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

411–420 of 983 posts

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

#411

Post by FiloSottile »

gguevaraa wrote: post #246

Christ, spez is getting hammered in the announcements. I mean seriously, he's basically saying it's alright to be discriminatory against the "majority", whatever that means. Dude doesn't even clarify what that means, just skirts around the question. Lot of people are wondering why r/BlackPeopleTwitter or r/politics haven't been banned despite blatant racism or calls to violence. People are pretty pissed at spez, to s…

Not sure if you're missing it, but yeah, reverse racism is not a thing. The concept of racism is meaningful in the historical and societal context of systemic oppression. A black person saying "all white people are bad" is not feeding into and exploiting hundreds of years of prejudice stacked against an under-privileged group.

Edit: a black person in the US, different cultures are different contexts.

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

#412

Post by mnm1 »

cjslep wrote: post #254

When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer. For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and other fringe organizations would always cry and…

They definitely shouldn't be here or anywhere. This is the right approach. Government power is not the only power and in contemporary times, not even the greatest power in most affairs. Megacorps have huge amounts of power. Often they use it to hurt people. I can't imagine a single american who hasn't been scammed by some megacorp like comcast, wells fargo, verizon, etc. But, sometimes their incentives align with those of the society at large. We should not hold them back by using the slippery slope fallacy. Most of the time, their incentives don't align with society's, so we should be thankful when these unregulated entities actually help society, even though that is never their goal. Yes, ideally this would be handled by government in some way, but our government is too inept to handle anything these days, including reigning in the power of these megacorps.

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

#413

Post by searchableguy »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #337
searchableguy wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a confusing answer to what I said. I am not defending anyone in the post here but just yesterday, visa banned gab's CEO and his family. Now you need to build a payment processor which is not possible for any individual to do so. To how deep you want to go here? Put your own cables in the sea?

I wrote out a long response and only then starting researching Gab. So instead of my own words, here are some excerpts from their terms of service. If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way: > if you don't like what we're doing on Gab.com or simply want to manage your own experience, you can spin up your own Gab Social server that you control > We…

> If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way

I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to restrict people.

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

#414

Post by ohgodplsno »

JamesBarney wrote: post #193
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.

My money is on it has the opposite effect, and by banning these people it moves their fans onto fringe platforms that will shuttle them towards even more bizarre/fringe/extreme views. Here's a study that shows it pushes people towards more moderate videos. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.11211.pdf

YouTube exposes these ideas to hundreds of millions.

Those fringe, extreme platforms are both unknown and already have the stigma or being fringe, extreme platforms. Take a look at Gab, and how The_Donald got laughed out of it because they were not white supremacist enough.

So, yeah, I think I can live with the white supremacists clearly identifying themselves.

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

#415

Post by iratewizard »

zapnuk wrote: post #303
noxer wrote: post #140

Soon 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.

It's disgusting to see racism, transphobia, misogyny, and general hate speech spread by Molyneux and others be normalized as 'opinions'. They aren't interested in discourse, they only want to spread their garbage while cowordly hiding behind a dated concept of free (hate) speech. Molyneux especially dodges every debate where his oposition is somewhat knowledgeable.

>dated concept of free (hate) speech

Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.

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

#416

Post by dogma1138 »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #381
dogma1138 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coordination doesn’t mean collusion, there are plenty of reasons why to coordinate such as to avoid platform hopping and not having to deal with a bunch of angry people flocking to your platform and to share the news cycle. The likelihood of high profile bans like these not being coordinated is slim.

I'm pretty sure social media platforms all have the same problematic groups set up for one click deletion. If one pulls the trigger it's trivial for the rest to do it too. It's the same coordination you see in penguins jumping off an ice flow. They'll all bunch up looking for sea lions they know are lurking. Eventually one jumps in or gets pushed and they all jump in right after.

Ban waves aren’t that simple they take time to prepare the legal, PR, community relations and tech support etc required.

While it probably isn’t as spontaneous as the penguins I also don’t see it as some smokey or well these days vapey dark room where they sit around the table with a bunch of dossiers laid out in front of them taking a vote.

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

#417

Post by cogman10 »

rayiner wrote: post #386
gguevaraa wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supreme Court rulings[0][1]. They consistently rule in favor of free speech and believe something along the lines of "defending the thought that we hate". They even sided with the Westboro Baptist Church (the people with the offensive signs)[2] so they're pretty committed to "absolute" free speech. [0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492 [1]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1107 [2]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/20…

That protection of speech, mind you, doesn’t just extend to the KKK. There are a lot of things people on HN probably like (pornography, violent video games) that have been protected by exactly the same principles.

The important thing to distinguish is that they protect free speech, not free platforms.

People are free to say racist things, produce racist games, setup racist podcasts.

What they aren't entitled to is google showing their racist crap, steam carrying their racist games, hacker news keeping their racist comments uncensored. You are free to burn a flag, you can't force someone to watch you burn it.

If someone feels hurt that youtube censors too much, they are more than free to make their own whitepowertube. The fact that there is a ton of far right media right now shows that they aren't completely without a voice.

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

#418

Post by snowwrestler »

memimo wrote: post #325
opnitro wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're asking how people can hold contradictory ideas... then I'd invite you do some self reflection. You probably hold some. We all do. Striving towards clarity of thought takes a while. As for white supremacists in specific, let's take David Duke and Richard Spencer for example. (As you agreed above they were white supremacists) Both of these people claim to believe in science and reason, yet also believe in the…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

If you (or any reader) are interested in substantive critiques of this book, here are two:

https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/Her...

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-...

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

#419

Post by lappet »

tptacek wrote: post #402
lappet wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't the Klan responsible for hate-mongering and terrorist activities in the past?

The actual terroristic activities are illegal, and Klan members have been prosecuted (and successfully sued) for them. "Hate-mongering" isn't illegal in the US.

So Al Qaeda etc would be legal in the US?

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

#420

Post by mnm1 »

gguevaraa wrote: post #379
lappet wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any thoughts on why the Klan hasn't yet been banned outright?

Supreme Court rulings[0][1]. They consistently rule in favor of free speech and believe something along the lines of "defending the thought that we hate". They even sided with the Westboro Baptist Church (the people with the offensive signs)[2] so they're pretty committed to "absolute" free speech. [0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492 [1]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1107 [2]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/20…

But they do assault people and commit acts of violence. As do hundreds of other domestic terrorist groups.
Post reply on HN