YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech • Hacker News Board

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

#921

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

phonypc wrote: post #917

tptacek wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In neither case are we obligated to tolerate them.

Depends what you mean by "we" "obligated" and "tolerate". Users certainly aren't legally or morally obligated to engage with content they find objectionable. HN, reddit, youtube etc. can legally remove whatever content they see fit, but I'd argue, being largely platforms for expression, they're morally obligated to tolerate objectionable speech.

Do you have any arguments that would be persuasive to people who don't believe that HN is morally obligated to host spirited defenses of child pornography? ("No" is a fine answer!)

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

#922

Post by erichocean » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

LyndsySimon wrote: post #631

erichocean wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this. It shouldn't, all social networks delegate banning "hate content" to the SPLC and ADL. It's much more efficient/effective to do things this way, and more importantly, it assures fair enforcement. Otherwise, you'd have the same content allowed on one platform, but banned on another. This approach is much better for the platforms and their user…

How does outsourcing the decision to the SPLC/ADL “assure fair enforcement”?

Consistency is a big part of fairness, maybe the biggest part. Outsourcing "cancellation" decisions to the SPLC/ADL ensures that people are being consistently banned across all of the major social networks, after a full investigation by non-profits whose entire reason for existence is to do these kinds of investigations. They have, collectively, centuries of experience (and began long before the Internet existed).

Delegating also ensures that cancellations aren't done willy-nilly—the SPLC/ADL are not like a Twitter mob. They have (combined) over a billion in funds to investigate hate speech on the Internet, and to then advise the social networks that they are hosting hate speech—who then make the actual decisions to ban or not ban. Typically, they coordinate and all ban in unison, to avoid weird situations where someone is banned on one (or a few networks), but not all.

Obviously, none of this will feel "fair" to racist Whites, but there are places online (e.g. Gab, Bitchute, etc.) for them to speak freely to other racists where they won't be banned.

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

#923

Post by noxer » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

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.

There is no need to "normalized as 'opinions'" because these are opinions already. People have them about everything and whether wrong or right doesn't matter it's their opinions and they have (should have) the right to express them as long as they do that in a manner that makes listening voluntary. The concept applies to people who think the earth is flat and the concept applies to people who think trans people have a medical condition. There can't be a reason why it would not. The whole idea is that all opinions must be allowed to make sure there is none who can abuse any power by deciding whats allowed and what not. There is no other way. You can't every draw a line and say everything but X is allowed. Because if you do that you indirectly hinder people from questioning/understanding why X is banned. And you removed any resource about X so there will be people who never heard of X and cant find anything about X because its banned. Now how likely are they going to support that ban if they don't understand X and aren't allowed to talk about it. Not banning X so the majority can see X is "wrong" resolves that problem way better.

Also "hate speech" is a made up nonsense term. Telegram only prohibits "call for violence". Which is kinda where free speech ends. It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery.

Also just for clarification I listened/watched none of the people that got banned I don't care what their opinions are. I care about the right to express them. It absolutely doesn't matter whether I agree with what they say or not. I agree with free speech because any alternative is worse.

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

#924

Post by noxer » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

swebs wrote: post #461

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.

Telegram is just a chat app. What would it mean for video uploaders to "go" there?

Telegram is way way more than that. Banned YouTubers can easily host their videos there for millions to stream. And according to telegrams ToS they won't ban unless you "call for violence".

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

#925

Post by erichocean » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #909

chrisdirkis wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read SSC for a while now, and check in with the community every so often. Before the takedown, there was talk about the reporter writing an article, with the general consensus being "nervous but optimistic". I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary. I'm sad that the blog is down. "Categories are for man" is an essay/l…

> I'd love to see clear evidence about the reporter clearly looking to get Scott cancelled. The scare quotes on "reporter" are unnecessary. Here's an example of the NYT providing anonymity to a therapist with a political blog in 2015: https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1275436187713286144 Here's the NYT protecting the anonymity of female gamers to protect them from harassment (on the same day that Scott took down his bl…

Good find. There were also tweets from the reporter, who said in effect "what do you [Scott] have to hide?" about the SSC story.

