionaire-and-the-bigots/
- kypro 6y ago
  Meanwhile, I could name serval black activists (some on YouTube) who advocate for Black separatist movements inside the US who have had no, to very little push back from these companies. Personally I don't really mind people advocating for the creation of a state based on what they perceive as insurmountable ethnic and cultural differences. I think it would be hard to argue peaceful separatist movements have been a force for evil in the world -- quite the opposite in fact. The only threat from separatists movement in the US -- whether that is the creation of Native American states, European States, or an African State -- would be whether the path to creating such a state is violent. So I struggle on the whole to say, no, Native Americans cannot have their own state. Likewise, if Europeans feel their culture or ethnic group is at threat then I am fine with them advocating for a peaceful separatist movement.

henearkr 6y ago

Bravo Google! Well done :)

say_it_as_it_is 6y ago

I guess internet media companies are eager to sort out bugs prior to the 2020 election campaign chaos fueled by interference from foreign political allies

0x8BADF00D 6y ago

Far right according to whom? Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB defector, speaks of ideological subversion or active measures employed by the Soviet Union against enemy countries. The first step is demoralization, which takes 15-20 years to complete. This is basically the indoctrination phase where the intelligentsia and academics are brainwashed about the virtues of Marxist-Leninist thought, and are trained to despise the existing prevailing system of that country. The 1960s counterculture revolution was the start of the demoralization phase. The second step is to destabilize the country. This stage usually takes 2-5 years. This step involves attacks on the country’s economic system, foreign relations, and defense. The third step is crisis, which would only take up to 6 weeks. This step involves a violent change in the economy, power structures, etc. The final step is normalization, in which the new ideological system supplants the old and becomes the new norm. I would argue we are almost at the end of stage 3, where Joe Biden will appoint many Marxists to his cabinet. Soon everything capitalist and democratic will be classified as far right, due to the aforementioned ideological subversion.

puranjay 6y ago
I have seen practically this same post on /Pol/ and I really appreciate NOT having it on HN.
- core-questions 6y ago
  Your post is a symptom of the problem. If you can't read a paragraph like that without experiencing an emotional reaction and a need to hide it from yourself and others, it is you who is immature and should stay out of discussion forums, not the other poster. No rude words were used; the hide comment button is right there if you'd like to close it and the tree stemming from it and move on. Posts like your own really strike me as having essentially the emotional maturity of a small child - if you don't like something, you want to hit it, or cry to an authority to hit it for you. Actually engaging with the comment, or having the strength to accept that people post stuff you don't like and moving on, are obviously just a little bit too difficult for some folks.
  - 6y ago

CryptoPunk 6y ago

When has Stefan Molyneux ever promoted hate speech?

geronimoe 6y ago

I don't think people would have a problem with this if the political public squares (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc) - and that IS what they are - applied these policy changes to everyone equally. What's happened is we've already gone over the edge. Racism has been redefined to only be effectively possible by white people in the West. The intention of this change is racist in itself. Putting aside freedom of speech, what people likely have a problem with is all the OTHER racists on YouTube NOT getting banned and instead being PROPPED UP. These bans are political, not civil justice. If these racists were A) a real problem, and B) not singled out as a faction among multiple other racist factions, then people might believe this is fair. To those that contend that criteria A has been met: The modern rise of white supremacists in the West is being spurred by racist politics; it's almost as if they want to corner these people into extremist ideas. I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism, and that's by understanding the root causes of it and addressing them. These bans are a farce, and meant to consolidate far-leftist power - not liberal power.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nkurz 6y ago
> I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism For those who are unfamiliar, Davis is a black American who has directly befriended and changed the minds of a number of Ku Klux Klan members. He has a collection of their former robes that serve as trophies. In my view, he's a stunning role model. This article describes his approach in more detail: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-audacity-of-talking-about-race-with-the-klu-klux-klan/388733/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-aud.... If you search his name, you'll find a lot more, including a fascinating documentary: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/accidental-courtesy/ https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/accidental-courtes....
- gsk22 6y ago
  He is definitely an inspiring story, but I wouldn't call him a role model. It is not the burden of each person who is a minority to befriend those who hate them, and his approach is undeniably a dangerous one.

mikhailfranco 6y ago

Chess channel agadmator was taken down by a YouTube bot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8 He speculates the bot detected phrases like "white will always be better here...", etc., then goes on to say that in his ~1800 uploads "it's pretty much black and white to the death in every video". He appealed, but was immediately rejected by the automated appeals system. The channel was restored when further responses and feedback from subscribers eventually got a human in the loop at YouTube.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwawaymanbot 6y ago

Good Riddance! They had it cushy for a long time... now reality bites. This is the West, we fought wars against Fascism. Our biggest mistake was tolerating them a 2nd time.