13 ms·
I think Tate is human garbage, but I do not think he should be deplatformed. This only makes him more powerful as if he is some martyr. For the “if U DoNt LiKe
by sn0w_crash 4y ago
I think Tate is human garbage, but I do not think he should be deplatformed. This only makes him more powerful as if he is some martyr.
For the “if U DoNt LiKe iT JuSt buiLd YoUR oWn YouTuBe” crowd, this will accelerate that outcome.
Eventually they will have deplatformed people with a big enough collective audience that some hole in the wall UGC platform might actually take off.
- gizajob 4y agoYou don't have to build your own YouTube, but hosting video content on your own website is a pretty simple proposition nowadays.
- theplumber 4y agoYeah but how do you create engagement without addictive algos?
- boppo1 4y agoHost stuff people want but can't get anywhere else.
- theplumber 4y agoPeople don't know what they "want". I'm pretty sure people are not actively searching for influencers...they are "recommended"/shoved on their screen.
- _chu1 4y agoKind of like how I think about things like TikTok in general, nobody would actually pay for that, they just use it because it's free.
- gizajob 4y agoHe'll need to work that out for himself too, given those expensive algos have also been provided free of charge.
- eimrine 4y agoBy allowing all kinds of nastiness? I would pay for that service a lot, just let me to watch anything with no censorship and copyright issues and from any country.
- lesuorac 4y agoThat's a good point, why don't Russia/NK/Iran/etc allow people to cheaply watch content owned by companies based in unfriendly (i.e. USA) countries?
- eimrine 4y agoI think "cheaply" word is kind of extra in your question. Of course they do this for more convinceable lying to all their population. Of course any civilized country should block that kind of super-nasty resource, with jailing all their creators if possible.
- lesuorac 4y agoI'm not actually sure what site you're referring to but I think you missed the point I was making. The comment I was originally replying to was saying they'd pay for a service that had no censorship so ideally such a service would charge so "cheaply" is kind of a requirement in my question as there needs to be a cost. Of course, taking content down for "copyright infringement" is a form of censorship (one often require by law but censorship nonetheless).
- jstarfish 4y agoAlready been done (Russia did just that with allofmp3.com back in the 2000s). It invited a lot of WTO drama until the site was sued out of existence.
- lesuorac 4y ago> In August 2007, Denis Kvasov, head of the company which owned AllofMP3.com, was acquitted of all charges stemming from copyright infringement prosecution I've never heard of allofmp3.com [1] but it doesn't sound like it was sued out of existence as all of the Russia court cases went in favor of their citizens (what a surprise!). Instead anybody outside of Russia was successfully prosecuted or payment processors "illegally"[2] stopped working with them. I guess if Russia actually withdrawals from the WTO [3] we might see a return of allofmp3.com then. Although you probably have to buy using some form of cryptocurrency. Probably won't be that hard to convince people to use bitcoin atms to watch the Avengers for 2$. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3 [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20070823070406/http://eng.cnews.ru/news/top/indexEn.shtml?2007%2F07%2F13%2F258719 https://web.archive.org/web/20070823070406/http://eng.cnews.... [3]: https://www.iisd.org/articles/news/russia-plans-exit-world-trade-organization#:~:text=Russia's%20plans%20to%20quit%20the,June%206%2C%202022 https://www.iisd.org/articles/news/russia-plans-exit-world-t...
- weezin 4y agoI imagine this can be manipulated by other accounts to drive traffic. He can say something controversial and then it goes viral on the big platforms. Then he could have a watermark of his website on the clip so people know where to go to see him.
- ksec 4y agoUntil Google Delist your website from Search, HyperScaler and Mid Tier Hosting refuse to host you.
- gizajob 4y agoGiven Google lists Nazi content and heaven knows what else, do you have any examples of people like Tate whose websites they've delisted?
- shitlord 4y agoIt's not a simple proposition for someone who is aggressively deplatformed. You depend on other companies to exist on the internet and these companies don't have to do business with you. At minimum, you need a domain, you need a place to put your servers, and you need an ISP. For a business to not fail, you also need a way to earn revenue. Each one of these is a pressure point.
