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

601–610 of 983 posts

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

#601

Post by jahaja »

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…

From a EU perspective, US Conservatives are pretty extreme though (not to even mention the religious variation).

There seem to be some idea here on HN that racism/white-supremacy bullshit is somehow comparable with an oppressed scientist being persecuted by a dogmatic clergy for their new found facts. That maybe, in the future, these ideas will prevail and become acceptable again, when the oppression slowly subsides.

Is this really what you think racism is? Some oppressed idea that needs a room because maybe it's actually a bit correct and we'll only know about it if we don't suppress the racists?

But these things are objectively wrong. The above scenario isn't there. If you somehow think so, I think that says more about you than those that want to be intolerant towards intolerance. Please explain yourselves.

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

#602

Post by UncleMeat »

sinker wrote: post #578
AgentME wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If YouTube shows itself as an unfair judge, then let's criticize them for that when it happens. Otherwise, having a judge is much better than having no judge at all.

That's the current situation, and maybe it's worked well so far (I don't create content on YouTube). What appears necessary or at the very least helpful, is to have a very clear terms of service that outlines exactly what is unacceptable so these situations can be avoided in the first place. One question is, why did it take until now for these bans to come into effect? Gray areas are always going to emerge. For examp…

> A few comments say Peter Molyneux (again, don't know this guy) is not specifically racist but has white-centric views.

It's Stefan not Peter. But he is very "specifically racist". He believes that arabic people are too dumb for democracy. Among a litany of other terrible statements.

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

#603

Post by manfredo »

superkuh wrote: post #179
jhonatan08 wrote: post #153

Sometimes I wonder if there are better solutions rather than bans. Banning sounds like sweeping the dirt under the rug. I am afraid haters might concentrate in underground social networks, away from the spotlights, creating a "us and them" situation.

Don't worry, the payment processors and corporate banks with federal charters simply will refuse to deal with them. They won't be able to buy services or connectivity. And then when they try to set up their own payment networks they'll be charged with trumped up KYC law infractions and put in prison.

Can't they still accept paper checks? I think banks are obligated to honor them. Groups like the KKK and the Daily Stormer have managed to stay in business.

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

#604

Post by danudey »

GrayTextIsTruth wrote: post #591
danudey wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aw, the poor white supremacists can't find anyone who's willing to work with them because of their hateful ideology. I shall shed a single tear for them. I'm really upset that the site, which was started to host neo-nazis and violently racist mass-murderers, founded by a person who was kicked out of ycombinator for harassing and threatening other founders, can't find anyone else willing to stand alongside them to fig…

> white supremacists most are actually white separatists, but labelled "supremacist". Its not about hating other cultures, but about preserving your own, like how Native Americans have exclusive spiritual rituals that outsiders are not allowed to attend. Imagine calling jews who want to have their own country in Israel "jewish supremacists". Your post used the words "supremacists", "hate", "nazi", "racist", and "toxi…

Keep telling yourself that, but it's all just a veneer over the same toxic, exclusionary, and racist bullshit.

> Imagine calling jews who want to have their own country in Israel "jewish supremacists".

Jews wanted to have their own country because of thousands of years of persecution by basically everyone, everywhere, after they were driven out of their own home. When that happens to white people, I'll accept your argument.

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

#605

Post by lliamander »

erichocean wrote: post #538
skinkestek wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly certain he can stand for it. Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that. Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?

> Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we? HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last… In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended u…

> In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed.

That isn't why he deleted it. He deleted it because the NYT was threatening to publish his real name in a way that would make it untenable for him to continue to practice psychiatry.

> [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033

To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.

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

#606

Post by sudosysgen »

tptacek wrote: post #402
lappet wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

RICO exists. If the criminal activities were systematically prompted by a group, they can be sued and all their members may be prosecuted for these crimes, especially their leaders.

So no, this is entirely incorrect.

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

#607

Post by boomboomsubban »

contrapunter wrote: post #482
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…

Important to recognise that Stefan Molyneux is not far-right, whether or not the far-right are encouraged by his YT channel deletion. I would classify him as an atheist/libertarian.

If you break down political ideas into just left and right, the libertarian belief small government with strong property rights puts them fairly far right. Things are of course more complicated, and there may be other members of the far right who disagree with him on many issues, but he'd still be part of the broader "far right."

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

#608

Post by sudosysgen »

tptacek wrote: post #454
dogma1138 wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Klan would’ve been classified as a terrorist organization they would be illegal they haven’t. The Nation of Islam is also classified as a hate group by the SPLC however they aren’t banned under the same laws that protect the KKK. NOI members just like the KKK have been prosecuted in the past for many things, however outside of very limited circumstances there isn’t such thing as guilt by association in the US…

I don't believe it's the case that the USG could have suppressed the KKK by "classifying them as a terrorist organization".

They can classify them as a criminal organization according to RICO.

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

#609

Post by s1artibartfast »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #469
searchableguy wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider that Gab feels the same way I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business th…

I don't mean to divert. Allow me to try to summarize: You: Gab can't use Visa (A) for reasons, it's not reasonable to suggest that (B) a competitor be built Gab: we can kick you off (A') for reasons, you can always spin up a Gab instance to run yourself (B') What is the difference between A and A', and B and B'?

not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the criticality of services and availability of alternatives?

Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-wall-mart.

How about a gas station in the middle of a desert where refusing service might literally result in death?

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

#610

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #407
rickbutton wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mig…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN