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

271–280 of 983 posts

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

#271

Post by rayiner »

nordsieck wrote: post #249
naasking wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.” So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. And yet, majority/minority are regional properties. How do you know a redditor's re…

> So according to this rule, a racial minority can call members of a "majority race" sub-human, but not vice-versa. According to academia, this is correct: racism only exists in the context of class based oppression. Of course, many people disagree with this definition.

What does “academia” have to do with anything?

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

#272

Post by catalogia »

ars wrote: post #73
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'm not sure what you are watching, but I have never been funneled to anything even remotely like that. YT sends you videos based on your watch history. If you watch hate videos to see what kind of stuff people are saying then you should delete them from your history to avoid YT finding you more.

I think you're right. I don't watch anything political on youtube, and don't receive any political recomendations. Instead, youtube seems to be trying to "radicalize" me into becoming a CNC machinist, presumably because I watch plenty of videos about manufacturing.

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

#273

Post by bitcurious »

erichocean wrote: post #225
devmunchies wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a free society. there are lots of laws and regulations in place. Saying this is a free country is a useless platitude. Gab (twitter alternative) was just blacklisted by Visa last week. There is no recourse. What, should these people build their own consumer credit company too? https://news.gab.com/2020/06/19/gab-blacklisted-by-visa/

> What, should these people build their own consumer credit company too? Why would racist Whites stop there? Pretty soon they'll want to build their own governments: literal White nationalism. Republicans are already talking about secession in a positive light… To protect minorities, the 2nd Amendment has to be gutted as much as possible before that kind of thing happens, even if we must seriously bend the existing C…

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. The main point seems to be that in absence of rule of law and due process, armed revolution will come, so let's subvert the rule of law to prevent that? What am I missing?

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

#274

Post by evanlivingston »

sparkie wrote: post #199
evanlivingston wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.

> empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality. "empathy," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share my empathy. "social unity," but it's OK to use violent aggressive force against people who don't share our opinions. The non-aggression principle is the only ethically consistent one. As soon as you advocate for violence to be used, your ot…

This is just depressing, man.

> Civil liberties are protected by individuals themselves, by asserting their rights, and conforming to the non-aggression principle to avoid getting into conflicts with others.

Some people are are not in positions to "assert" their rights. Furthermore, by claiming they have a duty to not use violence in order to reclaim the rights being denied you further give power to a group of individuals to are systematically denying people rights. Again, arguments that the free market works this sort of shit it out is just philosophical thinking not founded in reality and obviously coming from a lack of experience with systematic oppression.

> As for "equality", I really could not give a shit.

That's where we're just going to disagree and you reveal your values. There isn't room in the future for people who think this way. You're going to become further polarized as it becomes increasingly clear that the global community is increasingly concerned with equality and you're standing on the sidelines.

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

#275

Post by danudey »

ra1n85 wrote: post #13

Twitch and Reddit enacted bans simultaneously: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-tru... https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-accoun... Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this.

I detest Donald Trump and everything he stands for and enables, but the idea of banning him from Twitch makes me imagine a world where he didn't get banned from Twitch and instead tried to pivot to being a full-time game streamer, and that makes me laugh at least a little bit.

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

#276

Post by evanlivingston »

vageli wrote: post #258
evanlivingston wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

non-aggression is not the same as non-oppression. I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. I believe the problem lies in the trust placed in the free market to take the place of empathy and social unity required for creating and protecting civil liberties and equality.

> I can non-aggressively disenfranchise a group of people. How would you accomplish this non-aggressively, especially if the disenfranchised group resists?

I don't understand, can you clarify?

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

#277

Post by lowmemcpu »

epc wrote: post #89
mchusma wrote: post #61

This is not directly related, but I saw the policy: "videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status" I'm curious if anyone know the root of "veteran" on this list? I am just not familiar with that kind of -ism (veteran-ism?).

Veterans are a protected class (at least under labor law) in the US based on a 1974 (VEVRAA).

I'm surprised that makes the jump from employment/labor law to speech/politics policies.

Strawman: If I were a politician campaigning and were to say something like, "Veterans do not deserve benefits and I don't think we should fund veteran benefits" or "Veterans do not deserve our blind respect", am I now discriminating and will get banned from the platform?

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

#279

Post by one2know »

lowmemcpu wrote: post #261
Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is coordinated. Remember when Alex Jones got banned from literally everything on the same day? The reddit bans wave was leaked in advance. The more actors involved in a coordinated action the harder it is to keep a secret. Original leak: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hh1pjd/redd...

For someone who has mostly sat on the sidelines of these debates, the coordination is really disturbing. Who is pulling the strings here?

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/11/reddit-300-million/

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

#280

Post by slg »

luckylion wrote: post #242
slg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is coordinated. Is there any evidence of this besides the announcements just happening on the same day? It could be companies waiting to announce these moves on Monday morning after days of seeing Facebook embroiled in controversy for not doing this. Or maybe one company decided to make this move and other companies fast tracked anything they had planned on this so they wouldn't be viewed as ignoring this issue.…

> We have no indication one way or another whether this is coordinated. We shouldn't just assume it is coordinated because it is happening on the same day. Hey, just because two planes flew into the WTC on the same day, we have no indication one way or another whether this is coordinated. We shouldn't just assume it is coordinated because it is happening on the same day. But really, this is obviously coordinated. It'…

Context matters. You analogy isn't applicable because it removes the context for these response. The boycott of Facebook didn't hit critical mass until the end of last week. These companies are taking preemptive action so they don't receive a similar boycott. That is an explanation that doesn't require coordination.
Post reply on HN