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

501–510 of 983 posts

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

#501

Post by tathougies »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #150
anticonformist wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public square is owned by private companies and they're enforcing anti-first amendment principles. One can't even argue that these banned people can move to another platform if they're all coordinating. Leftist extremists are effecting public banishment of their rightist extremist opponents. It wouldn't be as bad if leftist extremists were getting banned at the same time. The problem is that leftist extremists ha…

People get regularly banned for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and many other kinds of hate, whether their profiles say 'D' or 'R' or something else. If many of their profiles tend to say 'R' or otherwise have similar political views, that's not an indication of bias on the part of platforms.

All people regularly get shot by the police for committing crime and other kinds of violence. Whether they're black white or something else. If many of them happen to be black, that's not an indication of bias on the part of the police.

Just a simple substitution, and now we see that this is just bad thinking.

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

#502

Post by save_ferris »

lliamander wrote: post #405
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…

> 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. Sounds like your father was an honorable man. Honest question: when does pushing the fringe go too far? Is it appropriate for banks to deny their business? Grocery stores?

Most banks and grocery stores are private businesses and being openly racist isn’t a protected class, so it should be up to them, no?

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

#504

Post by bt4u3 »

nbardy wrote: post #435
FiloSottile wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Racism is racism no matter what direction it's pointing. You don't need to have experienced hundred's of years of prejudice to experience racism. Racism is treating someone differently because of their race. It is wrong full stop, no matter the status of the perpetrator or the victim.

Get ready for a misguided lecture in power dynamics, sigh...

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

#505

Post by rayiner »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #393
rayiner wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a false equivalence. The worst of the alt-right are far, far worse than the worst of the extreme left (antifa, maybe? Though there is no alt-left). Nope it’s just equivalence: https://panampost.com/panam-staff/2020/06/23/the-links-betwe... (FWIW: I’m quite pro-BLM. I don’t believe in guilt by association. My point is that there are high-profile people in relatively mainstream organizations that are proponen…

Those things are literally not related, and, conveniently enough, panampost if a far right "news" website. Supporting Maduro doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting marxism doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting Cuba doesn't invalidate their fight. Oh, by the way, those three are countries or ideologies the US have actively tried to destroy. Should I go and make my own website claiming the US government for do…

> Supporting Maduro doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting marxism doesn't invalidate their fight. Supporting Cuba doesn't invalidate their fight.

That’s exactly what I said:

> I’m quite pro-BLM. I don’t believe in guilt by association.

I’m responding to an entirely different point:

> The worst of the alt-right are far, far worse than the worst of the extreme left

I don’t think this statement is accurate given how many people on the extreme left embrace murderers like Maduro. Violent extremism is a problem on both sides.

As to Pan Am Post, your assertion that it’s a “far right” site is exactly why so many people are concerned about Twitter and Facebook censorship. Pan Am Post is libertarian with a Latin American focus both in terms of content and the contributors. From Wikipedia:

> According to Richard Scheines, dean of the Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences of Carnegie Mellon University, PanAm Post is "an incredibly rich online site that covers news and offers excellent analyses of all regions in the Americas".[6][7] In 2019 and 2020, the PanAm Post was ranked in a Forbes article as one of the most prominent free-market magazines in the world measured by social media impact.[8][9]

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

#506

Post by manfredo »

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.

This is often claimed, but the data indicates the opposite: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

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

#507

Post by iron0013 »

tathougies wrote: post #496
snowwrestler wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has a right to post on Reddit or Youtube. If we want to be concerned about individual rights, we should at least be somewhat accurate about the definition of the word.

Honestly, we need to rethink this. For example, I 'own' my sidewalk, but anyone can protest there. A lot of public space is privately owned, but can still be used for protest. The internet is the new public square. It can be privately owned, but still forced to recognize the rights of the public.

If by “it” you mean privately-owned websites, then no, it cannot be forced to do so. That would be a violation of the websites’ owners own freedom of speech. Not to mention their property rights! I thought the right to absolutely control one’s own private property was the most sacrosanct of conservative values?

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

#508

Post by snowwrestler »

rayiner wrote: post #480
snowwrestler wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to have a marketplace of ideas, then some ideas will become popular and win, and some ideas will become unpopular and lose. This is how marketplaces are supposed to work. If we want a forum for speech where every idea is always welcome, and platformed, and no one is allowed to lose no matter how unpopular they are, I don't know what you'd call that. I'd call it a form of hell, personally. Philosophical…

Obviously the First Amendment is directed to the government. I’m not making a legal argument here. But we don’t abide by the first amendment merely because we throw up our hands and say “this is a terrible idea but we’re stuck with it.” There is an underlying principle there, and that principle isn’t necessarily limited to the government. (As a matter of what is good policy, not what is the minimum legally required p…

It's up to the people who run Reddit. If they want to wipe out some subreddits, who is to say they can't? Any mechanism you can imagine to prevent them from doing so would have the effect of forcing speech upon them.

A website declining to carry some content seems perfectly in line with American values and traditions of free speech, in much the same way that Fox News is free to choose not to carry Rachel Maddow's show.

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

#509

Post by txsoftwaredev »

iratewizard wrote: post #388
rickbutton wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What free speech? The government isn't preventing these awful people from spewing their hate. Companies refusing to host their content is not a violation of the first amendment. And yes, free speech, so long as everyone in the room agrees that all of the humans in said room are human. Anything less than that, and they can get the hell out of the room, their ideas aren't worth discussing. If you don't agree with that,…

Wouldn't it be crazy if mega corporations could be used as tools to circumvent the first amendment? If Visa could tell Stripe who they're allowed to do business with when people in power get a little worried about what's being said? And when did the first amendment stop protecting (some) dehumanizing speech? It definitely still protects dehumanizing progressive speech. How long before we have a list of types of speec…

Payment companies are being used to block citizens access to firearms granted under the 2nd amendment.

PayPal for example: https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-paypal%E...

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

#510

Post by throwaway987978 »

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.

I listened to "The Rabbit Hole" podcast series this past weekend produced by the NY Times. They actually interviewed YouTube's CEO about this and they have realized that and have made changes to move away from that.

https://www.nytimes.com/column/rabbit-hole

Post reply on HN