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

641–650 of 983 posts

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

#641

Post by sudosysgen »

rayiner wrote: post #505
ohgodplsno wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

If supporting murderers like Maduro is a sign you're on the extreme left and indefensible, does that mean that supporting murderers like Obama, Clinton and Bush equally makes you indefensible? I'm really trying hard to find the validity of this argument. In reality, everyone in politics has blood on their hands. Welcome to the horrible world we live in - no one has been able to build a society without massive violence yet. Though some try.

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

#642

Post by koheripbal »

JPKab wrote: post #530
__turbobrew__ wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally have to send a picture of your black skin to the mods of r/BlackPeopleTwitter in order to be added to the country club. Imagine a subreddit forcing people to send pictures of their white skin to the mods. People would be outraged. The only good way to use reddit these days is to unsubscribe from all of the default subreddits and only subscribe to small subreddits dedicated to your hobbies/interests. Eve…

"You literally have to send a picture of your black skin to the mods of r/BlackPeopleTwitter in order to be added to the country club." Is this really true? I quit Reddit years ago, even though some of the tech specific subs were awesome. Just couldn't stand supporting a site where the mods were so abusive. I remember the tipping point was a guy on there talking about "Foundational Black Americans", and essentially s…

Yes - 100% true. Try it.

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

#643

Post by skinkestek »

Ghjklov wrote: post #566
skinkestek wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dang has commented on this a lot lately and he says it is because we see the other side much easier than our own side. I agree with him to a large degree: I personally see mostly problematic content from the left[0] but I guess that is partly my bias. [0]: for example this comment earlier today that I thought[1] was absolutely crazy "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe"…

While it's a euphemism for nazi, I hope you don't just assume that it's appropriate to use "white nationalist" to mean "nazi". Just because other people are being stupid doesn't mean we have to. A white nationalist could be from any political faction and could have different ideas for economic policy. A National Socialist is a very specific kind of person.

Totally agree in case there should be any doubt.

I prefer to call nazis "nazis". It is short and simple and we can all agree that we don't like them.

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

#644

Post by akerl_ »

sudosysgen wrote: post #606
tptacek wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

RICO exists. If the criminal activities were systematically prompted by a group, they can be sued and all their members may be prosecuted for these crimes, especially their leaders. So no, this is entirely incorrect.

RICO is a pretty narrow tool, as it should be. It also isn’t based on group membership, it’s based on involvement in the planning / sponsorship of illegal activities.

It wouldn’t matter how many Hackernews members started coordinating bank robberies; RICO wouldn’t magically allow for the rest of the Hackernews user base to be prosecuted.

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

#645

Post by s1artibartfast »

alistairSH wrote: post #81
searchableguy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an easy answer to that: Youtube has more users than there are people in US. If you had a service that was used by whole of US, shouldn't that be public? Imagine there was a single food stall in the entire US. Should you allow food stall which is really controlled by a few share holders and executives at the top to decide whom to feed or not? Again, the problem is not huge platforms banning toxic people. It's t…

Somebody would open a competing grocery. Likewise, racist and bigots can build their own internet platform.

What if the grocery store policy was no alistairSH, for their HN post history.

Are you prepared to compete with the wall-mart superstore?

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

#646

Post by stx »

AgentME wrote: post #596
stx wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is are these companies platforms like a phone company or are they publishers? Social media companies have argued that they cant be held liable for things posted to their platforms in the past and have tried to position themselves at neutral platforms. When they start to become the arbitrators of what is and is not to be posted they are no longer neutral platforms like the phone company. I do not recall a ti…

>Social media companies have argued that they cant be held liable for things posted to their platforms in the past and have tried to position themselves at neutral platforms. When they start to become the arbitrators of what is and is not to be posted they are no longer neutral platforms like the phone company. Social media companies don't become more liable just because they moderate. They all do that already. There…

It is a gray area and social media platforms sit somewhere in-between being a common carrier and a being a publisher. Your right there is no hard legal line but the more they decide what is allowed and what is not allowed the more they move farther away from being a common carrier.

> Social media companies don't become more liable just because they moderate.

Actually they do:

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1997-....

And also: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1997-...

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

#647

Post by akerl_ »

sudosysgen wrote: post #608
tptacek wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it's the case that the USG could have suppressed the KKK by "classifying them as a terrorist organization".

They can classify them as a criminal organization according to RICO.

You may want to read https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...

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

#648

Post by koheripbal »

HaloZero wrote: post #562
disposekinetics wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At least Marxism tries to make a utopia for everyone (and fails) vs Klan tries to make a "utopia" for only white people. If you want to base on purely aims and purpose. If you want to base it on application/reality, the Klan and white supremacist have murdered a lot more people than Marxists in the past 20 years in the United States (maybe not always the case but I don't have that data). Maybe in a country like India…

Marxism has been responsible for as many deaths globally as Nazism. It's irrelevant what "utopia" they pander to the public. Nazis claimed they were creating a utopia as well..

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

#649

Post by skinkestek »

rayiner wrote: post #626
skinkestek wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929

Wait? We have a a “rep” on Twitter? HN is like one of the most civil places on the Internet insofar as ones where any debate of substance happens.

That was not the point of linking to that, but it seems so.

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

#650

Post by koheripbal »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #385
chrisco255 wrote: post #22

It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is left with the world. Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range of opinions tha…

>Conservatism has a place in society. Literal white supremacists and nazis however, do not. Those people should be pushed so far off any platform that their only option left is to be the crazies screaming on Times Square that the end of the world is coming. These people actively contributed to fostering hatred in societies, And no, you will not fight them off with debates. The time it takes you to rebuke a single one…

...but since "literally" now means "figuratively" I honestly don't know where the line is.
Post reply on HN