Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 983 posts

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

#181

Post by eli_gottlieb »

beefee wrote: post #66
ra1n85 wrote: post #13

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

This appears to be coordinated election interference from tech monopolists.

Please explain. In which districts in the United States are neo-Nazis affiliated with Stefan Molyneux, David Duke (former leader of the KKK), and Richard Spencer (who was videoed performing a Sieg Heil) up for election, as challengers or incumbents? I was not aware these men were employed by one of the two major political parties, or even one of the two smaller ones.

If the specific figures being banned are not affiliated with any candidate for election, even under a minor party or for local office, how is this "election interference"?

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

#182

Post by opnitro »

pingpongchef wrote: post #163
opnitro wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thank you for clarifying. However they don't prove your case, and I'll explain why. Arguing that a conspiracy exists to harm a group is not evidence that this group is superior. It simply does not follow. Yes, I can see how this view might be shared by white supremacists but it simply does not follow from this statement alone. And for the record, I myself don't find his argument compelling. The second statement goes…

"“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff."

Yeah he's a white supremacist. White supremacy (and associated Fascism), tend to believe in contradictory narratives about their opponents.

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

#183

Post by cameldrv »

zozbot234 wrote: post #9

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.

The recommender seems like the biggest problem. The algorithm attempts to maximize engagement, and this extreme content really engages the crap out of some people. The recommender throwing this stuff in people's faces is probably not very good for society.

Back in the day, if you wanted to buy a porn magazine, you could do it but it would be behind the counter, possibly out of sight entirely. It was legal to buy, but it was not being "recommended" to you by the store by virtue of giving it visible shelf space.

I suppose that there is some section 230 argument about why YouTube can't do that, because then they would be exercising editorial control. I'd say that they already are exercising editorial control by having a recommender. I'd much rather have humans exercise that editorial control than an algorithm which is essentially psychopathic. It's an editor that is trying to addict viewers.

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

#184

Post by dogma1138 »

at_a_remove wrote: post #148
dogma1138 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this Yes and no, this is less collusion and more to avoid platform hopping basically if one platform bans them they’ll flock to another even if the medium isn’t identical or the platform is not optimal for their use case any platform would do in times like these. I’m pretty sure at this point when the behavior pattern is known the platforms inform…

If it were platform hopping, it would be ban, then hop, then ban, then hop. It takes time to hop and move all of your content and followers. This time has not elapsed.

It’s to prevent this, so you don’t have their user base hope to the other platform to express their anger, it also helps when you share the news cycle.

This isn’t an opinion for or against this pattern just an observation on why it makes sense.

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

#185

Post by throwaway29102 »

YarickR2 wrote: post #97
meroes wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

adapt or be left out

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 .

Where do I sign up to join the troika? Or could I work the rehab camps?

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

#187

Post by CJefferson »

nailer wrote: post #21
swivelmaster wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's always been pretty awful and white-supremacist-adjacent.

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 awf…

Molyneaux: The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates.

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

#188

Post by champagneben »

dogma1138 wrote: post #127
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...

In the majority... in the United States?

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

#189

Post by naasking »

dogma1138 wrote: post #127
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and /r/fragilewhiteredditor. If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating users.

“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...

> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.”

So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's region in order to moderate their comment appropriately? Or are reddit employee regions the only ones that matter?

It's clearly a farce. Majority/minority status is a red herring. It's used only to enable reddit and mods to selectively apply the rules for their own ends. The fact is, it's unethical to call any race sub-human, regardless of whether the majority shares your views.

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

#190

Post by erichocean »

ra1n85 wrote: post #13

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

> Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this.

It shouldn't, all social networks delegate banning "hate content" to the SPLC and ADL. It's much more efficient/effective to do things this way, and more importantly, it assures fair enforcement. Otherwise, you'd have the same content allowed on one platform, but banned on another. This approach is much better for the platforms and their users.

Post reply on HN