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

401–410 of 983 posts

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

#401

Post by logarhythmic »

absurdturd wrote: post #341
9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with that? He did the same with Sanders and they were both interesting.

I mean there's the problem right there — you're talking about Bernie Sanders and Ben Shapiro as if they're two people equally deserving of equal space on an enormous platform of listeners.

Why are they not? Ben Shapiro is literally a standard conservative talking head who only now is seen as controversial because American politics is insane. And I'm pretty sure it's Rogan's choice who he wants to talk to. Policing that ruins the entire appeal of the podcast and just turns it into exactly what people were trying to get away from, i.e. heavily produced and filtered content on mainstream television such as late night talk shows or whatever

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

#402

Post by tptacek »

lappet wrote: post #370
gojomo wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA, the reason is the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Both in text & traditional interpretation, that gives them the right to speak & assemble – but not do other non-communicative actions that would be criminal no matter the motivations.

Wasn't the Klan responsible for hate-mongering and terrorist activities in the past?

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.

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

#403

Post by ohgodplsno »

adnzzzzZ wrote: post #101
renewiltord wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a free society. If you don't like someone else's house party, build your own. thedonald.win is one such thing.

That is an increasingly cynical view to expose given that the people who decide to do that just get blacklisted by the financial elite. https://twitter.com/TheEbonyMaw/status/1277120076186112000 , https://reclaimthenet.org/gab-andrew-torba-visa-blacklisted-...

Oh no, nazis are being deplatformed, what shall the world do, except be better :(

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

#404

Post by dogma1138 »

slg wrote: post #289
dogma1138 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coordination doesn’t mean collusion, there are plenty of reasons why to coordinate such as to avoid platform hopping and not having to deal with a bunch of angry people flocking to your platform and to share the news cycle. The likelihood of high profile bans like these not being coordinated is slim.

Collusion has an obvious negative connotation, but any coordination that happens in secret is inherently collusion. Either way, my request still stands. Is there any evidence to suggest these companies are working together instead of us all just assuming that is the case?

Define evidence, companies share information all the time including their legal departments.

We have had multiple simultaneous ban waves this is not a new occurrence, at this point one would ask for evidence to show its not the case since the fact that this happening is self evident.

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

#405

Post by lliamander »

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…

> However, my father also taught me to be careful with this pushing of the fringe. It is a delicate balance of liberty with liberty-destroying ideology. The paradox of tolerance, etc. It should be very closely watched.

Sounds like your father was an honorable man. Honest question: when does pushing the fringe go too far? Is it appropriate for banks to deny their business? Grocery stores?

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

#406

Post by klyrs »

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?

R. Kelly is cancelled.

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

#407

Post by rayiner »

rickbutton wrote: post #373
iratewizard wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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.

By your logic, the first amendment has no salutary rationale. We allow Neo nazis to march merely because the first amendment prohibits us from stopping them from marching, and for no other reason. There is no animating principle that we might consider applying to other contexts even where the first amendment isn’t legally required. That view is anathema to how the first amendment has long been understood. (There is a reason the ACLU has repeatedly defended the right of neo nazis to march. And it isn’t because they’re preoccupied with the technicalities of the law. After all, the government does a lot of other unconstitutional stuff that doesn’t merit the ACLU’s involvement.)

If you want to say there is a substantive difference between say Facebook and public streets, that’s fine that warrants differing treatment, that’s fine and I probably agree with you. But saying that the first amendment doesn’t apply to private corporations doesn’t prove anything more than it’s not literally illegal for Facebook and Twitter to do this. It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s an appropriate policy in view of the principles embodied in the first amendment.

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

#408

Post by ohgodplsno »

YarickR2 wrote: post #97
meroes wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

adapt or be left out

Well. We had several ideological purges earlier in 20th century, and I can tell what will happen next: every netizen will be triaged by a progressive troika, and sent to rehabilitation and education camps. Internet versions (excommunication), or real life ones .

Nazis left out of the internet ?

I think most of humanity can live with that.

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

#409

Post by MockObject »

rickbutton wrote: post #58
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…

A purge of white supremacists sounds great to me.

It does to me, too.

Until I realize that some people are now defining silence as complicity with white supremacy. So let's hope that definition doesn't spread, right?

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

#410

Post by lliamander »

opnitro wrote: post #394
lliamander wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Parent simply asked for citations on the ideological leanings of Molyneux. I make no claims on how best to to regulate the massive multinational corporations who control what amounts to the digital commons, as I have no answer :)

Fair enough. One of their posts was flagged, so I wasn't able to read the full context.

And while I may have my preferences, I don't know how to best to regulate those digital platforms either.

Post reply on HN