- gizajob 4y agoWhile these platforms are in effect the contemporary town hall, the same thing would occur if I went into the real-world Town Hall and started shouting my mouth off with speech that was offensive to 50+% of the population. I would have the right, however, to stand outside the town hall and carry on saying whatever I liked. If I was inciting hatred or violence, the people outside would also become annoyed and I'd be spoken to and told to stop, generally by someone in uniform.
- dartharva 4y agoI mean, there exist hundreds of pirate TV/Movie streaming websites with huge catalogs that manage to serve HD video streaming to scores of people at once. If they can do it while being constantly hounded by publishers and DRM enforcers who have unlimited money and drive to strike them down, a random smart group of people can do it too.
- sascha_sl 4y agoDeplatforming works. It worked when 8chan got kicked off Cloudflare and it worked when Alex Jones was kicked off YouTube. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/06/133861/cloudflare-8chan-deplatforming-hate-speech-online-extremism-politics/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/06/133861/cloudflar... Sure, the likes of Gab, Odysee and BitChute see some traffic, but they will never ever have the same mainstream appeal again that they did before.
- zen_1 4y agoOf course deplatforming works. The point is that it only works in your favour when you're privileged enough that the establishment at large agrees with your views on who the heretics are and what should be done to said heretics. As a thought experiment I'd encourage you to think about how causes you agree with might be deplatformed, and which groups would jump at the chance to do so. Bonus case study: censorship by various middle eastern governments
- UncleMeat 4y agoIf we let Tate stay on social media, will Iran stop oppressing gay people? This isn't a real trade. Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so.
- zen_1 4y ago>Platforming bigots won't actually prevent bigots from deplatforming subaltern groups when they have the power to do so. Well if you had legal protections for speech on online public spaces (twitter, youtube, FB, IG and so on) and a strong court system, that would actually protect subaltern groups from being deplatformed, yes. It's a lot easier for the "bigots" (though I would have chosen the word zealots myself) to deplatform subaltern groups when that's an accepted method of dealing with dissent, as opposed to being something that's just not done. The (quite common) view you're espousing of "We should censor and deplatform exactly the set of people *I* find morally abhorrent" stinks of "This is classic "I'm right, so political systems should cater to me."" type thinking. For what it's worth I think Tate is an absolute piece of shit.
- UncleMeat 4y agoThere already is their own youtube. Gab hasn't taken over. Parler hasn't taken over. Truth hasn't taken over. Banning extreme bigots from major content generation platforms hasn't actually led to the terrible outcomes people predict.
- sph 4y ago> hasn't actually led to the terrible outcomes people predict I guess censorship is perfectly fine for most people, and that's the scariest outcome. "Too bad for them, they should have been thinking like us." No wonder we descent into authoritarianism. Thanks to well meaning crowds of well mannered citizens cheering because the big bad got ousted. https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU
- powerhour 4y agoI would say that authoritarianism could work two ways: a content platform revoking someone's permission to participate (by choice) or a content platform being forced (by governments) to host content despite rules violations. I think the former is clearly preferable.
- sph 4y agoYes and no, I don't think it's quite so simple. A private company can do whatever they want and ban whoever from their platform. But can a private company that's used by 99% of the population do the same? I think there's an unexplored grey area there. If HN bans me that's not necessarily censorship, but if Twitter does so, there's an argument it could be. Censorship is not a function of who does it, it's function of scale. The bigger the audience, the more important it is that free speech is upheld. Our free speech laws have to be updated for the information and Internet era, and the era of mega corporations monopolising a huge chunk of the public space. Of course none of this would happen if open and decentralised standards were used, but that's a discussion for another time.
