4 ms·

American Renaissance's entire channel. That has, as far as I'm aware, never called for violence, or spread misinformation, though I welcome news to the contrary

American Renaissance's entire channel. That has, as far as I'm aware, never called for violence, or spread misinformation, though I welcome news to the contrary.

shadowgovt 5y ago
It would appear that they were cut for violating hate speech policies. "We have strict policies prohibiting hate speech on YouTube, and terminate any channel that repeatedly or egregiously violates those policies," said a YouTube spokesperson on the topic. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-molyneux-duke-richard-spencer-conduct-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-mol...
- chuckee 5y ago
  Yes, that is what Google says, without citing any examples of what the hate speech in question was. This way they can censor any politics they like under the pretense of hate speech.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Wouldn't highlighting specific examples fall prey to Streisand Effect? If they don't want to spread hate speech, they can't name it. On the flip side, I see AmRen acknowledging the ban on their site, but not suggesting the ban was unfounded; only that it stifles speech (indeed, but stifling hate speech is the point of banning it in YouTube's TOS). Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear that even the aggrieved party contests the nature of their content.
    - chuckee 5y ago
      Not if they include a debunking. Right now we only have their word, which isn't worth much. Though that is a wonderful catch 22 they can use as excuse. We should be content to know only that the banned party was guilty. Of what, exactly, is not our concern. Google broadly and secretly [1] defining hate speech, and removing based on that definition, is exactly the example you asked for: content removed for having the wrong politics. That they won't even tell you the exact politics, but leave you guessing, makes it worse, not better. What might be an entirely factual, dispassionate video, becomes in your mind a foaming-at-the-mouth murderous screed, because all you know about it is that Google (known for being straightforward and trustworthy) called it hate speech. [1] We never get to find out what their interpretation of their stated rules is in practice, only who is guilty of breaking them, and only in the few cases that are high-profile enough for us to learn about.
      - amhnews2 5y ago
        They're on a list of splc's hate groups, and are a self-described white supremacist organization. This is pretty far from political differences (there are plenty of alt-right YouTubers, just not that promote a white ethnostate)
        chuckee 5y ago
        While I don't know how exactly the SPLC arrived at their categorization, the "self-described" part is false. The 3rd paragraph of their "about" page shows: > We also believe that whites, like all racial groups, have legitimate interests that must be defended. The defense of those interests is white advocacy. We seek to advance only those interests that we recognize and would defend for all other racial groups. We seek no advantages as whites — only the expression of preferences for our own people and culture that are taken for granted by people of other races but denied to us. Now this paragraph may be a lie, and the SPLC may be correct that they are hateful supremacists. But they're not self-described as such. Again, I welcome evidence supporting this, but I don't feel inclined to go through their website to find it.
        amhnews2 5y ago
        The splc puts out their reasoning on their classifications, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-renaissance https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... I suppose if you want to nit pick, they don't self-identify as white supremecist, but openly promote the idea that whites are superior and deserve to dominate society.
        chuckee 5y ago
        > openly promote the idea that whites are superior and deserve to dominate society. From what I could gather, the idea they're promoting is for whites to have a separate society, and not dominate anyone. But since they're so open about promoting, as you say, whites dominating others, you should have no trouble finding an example proving me wrong.

American Renaissance's entire channel. That has, as far as I'm aware, never called for violence, or spread misinformation, though I welcome news to the contrary.

shadowgovt 5y ago

It would appear that they were cut for violating hate speech policies. "We have strict policies prohibiting hate speech on YouTube, and terminate any channel that repeatedly or egregiously violates those policies," said a YouTube spokesperson on the topic. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-molyneux-duke-richard-spencer-conduct-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-mol...

chuckee 5y ago
Yes, that is what Google says, without citing any examples of what the hate speech in question was. This way they can censor any politics they like under the pretense of hate speech.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Wouldn't highlighting specific examples fall prey to Streisand Effect? If they don't want to spread hate speech, they can't name it. On the flip side, I see AmRen acknowledging the ban on their site, but not suggesting the ban was unfounded; only that it stifles speech (indeed, but stifling hate speech is the point of banning it in YouTube's TOS). Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear that even the aggrieved party contests the nature of their content.
  - chuckee 5y ago
    Not if they include a debunking. Right now we only have their word, which isn't worth much. Though that is a wonderful catch 22 they can use as excuse. We should be content to know only that the banned party was guilty. Of what, exactly, is not our concern. Google broadly and secretly [1] defining hate speech, and removing based on that definition, is exactly the example you asked for: content removed for having the wrong politics. That they won't even tell you the exact politics, but leave you guessing, makes it worse, not better. What might be an entirely factual, dispassionate video, becomes in your mind a foaming-at-the-mouth murderous screed, because all you know about it is that Google (known for being straightforward and trustworthy) called it hate speech. [1] We never get to find out what their interpretation of their stated rules is in practice, only who is guilty of breaking them, and only in the few cases that are high-profile enough for us to learn about.
    - amhnews2 5y ago
      They're on a list of splc's hate groups, and are a self-described white supremacist organization. This is pretty far from political differences (there are plenty of alt-right YouTubers, just not that promote a white ethnostate)
      - chuckee 5y ago
        While I don't know how exactly the SPLC arrived at their categorization, the "self-described" part is false. The 3rd paragraph of their "about" page shows: > We also believe that whites, like all racial groups, have legitimate interests that must be defended. The defense of those interests is white advocacy. We seek to advance only those interests that we recognize and would defend for all other racial groups. We seek no advantages as whites — only the expression of preferences for our own people and culture that are taken for granted by people of other races but denied to us. Now this paragraph may be a lie, and the SPLC may be correct that they are hateful supremacists. But they're not self-described as such. Again, I welcome evidence supporting this, but I don't feel inclined to go through their website to find it.
        amhnews2 5y ago
        The splc puts out their reasoning on their classifications, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-renaissance https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... I suppose if you want to nit pick, they don't self-identify as white supremecist, but openly promote the idea that whites are superior and deserve to dominate society.
        chuckee 5y ago
        > openly promote the idea that whites are superior and deserve to dominate society. From what I could gather, the idea they're promoting is for whites to have a separate society, and not dominate anyone. But since they're so open about promoting, as you say, whites dominating others, you should have no trouble finding an example proving me wrong.