7 ms·

For those that haven't seen a RWW video, they don't add commentary to their video content, they simply memorialize extremist right wing messages from politician

For those that haven't seen a RWW video, they don't add commentary to their video content, they simply memorialize extremist right wing messages from politicians and talking heads. That's the point being made here: they are being banned not for copyright reasons (e.g. their act of re-uploading clips) but for the content in those clips. That is, YouTube is banning them for posting (exclusively right wing) extremist content, which they are posting specifically to expose. People who don't watch the handful of national right wing news outlets or the hundreds of local stations likely won't otherwise know what half of the country is being fed daily.

zephrx1111 5y ago
So how about the left extremists accounts? Is it double standard?
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Why would it be a double standard for "right wing watch" to not repost left wing content? (EDIT: For the record I am all for a "left wing watch" that only reposts influencial left-wing's voices that the posters believes violates terms of service on the website they post on. I just don't understand why "right wing watch" should be expected to do so, or why it's a double standard if they don't.)
- amerine 5y ago
  What left extremists accounts?
- gethoht 5y ago
  lolz
- contravariant 5y ago
  That's debatable. This is clearly whataboutism though.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  I mean no, you're not going to get banned for posting support for universal healthcare, ending the drug war, ending for-profit prisons, etc even though these are extreme left positions in current US politics. If you post misinformation telling people that it's illegal to charge for healthcare and that you can just throw out any medical bills you receive without recourse, or that drug laws are unconstitutional so you can't actually go to jail for them, or that private prisons don't count so you are allowed to break out of them, well yeah you might get banned!
  - steve76 5y ago
    The one extreme position, among others, is that you are unrestrained by laws. Liberals, Marxists, fascists, jihadis, the drug cartel, and criminals, all have that in common. Win, do nothing but print money to line your own pockets. Loose, double the murder rate, burn cities, work with your Marxist friends to unleash a bioweapon on the world that kills millions, one of the worse mass murders in history. I'm banning you because I don't like you. Go away. If I liked you, you could do or say whatever you want. Anything. But I don't like you so you're banned. That's the honest reason. They don't say it because bailout time is coming up again and they don't want the Clara Petacci treatment.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >you're not going to get banned for posting support for universal healthcare, ending the drug war, ending for-profit prisons, etc even though these are extreme left positions in current US politics Close to 2/3rds of the American public supports universal healthcare and ending the drug war. Therefore they can't by definition be extreme left positions. "63% of U.S. adults say the government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for all" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-... '65% of voters support ending the “War on Drugs.”' https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/06/50th-anniversary-war-drugs-new-poll-shows-majority-voters-support-ending https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/06/50th-anniversar...
    - 5y ago
- gurleen_s 5y ago
  Because “extreme left” views don’t involve genocide, xenophobia, sexism, etc.
Aunche 5y ago
If they don't add commentary, then it's literally just a compilation of videos that they think YouTube should cancel, so it's no surprise that YouTube would cancel them.
- throwaway8582 5y ago
  Exactly. It's hard to feel any pity for these left-wing groups being bitten by the censorship policies that they pushed for.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Sure, but are the original videos also removed?
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  Hughes v. Benjamin determined that Benjamin's (Sargon of Akkad, anti-feminist youtuber) reposting of this type was fair use, in fact he was even awarded fees. This a U.S. district court decision wrt federal law so YMMV.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    Except YouTube (temporarily) banned them for community guidelines violations, not copyright violations. So the Hughes v. Benjamin decisions isn't relevant.
  - ripply 5y ago
    Adding some context to this. You are absolutely correct, his video did not have any added audio commentary or basically anything and he won his case, his video was just sections copied directly from the source creating a compilation of the original video. In this case as I understand it, the content being uploaded is extremist content (in their eyes) explicitly being uploaded to highlight its extremism (in their eyes), the difference between the two situations being that Sargon’s video didn’t contain extremist content that YouTube wouldn’t want on their platform. RWW is posting content they essentially want to be removed. They got what they wanted, the content was removed. In a sense they succeeded in what they set out to do. I wish their channel be reinstated, but this situation looks to be slightly different from Benjamin’s unless more details come out. It seems like YouTube messed up and is treating them harshly, but for all we know this type of content is now no longer allowed on the platform due to policy change.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
commandlinefan 5y ago
Ah, thanks for the context - when I saw the headline, I thought that cancel culture had finally caught up to left-leaning sources, but apparently it's just a left-leaning source accidentally getting caught up in the right-wing cancellation net.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  I literally cannot think of any more correct political mission for our media to pursue than holding politicians accountable using their own words. It's not "cancelation" when people hear something a politician said and vote them out of office, we just call it voting.

zephrx1111 5y ago

So how about the left extremists accounts? Is it double standard?

