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

491–500 of 983 posts

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

#491

Post by MockObject »

rickbutton wrote: post #475
MockObject wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're agreeing that anyone who is silent on racial issues should be purged from the internet?

That's not what I said. Do not put words into my digital mouth. I said, silence -is- complicity with white supremacy. If you, after all of the injustices demonstrated in enormous detail over the last 400 years, are still silent when white supremacists continue to oppress the oppressed, you are complicit in white supremacy.

> That's not what I said. Do not put words into my digital mouth.

So white supremacists should be purged, but those who are complicit with them should not?

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

#492

Post by chrischattin »

rickbutton wrote: post #361
50ckpuppet wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds great to me to until I turned my brain on and realized that if you can purge one ideology, you can justify purging any other ideology.

I can't argue in good faith with someone who believes that white supremacists should continue to have a platform. I hope you do some research and look back on this comment with shame. White supremacists do not deserve a platform, flat out. Disagreeing with this is explicitly agreeing with white supremacy.

You don't have to agree with someone to think it's wrong to censor them.

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

#493

Post by darth_avocado »

anticonformist wrote: post #96
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.

The public square is owned by private companies and they're enforcing anti-first amendment principles. One can't even argue that these banned people can move to another platform if they're all coordinating. Leftist extremists are effecting public banishment of their rightist extremist opponents. It wouldn't be as bad if leftist extremists were getting banned at the same time. The problem is that leftist extremists ha…

First amendment only protects you against the suppression of free speech from the government. It definitely does not give you the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want. Private companies have complete authority over which speech is acceptable on platforms run by them.

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

#494

Post by rowanG077 »

cogman10 wrote: post #417
rayiner wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That protection of speech, mind you, doesn’t just extend to the KKK. There are a lot of things people on HN probably like (pornography, violent video games) that have been protected by exactly the same principles.

The important thing to distinguish is that they protect free speech, not free platforms. People are free to say racist things, produce racist games, setup racist podcasts. What they aren't entitled to is google showing their racist crap, steam carrying their racist games, hacker news keeping their racist comments uncensored. You are free to burn a flag, you can't force someone to watch you burn it. If someone feels h…

I agree with you in general. But would like to add that effective monopolies like youtube should be excluded. Censoring something on youtube essentially means it censored completely for video platforms.

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

#495

Post by danudey »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #107
jacquesm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apparently they're going to ban a large number of subs on Monday and frame it as an anti-racism initiative" Frame it? It is an anti-racism initiative. It may have side effects as well but that is the main driver.

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.

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

#496

Post by tathougies »

snowwrestler wrote: post #256
disposekinetics wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you never give into the mob, even when their point is a good one. That's how individual rights are lost to the collective.

No one has a right to post on Reddit or Youtube. If we want to be concerned about individual rights, we should at least be somewhat accurate about the definition of the word.

Honestly, we need to rethink this.

For example, I 'own' my sidewalk, but anyone can protest there. A lot of public space is privately owned, but can still be used for protest.

The internet is the new public square. It can be privately owned, but still forced to recognize the rights of the public.

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

#497

Post by Ghjklov »

archagon wrote: post #486
Ghjklov wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a copout answer. "White" usually refers to people of European heritage who have lighter skin in America.

What do generic "Europeans" have in common with each other? As a Russian, I feel like my culture overlaps relatively little with French, German, or English. Moreover, which parts of "Europe" are actually included in this taxonomy? Are Romani considered white? What about Southern Italians? Black people in France? It all boils down to "people of European heritage with white skin (whose ancestors wrote books and stuff t…

I agree it's a bit wishy-washy. But that's what it means. Everyone (in the U.S.) when they say whites, they pretty much always mean anyone with white skin who have European heritage.

Yup, so even if some poor Croatian guy just got off the boat, as long as he looked white enough for Americans, some of them would say he benefited from American slavery of blacks and must renounce his white privilege.

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

#498

Post by Karunamon »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #487
Karunamon wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't denounce without getting into dehumanization, you're guilty of exactly the same kind of hate that the most virulent racists in history are guilty of. It's never okay. Not for any reason.

I didn't use the word "dehumanize," did I?

No, but you replied to GP in defense of "denouncing hatred and bigotry" (something they didn't even argue against) without directly addressing a pretty important point, i.e. dehumanization (which they did).

Was there another way I should have read your comment with that in mind?

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

#499

Post by _fq4v »

mempko wrote: post #223
anticonformist wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public square is owned by private companies and they're enforcing anti-first amendment principles. One can't even argue that these banned people can move to another platform if they're all coordinating. Leftist extremists are effecting public banishment of their rightist extremist opponents. It wouldn't be as bad if leftist extremists were getting banned at the same time. The problem is that leftist extremists ha…

but isn't the world of "private property" what the right wants? This kind of world, where there are no longer any public squares, but everything held in private is the world the right asks for. This is the kind of world we end up with. The irony should not be lost on them right?

Not quite though. The right -- including libertarians -- often advocate for regulation, just less. You would be hardpressed to find a lot of libertarians disagreeing on whether or not people should be able to protest in privately owned public spaces. For example, sidewalks are privately owned in the United States, but you are allowed to hold a protest on one.

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

#500

Post by genoapol »

Avamander wrote: post #321
ars wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who are the majority?

Yes. The rule basically says that you can't be racist towards white people.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN