Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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...
> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?
YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
251–260 of 983 posts
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#252Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Apparently they're going to ban a large number of subs on Monday and frame it as an anti-racism initiative" Frame it? It is an anti-racism initiative. It may have side effects as well but that is the main driver.
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.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/b93w1j/...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/gumxuy/...
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#254For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and shed tears about how they were being pushed to the edge and ostracized from the local communities. Most of the town ignored these common pleas. We knew how to deal with them and ignore them, we had our inoculated culture. A few businesses were locally known to be "Klan friendly", but it should surprise no one that they are not rich mega-corps.
It seems that in the internet age, this sort of culture of inoculation has not been passed on to the outside world communities, though the far-right ideologies may have. It is normal to decline the business of people you don't want to do business with. It is normal for it to be the fringe believers -- the ones that by their own choice are pushing themselves to live on that fringe. It is the simple free-market economy of supply and demand telling them that their demand is not necessary.
However, my father also taught me to be careful with this pushing of the fringe. It is a delicate balance of liberty with liberty-destroying ideology. The paradox of tolerance, etc. It should be very closely watched.
It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". They will shed tears in public and privately rejoice at the welcoming change. It is a grant of liberty they suddenly inherited with tech to have had such a huge audience and defenders of their speech on private platforms all this time. It is only now that the culture of inoculation is catching up.
We should watch it closely & carefully though. We shouldn't be shedding tears for them.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mind purging ideologies that are about racial superiority. Erase that shit.
It is crazy to think that ideas can be extinguished. These purges will serve to further concentrate and radicalize the adherents to these ideologies. edit : I may have been wrong, it seems deplatforming might work. [0] TIL! I had often read that echo chambers exacerbated radicalization but it seems more research has yielded better data to turn over that conclusion. edit1 : it seems like radicalization is more nuanced…
How many communist organizations do you see, these days? How much reach do they have, compared to the 30s? How much political power do they have, compared to the alt-right, today?
Extinguishing that idea into the fringe seems to have worked rather well. As did de-nazification, post WWII. It's only more recently, when platforms started enabling fringe groups, has fascism crawled back into the light of day.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? There is a massive political movement for racial equality happening all over the country. They are responding to pressure from consumers, which they very much should, because all of these companies have ignored these issues for decades. They aren't coordinating with each other in some conspiracy to silence white supremacists. The -people- want white supremacists to be deplatformed (a good thing!).
This is why you never give into the mob, even when their point is a good one. That's how individual rights are lost to the collective.
If we want to be concerned about individual rights, we should at least be somewhat accurate about the definition of the word.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#257Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a strong association between free market principles and the principle of non-aggression. Others advocate that it is acceptable to use violent aggressive force against people who do not conform to your opinion of how things should be governed. Tell me where the problematic ethics are again? (FWIW, I don't watch any of the people mentioned above and have only heard of the first, so I am not here to defend them…
non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.
How would you accomplish this non-aggressively, especially if the disenfranchised group resists?
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
The clever ones are the more dangerous ones. Plenty of people that will strike Spencer and Duke will be lulled to sleep by Molyneux but in the end the agenda is the same.
You might be right but trying to censor stuff on the Internet tends to make it bigger in the long run. For an intellectual threat like Molyneux it would better to confront head on with “logic and facts” than pretend it doesn’t exist. Or on the flip side, if something he says makes you uncomfortable but you can’t explain why it’s wrong, then you need to step up your rhetoric game. One of the most effective tropes used…
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#260Soon to be found on Telegram I guess. Seem to be the only growing platform that does not ban opinions. Probably because they do not need to make advertisers happy. Conclusion: Ads still ruin the internet.