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

371–380 of 983 posts

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

#371

Post by api »

iratewizard wrote: post #349
rickbutton wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. If you are still in this thread defending the ability for white supremacists to spew racism and hate on these platforms, then that means that you wish for them to continue relaying their awful message, in which case you are a white supremacist by definition. These awful people do not "add to the discourse" in a meaningful way. Their insane ideas should not be entertained.

Free speech so long as you agree with what they're saying.

Nobody's preventing anyone from speaking. They're just refusing to allow them to use their private property to broadcast it. There are loads of web sites and even entire alternative social networks where you can find as much of this stuff as you want.

BTW: I get the impression that sites like Reddit and YouTube, rather than being quick to ban, have given these groups and individual personalities a pass for quite some time. Alex Jones had to start harassing the victims of school shootings to get banned. I doubt someone as well known as him would last that long. If anything these platforms keep these people on as long as they can because ad dollars and only ban them when the advertisers revolt.

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

#372

Post by iratewizard »

empath75 wrote: post #77
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…

parler supports free speech, tho, right? except they're banning liberals: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...

A significant portion of right-wing people do not support parler or the shady circumstances surrounding it. They are not a tu quoque example.

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

#373

Post by rickbutton »

iratewizard wrote: post #349
rickbutton wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. If you are still in this thread defending the ability for white supremacists to spew racism and hate on these platforms, then that means that you wish for them to continue relaying their awful message, in which case you are a white supremacist by definition. These awful people do not "add to the discourse" in a meaningful way. Their insane ideas should not be entertained.

Free speech so long as you agree with what they're saying.

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, you are by definition a white supremacist.

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

#374

Post by etherael »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #139
gh02t wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, but is the distinction actually important in this case? It seems to me to be more of a means of obfuscating/derailing the discussion of Molyneux's views.

I think precision is important in this context, because people have a bad habit of using terms like "white supremacist" as generic insults against any right-wing figure. Being imprecise diminishes the force of the arguments against Molyneux, who really has made explicit claims that white people are better than everyone else.

> who really has made explicit claims that white people are better than everyone else.

Where?

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

#375

Post by CyberDildonics »

iratewizard wrote: post #349
rickbutton wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. If you are still in this thread defending the ability for white supremacists to spew racism and hate on these platforms, then that means that you wish for them to continue relaying their awful message, in which case you are a white supremacist by definition. These awful people do not "add to the discourse" in a meaningful way. Their insane ideas should not be entertained.

Free speech so long as you agree with what they're saying.

Having your video hosted by youtube is not an issue of free speech. Free speech does not mean other people are obligated to listen to you, to take what you say seriously, relay your speech or help others discover you.

I'm sure there is a point where it could become an unhealthy slippery slope to kick people off of large platforms, but it is not in the realm of free speech. These people have not been kicked off the internet.

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

#376

Post by lliamander »

opnitro wrote: post #195
nailer wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You disagreeing with an idea does not mean is is false, likewise you agreeing would not make it true. Edit / reply to opnitro due to rate limit: I am arguing that the truth of an idea is unrelated to whether it causes offence. That should hopefully be very clear when reading the posts you're replying to.

You implied they were true (or at least questioned it). I gave my arguments as to why I think they are both false, A) being a lack of evidence, B) imperialism as a more believable explanation with more evidence. Ball is in your court

I agree that both of Stefan's claims are more likely to be false. But as factual claims I think they are better dealt with by arguing against them rather than simply banning.

Of course, one can make a factual claim in bad faith in order to stoke controversy. It would be nice to limit this, but it happens so often and I don't see a principled way to prohibit them as a class.

On the other hand, I don't see how someone doesn't get banned for saying things like "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." or "#CancelWhitePeople"[1]. If we're going to ban people, those who say things like that against any demographic would be my first choice.

[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

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

#377

Post by api »

steveeq1 wrote: post #305
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…

Ok, what if this person were a thug and he advocates for a "thug life" (as an arbitrary example, a gangsta rapper)? And let's say he committed a lot of crime and physical harm to other people? Would you issue the same behavior towards him? Would you be very vocal about it?

Posting the most offensive examples of gangster rap lyrics to Facebook or Twitter could easily get you banned or at least flagged/shadow-banned if the songs were about killing people, contained a lot of misogyny, etc. Uncensored gangster rap would definitely violate TOS for a lot of these platforms and would probably get auto-banned by bots. A lot of this music gets flagged as 21+ only on YouTube. Many businesses ban it on premise, and many record companies won't publish it. That's part of why the really extreme stuff tends to have its own labels, stations, channels, sites, etc.

You're allowed to listen to it in private of course, just like you are allowed to read or listen to any racist material you want in private. There are loads of web sites that cater specifically to these circles, and even entire alternative social networks. Like the most violent and offensive gangster rap, it has its own safe spaces and is available to anyone who wants it.

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

#378

Post by steveeq1 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #369
BBkid wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that what he is trying to say is that, even though the lyrics are about killing people, selling drugs and so, nobody bans their music and they have the right to express themselves.

Plenty of private companies forbid rap on their premises.

Not youtube, apparently.

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

#379

Post by gguevaraa »

lappet wrote: post #343
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…

Any thoughts on why the Klan hasn't yet been banned outright?

Supreme Court rulings[0][1]. They consistently rule in favor of free speech and believe something along the lines of "defending the thought that we hate".

They even sided with the Westboro Baptist Church (the people with the offensive signs)[2] so they're pretty committed to "absolute" free speech.

[0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492 [1]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1107 [2]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-751

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

#380

Post by CyberDildonics »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #30
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.

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...

I don't think it is a matter of keeping it a secret, my guess is that they don't want bleed over to wherever they haven't been banned yet.
Post reply on HN