Scott's attempt to spin it as a positive story in his farewell letter is, I think, an attempt to both influence the NYT in that direction, but also to keep the focus on the doxxing, and not on why SSC might be controversial. He's trying to keep that part out of the public debate entirely, which seems smart.

Also: I'm sorry you're being downvoted so badly, I don't think it's deserved.

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

#926

Post by noxer » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

lowtolerance wrote: post #336

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.

Yes, it’s the ads that are the problem, not the blatant racism. What the fuck is the matter with some of you...

Read again lease, it has nothing to do with what the people that got banned this time say. Ads puts people in charge of censoring things who have profit trough ads in minds. They don't give a flying f* about wrong or right, they are not our internet moral compass and have zero qualifications for that anyway.

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

#927

Post by lowtolerance » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

noxer wrote: post #926

lowtolerance wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s the ads that are the problem, not the blatant racism. What the fuck is the matter with some of you...

Read again lease, it has nothing to do with what the people that got banned this time say. Ads puts people in charge of censoring things who have profit trough ads in minds. They don't give a flying f* about wrong or right, they are not our internet moral compass and have zero qualifications for that anyway.

If you think advertisers refusing to have anything to do with platforms that refuse to serve as a check against hate speech is worse than platforms refusing to serve as a check against hate speech, then you very clearly don’t give a flying duck about right or wrong, either. Get your priorities in order.

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

#928

Post by bitcurious » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

genoapol wrote: post #919

bitcurious wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In promoting racial discrimination against white people, you’re also displaying a bigoted and reductive view of Africa. The African peoples are more than the slave trade, more than colonialism. Africa is a remarkably diverse and populous continent with a history that exist beyond the impact of whiteness. It saddens me that your reducing to victimhood the whole of African identity is what passes for anti racism.

"For Africans to be considered reverse racists, they would have to rob Europeans to the point of poverty/death, enslave them for 400+ years, attempt multiple genocides and mass executions of the European people, deprive Europeans of education and economic equity for centuries based on skin color, engage in state assisted terrorism, THEN continue to promote hatred and acts of violence against them on Reddit." Nothing…

This thread started in response to a hate speech rule that allowed hate speech towards the [white] “majority” population. This is explicitly racial discrimination. I read everything you wrote as a response to that initial topic. If you merely meant to discuss your preferred definition of racism, I think a different thread would have better conveyed that.

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

#929

Post by TheAdamAndChe » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #672

roenxi wrote: post #579

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"... The "far-right" is becoming a broad term in media usage and will end up in the same place as "racist" where it is a category that catches the views of a good 40% of people. It isn't obvious that wins for the far right is a bad thing. Nobody is going to lose sleep over the Klan b…

While there are probably examples of that, I find it unlikely that the general use of the "far right" would capture 40% of people very unlikely.

Right now, you're right. But look at how definitions are changing.

When I grew up, I was taught that the goal in life was to be colorblind. Race didn't matter, what mattered was what was in one's heart.

Today, I'm considered a racist for these views. The term "racist" has been victim to this definition expansion too. Where it used to be considered "discrimination due to race," it has expanded to mean "discrimination by a majority group against a minority race," a definition that unnervingly doesn't consider hate speech against white people as racist.

At this rate, the definition of "far-right" will expand to the point where anyone not supporting the narrative of the day will be labeled as such. Just like how people were labeled "communist" in the 50's as a way to leverage power over others. It's modern-day McCarthyism, but what is different is that this modern-day McCarthyism is being applied to all the major social media platforms months before an election. The control they're trying to leverage over everyone is stunning.

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

#930

Post by phonypc » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 8:15 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #921

phonypc wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you mean by "we" "obligated" and "tolerate". Users certainly aren't legally or morally obligated to engage with content they find objectionable. HN, reddit, youtube etc. can legally remove whatever content they see fit, but I'd argue, being largely platforms for expression, they're morally obligated to tolerate objectionable speech.

Do you have any arguments that would be persuasive to people who don't believe that HN is morally obligated to host spirited defenses of child pornography? ("No" is a fine answer!)

I'm probably not capable of arguing for the idea of free speech any better than has been done before, no.