Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

661–670 of 983 posts

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

#661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listened to some of Molyneux podcasts awhile back. He seemed very gray area, borderline white nationalist, almost consciously ambiguous with just enough plausible deniability. It was a little too close for comfort and I took him off my list. That said, I don’t think it’s fair to lump him in with folks like Spencer and Duke. I don’t agree with Moleyneux’s viewpoints but think he articulates them well enough that he…

I'm not sure if things like this are exactly grey... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/108248906874151321... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/118100374698304307... I just took the tweets from the other comments here.

[deleted]

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

#662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your [1] has three standards for three groups of people. 1. black people who can verify and get a flair 2. non-white and non-black people who can verify but don't get a flair 3. white people can ask the moderators for entrance, but it only says they will will "receive further instructions." It's not clear what these further instructions are supposed to be. This is racist and if a right wing subreddit did it, they wou…

I find it odd people aren't bringing up the obvious motivation for this. Simply calling it racism seems obtuse. Anywhere race is a topic and anyone can join, but there is no verification of identity, trolls can claim anything. How do you think it feels to be a Black member of a forum and see a White person who is taken in by a White troll pretending to be Black? Conversely, how do you think it feels to be Black and b…

>but there is no verification of identity, trolls can claim anything.

They aren't verifying identity, they are verifying skin color and using the information to then discriminate against their users. A person with verified skin tone and not verified identity can dress themselves in all sorts of lies just as trolls do everywhere on the internet.

>How do you think it feels to be a Black member of a forum and see a White person who is taken in by a White troll pretending to be Black? Conversely, how do you think it feels to be Black and be arguing with someone White who is sure you are a White troll pretending to be Black?

Maybe we should focus on ideas over identity.

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

#663

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.

According to this post [0] only allowing black people to post was a time limited action. As an Aprils fool joke only black people were allowed to post, which resulted in positive feedback from the community, according to the mods. Now everyone can post again, where as black people can get verified and a special flair (a small visual indication next to their username). Some threads [1] are reserved for verified people…

While this is informative, it leaves out one big thing. Rule number 1 in the sidebar is "Posts from black people only".

> This sub is intended for exceptionally hilarious and insightful social media posts made by black people. To that end, only post social media content from black people.

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

#664
post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I always wonder what people are thinking when they suggest that the US could silence an entire viewpoint through invocation of RICO or FTO designation. If the government could have declared an entire line of thought illegal, don't people think we would have done so numerous times already? We couldn't even ban membership in the actual communist party at the height of the Cold War (not for lack of trying, though).

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

#665
post #577

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"…

> "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe" VS > "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe" The weight there is different though, in the groups you analyse the violence has historically flown in one direction more than in the other. I am inclined to think that there have been historically much less concerns of safety for "religious w…

> The weight there is different though, in the groups you analyse the violence has historically flown in one direction more than in the other.

I think you are wildly underestimating the violence of a number of non-religious groups: recommended reading includes the reign of terror, Stalin and Khmer Rouge.

... and also non-whites by the way.

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

#666
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some content fosters the development of extremists/terrorists.

This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators.

We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly leads to more violence.

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

#667

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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've even seen an explicitly racist post here, despite having dead comments turned on, maybe excepting obvious trolling or spam. Implicitly racist posts are usually downvoted. I have seen downvoted replies that nonsensically infer racism in a post. I suspect that's how I would describe what you're thinking of.

> I don't think I've even seen an explicitly racist post here, despite having dead comments turned on, maybe excepting obvious trolling or spam. This is self-contradictory. You state that you have never seen explicitly racists posts here, but then you state the exceptions of "obvious trolling or spam". How does a racist post being "obvious trolling" make it not-racist? How does a racist post being spam make it not-ra…

The spam and trolling is racist, but it's flagged and downvoted to hell immediately. I was responding to someone saying the opposite voting trends exist for racist content.

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

#669
post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If YouTube shows itself as an unfair judge, then let's criticize them for that when it happens. Otherwise, having a judge is much better than having no judge at all.

That's the current situation, and maybe it's worked well so far (I don't create content on YouTube). What appears necessary or at the very least helpful, is to have a very clear terms of service that outlines exactly what is unacceptable so these situations can be avoided in the first place. One question is, why did it take until now for these bans to come into effect? Gray areas are always going to emerge. For examp…

>One question is, why did it take until now for these bans to come into effect?

I think a lot of social media sites and platforms really believed that it was bad to try to be arbiters, and that an anything-goes system would go well. The fact that this was the easiest option for them probably played a part in this. I think a lot of platforms and their audiences are increasingly seeing that this position as naively optimistic and not backed up by the results.

>Gray areas are always going to emerge. For example, the popular YouTuber Jenna Marbles came under criticism recently for old videos (years ago) that could be construed as hate speech, or at the very least, mildly racist. Does this justify a ban?

I think rules should be and largely are oriented around whether something encourages bigotry, rather than about whether the creator privately has racist opinions in their head. If no one is sure if something is pushing a racist message, then that's evidence it's not doing it. If it's not doing it effectively but maybe trying, then that might be a gray area. I don't think the existence of gray areas is an argument for the extreme no-judges position.

>These issues are going to be decided by the discretion of humans, many of them with a geographically-concentric worldview (i.e., Silicon Valley).

And choosing to allow and promote racists and peddlers of inflammatory pseudoscience is also a decision made by humans of specific worldviews. There's no clean non-political option.

>A few comments say Stefan Molyneux (again, don't know this guy) is not specifically racist but has white-centric views.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

He pushes misinformation about races and advocates white ethnonationalism: “I don’t view humanity as a single species...” “The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” "Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane." “You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people." He seems like the textbook example of the sort of person that rules about racism would target. I guess he doesn't literally say the n-word or specifically advocate actively exterminating minorities, just that it might be good if someone did that or at least some segregation.

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

#670

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.

Complaining about the /r/fragilewhiteredditor subreddit is kind of just proving their point though.

Why should white people tolerate racism against themselves?
Post reply on HN