KittenInABox 5y ago
Why would it be a double standard for "right wing watch" to not repost left wing content? (EDIT: For the record I am all for a "left wing watch" that only reposts influencial left-wing's voices that the posters believes violates terms of service on the website they post on. I just don't understand why "right wing watch" should be expected to do so, or why it's a double standard if they don't.)
amerine 5y ago
What left extremists accounts?
gethoht 5y ago
lolz
contravariant 5y ago
That's debatable. This is clearly whataboutism though.
tehwebguy 5y ago
I mean no, you're not going to get banned for posting support for universal healthcare, ending the drug war, ending for-profit prisons, etc even though these are extreme left positions in current US politics. If you post misinformation telling people that it's illegal to charge for healthcare and that you can just throw out any medical bills you receive without recourse, or that drug laws are unconstitutional so you can't actually go to jail for them, or that private prisons don't count so you are allowed to break out of them, well yeah you might get banned!
- steve76 5y ago
  The one extreme position, among others, is that you are unrestrained by laws. Liberals, Marxists, fascists, jihadis, the drug cartel, and criminals, all have that in common. Win, do nothing but print money to line your own pockets. Loose, double the murder rate, burn cities, work with your Marxist friends to unleash a bioweapon on the world that kills millions, one of the worse mass murders in history. I'm banning you because I don't like you. Go away. If I liked you, you could do or say whatever you want. Anything. But I don't like you so you're banned. That's the honest reason. They don't say it because bailout time is coming up again and they don't want the Clara Petacci treatment.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >you're not going to get banned for posting support for universal healthcare, ending the drug war, ending for-profit prisons, etc even though these are extreme left positions in current US politics Close to 2/3rds of the American public supports universal healthcare and ending the drug war. Therefore they can't by definition be extreme left positions. "63% of U.S. adults say the government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for all" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-... '65% of voters support ending the “War on Drugs.”' https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/06/50th-anniversary-war-drugs-new-poll-shows-majority-voters-support-ending https://drugpolicy.org/press-release/2021/06/50th-anniversar...
  - 5y ago
gurleen_s 5y ago
Because “extreme left” views don’t involve genocide, xenophobia, sexism, etc.

Aunche 5y ago

If they don't add commentary, then it's literally just a compilation of videos that they think YouTube should cancel, so it's no surprise that YouTube would cancel them.

throwaway8582 5y ago
Exactly. It's hard to feel any pity for these left-wing groups being bitten by the censorship policies that they pushed for.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Sure, but are the original videos also removed?
tehwebguy 5y ago
Hughes v. Benjamin determined that Benjamin's (Sargon of Akkad, anti-feminist youtuber) reposting of this type was fair use, in fact he was even awarded fees. This a U.S. district court decision wrt federal law so YMMV.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  Except YouTube (temporarily) banned them for community guidelines violations, not copyright violations. So the Hughes v. Benjamin decisions isn't relevant.
- ripply 5y ago
  Adding some context to this. You are absolutely correct, his video did not have any added audio commentary or basically anything and he won his case, his video was just sections copied directly from the source creating a compilation of the original video. In this case as I understand it, the content being uploaded is extremist content (in their eyes) explicitly being uploaded to highlight its extremism (in their eyes), the difference between the two situations being that Sargon’s video didn’t contain extremist content that YouTube wouldn’t want on their platform. RWW is posting content they essentially want to be removed. They got what they wanted, the content was removed. In a sense they succeeded in what they set out to do. I wish their channel be reinstated, but this situation looks to be slightly different from Benjamin’s unless more details come out. It seems like YouTube messed up and is treating them harshly, but for all we know this type of content is now no longer allowed on the platform due to policy change.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

commandlinefan 5y ago

Ah, thanks for the context - when I saw the headline, I thought that cancel culture had finally caught up to left-leaning sources, but apparently it's just a left-leaning source accidentally getting caught up in the right-wing cancellation net.

tehwebguy 5y ago
I literally cannot think of any more correct political mission for our media to pursue than holding politicians accountable using their own words. It's not "cancelation" when people hear something a politician said and vote them out of office, we just call it voting.