- powerhour 4y ago
- vimacs2 4y agoWhy do people keep making this same tired, frankly stupid, and entirely ahistorical analysis? Fascists don't need any "martyr", even leaving aside the fact that nothing being done to Andrew Tate here is worthy of that label, because fascists are perfectly capable of fabricating a strong sense of victimhood in their own heads. The antidote to fascism is overwhelming opposition, not appeasement. They don't respond to truth, civility, or compromise - though they may on occasion weaponize such ideas when it serves their own ends - because they don't believe in either of those things. This is just liberal brainrot. It didn't work in the Weimar republic and it certainly isn't working in the USA. In truth, not banning people like this from society just teaches others that their sick ideas must have some sort of validity to them. Otherwise, why would it be on display?
- sn0w_crash 4y agoPeople keep saying this because they’ve read up on history and know that never before has banning speech led to any positive outcome. The resentment builds up over time, the bans add fuel to the fire, and the “ bad speech” only comes back later in greater numbers and even worse forms. What’s worse is the “bad speech” goes underground and begins communicating in less obvious ways. You’re looking at this through a 10 year lens thinking “we vanquished Alex Jones, and we will defeat the next one.” Look at it through a 100 year lens and you might see a different picture.
- vimacs2 4y agoBullshit. For one, no speech has been "banned" here. Andrew Tate and others of his ilk are free to preach their hateful message but they're not free to do it off the backs of others. As for the 100 year view, you don't have to do anything for bigots to "build up resentment" and last time it reached boiling point, we had a civil war where we kicked their ass. The biggest reason why racism prevailed so strongly in the South (and to a lesser extent, the North) had nothing to do with resentments. It was because Lincoln deciding to play the appeasment game and picking a Confederate ex-slave owner as VP who promptly halted and reversed Reconstruction post Lincoln's assassination. No matter what time scale you view things, reality contradicts your view.
- 4y ago
- namlem 4y agoNah, banning does work. People who are banned are forced to rely on word of mouth and lose out on algorithmic amplification.
- sn0w_crash 4y agoLike they did for thousands of years before 2010? The “banning works” takes such a narrow view of time it’s remarkable. There was a world before YouTube, before internet, and before television. Horrible ideas spread when they are unchallenged, not when they are driven underground.
- vimacs2 4y agoNope, not even close to the truth. You should probably stop spreading FUD when it's apparent you don't know one iota about history. When an idea is transparently horrible, it's proponents are not interested in discussion except as a means to propogate their message to others. In a reasoned debate, fascists always have to work the least because it always takes more mental effort to debunk a terrible idea than stating said idea. Meanwhile, adhering to the rules of respectability means the fascist gets to expose far more people to their message in a format where they get to express their message without interruption. The only reason why you should ever talk to a fascist is to ridicule them. Jean Paul-Satre put it best when talking about anti-Semites (though it really applies to all strains of fascism): "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
- apostacy 4y agoWhat if you get called the fascist then? Anything you say to defend yourself is just fascist mind tricks. Denials are just more evidence of guilt. I would still defend your right to call for us to be silenced.
- radicalriddler 4y agoI don't think this is true... if Trump couldn't do it, I don't think Andrew Tate can.
- sn0w_crash 4y agoYou are aware he is polling ahead of Desantis, right?
- zeven7 4y agoA closer example might be Milo Y (on phone, don't want to look up spelling) whose fame was absolutely killed by being removed from social media.
- __derek__ 4y agoTrump is currently well-represented on the home page of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN.
- postalrat 4y agoIn articles that often mention his "twitter like platform".
- rnd0 4y agoThere's a flaw in that argument; Trump would fit that bill (audience size) but his "truth social" whatever fell flat on its' face.
- mrcheesebreeze 4y agoIt doesn't matter if it makes him more powerful or weaker or anything. Its extremely dangerous to let these companies become the modern public square because deplatforming people on places like youtube and social media basically ends up censoring them. They essentially have the first amendment stripped because we put it in the hands of private companies. I think social medias should be forced to conform to certain rules such as not banning viewpoints they don't like UNLESS they are dangerous (terrorism, extremism, etc.) I hate seeing this kind of thing happen and I don't even like tate.