4 ms·

Steven crowder just got banned until the end of the year on YouTube. Second strike. Both for lgbtq jokes. 5 million subs. One more strikes and he's out. Not su

Steven crowder just got banned until the end of the year on YouTube. Second strike. Both for lgbtq jokes. 5 million subs. One more strikes and he's out. Not sure how 5 million of his subscribers will feel after. To me it seems short sighted. Since this will just strengthen competitor platforms. I suppose will it lead to conservatives having to create their own internet infrastructure and banking system eventually if the bans continue.

nameistaken 5y ago
Tell your employer this isn't Reddit.
- xupybd 5y ago
  I'm a bit lost, is there context that I'm missing?
throwawaysea 5y ago
These bans are ridiculous, and from multiple angles. First off humor is humor, and offensive humor is ethically and morally acceptable. Secondly, there is a totalizing attitude around the LGBTQ movement where you’re not allowed to disagree with ANY part of it (like puberty blockers for children or biological males in sports), or else you’re a bigot who is to be socially and economically marginalized or worse. Thirdly, censorship and deplatforming are fundamentally opposed to classically liberal values and are unacceptable practices in any free society. I do hope there is an alternate ecosystem of infrastructure and utility services like search, social media, payments, and so on. However it will be hard due to capital barriers and network effects. Even if it happens, then what - do we just end up with a Balkanized America that breaks apart? Maybe that’s for the best but I am not sure. Either way, the present reality is that all these megacorps (like Google/YouTube) are too big, protected from competition due to those barriers, and are just utilities masquerading as private innovation. They need to be broken up and regulated as utilities for society go work. But because that hasn’t happened, the government continues to outsource utility services to private companies who can discriminate based on political viewpoint and violate people’s freedom of speech and expression.
- shatteredgate 5y ago
  I don't really see how they are ridiculous. I'm familiar with this person's content and it's pretty much all cruel, hateful and spiteful "jokes" if you could even call them that. It's like the classmate who never learned to stop bullying your other gay classmate, except this is a grown adult doing it to make money online. I haven't been in school in many years but I still am disappointed on a daily basis at how some people just never learned to behave when this type of behavior would have gotten a 13 year old sent home and grounded. If I operated a video site, I personally would not want this type of content on it either. I'm sure you can see how a video service that aims to be used by families, children, in schools, etc, doesn't want to provide a platform for cruel and offensive content. The "totalizing" attitude is because people don't seem to learn the first time and the service operator doesn't really have a choice if they want to be firm about it, the parent comment even says this is the second time this person has been warned about this behavior. I don't see how it can be called "cancel culture" if multiple warnings have been given. It also is somewhat offensive for me on a personal level to hear these shock jocks trying to politicize which team a trans child plays on or what medical treatments they might receive; those seem like they would be issues best left up to the child's fellow participants in that sport and the child's doctor, not some youtuber trying to build a name for themselves by generating controversy about things that don't even affect them.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > I don't see how it can be called "cancel culture" if multiple warnings have been given. The number of warnings has nothing to do with it. It’s cancel culture because it involves censoring opinions and perspectives that disagree with those of the people in power - namely the activist progressives who lead and work at Google. > I'm sure you can see how a video service that aims to be used by families, children, in schools, etc, doesn't want to provide a platform for cruel and offensive content. No, I cannot see that, for many reasons. Those who are offended can choose not to click the video. They don’t need to ban it unless they’re afraid of truth and openness, and instead want to substitute authoritarianism in place of it. > which team a trans child plays on or what medical treatments they might receive; those seem like they would be issues best left up to the child's fellow participants in that sport and the child's doctor, not some youtuber This is just a long winded way of saying “trust those with power blindly and don’t question them”, especially as vague and unscientific activist medical approaches are corrupting neutral medical science. A man shouldn’t play in women’s sports because they have innate advantages and it makes the notion of women’s sports meaningless. A child shouldn’t be given invasive and irreversible treatments when they are still growing, changing, and very likely to grow out of phases. I find it offensive that challenging these irresponsible and dangerous practices is disallowed in an ostensibly free society.

nameistaken 5y ago

Tell your employer this isn't Reddit.

xupybd 5y ago
I'm a bit lost, is there context that I'm missing?

throwawaysea 5y ago

These bans are ridiculous, and from multiple angles. First off humor is humor, and offensive humor is ethically and morally acceptable. Secondly, there is a totalizing attitude around the LGBTQ movement where you’re not allowed to disagree with ANY part of it (like puberty blockers for children or biological males in sports), or else you’re a bigot who is to be socially and economically marginalized or worse. Thirdly, censorship and deplatforming are fundamentally opposed to classically liberal values and are unacceptable practices in any free society. I do hope there is an alternate ecosystem of infrastructure and utility services like search, social media, payments, and so on. However it will be hard due to capital barriers and network effects. Even if it happens, then what - do we just end up with a Balkanized America that breaks apart? Maybe that’s for the best but I am not sure. Either way, the present reality is that all these megacorps (like Google/YouTube) are too big, protected from competition due to those barriers, and are just utilities masquerading as private innovation. They need to be broken up and regulated as utilities for society go work. But because that hasn’t happened, the government continues to outsource utility services to private companies who can discriminate based on political viewpoint and violate people’s freedom of speech and expression.

shatteredgate 5y ago
I don't really see how they are ridiculous. I'm familiar with this person's content and it's pretty much all cruel, hateful and spiteful "jokes" if you could even call them that. It's like the classmate who never learned to stop bullying your other gay classmate, except this is a grown adult doing it to make money online. I haven't been in school in many years but I still am disappointed on a daily basis at how some people just never learned to behave when this type of behavior would have gotten a 13 year old sent home and grounded. If I operated a video site, I personally would not want this type of content on it either. I'm sure you can see how a video service that aims to be used by families, children, in schools, etc, doesn't want to provide a platform for cruel and offensive content. The "totalizing" attitude is because people don't seem to learn the first time and the service operator doesn't really have a choice if they want to be firm about it, the parent comment even says this is the second time this person has been warned about this behavior. I don't see how it can be called "cancel culture" if multiple warnings have been given. It also is somewhat offensive for me on a personal level to hear these shock jocks trying to politicize which team a trans child plays on or what medical treatments they might receive; those seem like they would be issues best left up to the child's fellow participants in that sport and the child's doctor, not some youtuber trying to build a name for themselves by generating controversy about things that don't even affect them.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > I don't see how it can be called "cancel culture" if multiple warnings have been given. The number of warnings has nothing to do with it. It’s cancel culture because it involves censoring opinions and perspectives that disagree with those of the people in power - namely the activist progressives who lead and work at Google. > I'm sure you can see how a video service that aims to be used by families, children, in schools, etc, doesn't want to provide a platform for cruel and offensive content. No, I cannot see that, for many reasons. Those who are offended can choose not to click the video. They don’t need to ban it unless they’re afraid of truth and openness, and instead want to substitute authoritarianism in place of it. > which team a trans child plays on or what medical treatments they might receive; those seem like they would be issues best left up to the child's fellow participants in that sport and the child's doctor, not some youtuber This is just a long winded way of saying “trust those with power blindly and don’t question them”, especially as vague and unscientific activist medical approaches are corrupting neutral medical science. A man shouldn’t play in women’s sports because they have innate advantages and it makes the notion of women’s sports meaningless. A child shouldn’t be given invasive and irreversible treatments when they are still growing, changing, and very likely to grow out of phases. I find it offensive that challenging these irresponsible and dangerous practices is disallowed in an ostensibly free society.