Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a thread topic about white nationalists being banned from YouTube. It has 700+ comments, many of them in defense of the banned. Which of the banned people being defended are not actually white supremacists, but innocents caught in a too-broad dragnet?
Stephen Molyneux is a single-minded crusader against corporal punishment of children. He cites IQ and demographic statistics as evidence that the high incidents of corporal punishment among African-Americans is harmful to the population. But untangling that ball of wax is a lot harder than calling him a racist and getting on with life isn't it?
YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
801–810 of 983 posts
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#802Earlier quoted context omitted.
Africans enslaved in America effectively had their original cultures denied and destroyed. That's why it's appropriate to capitalize Black but not white when referring to American subcultures. ( Whiteness isn't genetic. E.g. in South Africa under apartheid Chinese people were legally black but Japanese people were legally white .)
Various whites had their cultures denied and destroyed as well. By your logic White should capitalized as well.
Which "various whites" specifically?
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#803Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first amendment is a limitation on Congress , not YouTube. The first amendment also confirms the freedom of association. On the balance, your radically expansive view of "free speech" trods deeply on the freedom of association and is unlikely to find any satisfaction in court.
GP is not making a legal argument. Nobody is arguing that the First Amendment applies to users of products provided by Facebook. GP is talking about the principle of free speech, which is why we have the First Amendment to begin with.
No, application of that principle is literally law. If you want that principle to be enforced in these situations, that's a violation of other rights. If you want them to act differently according to your principles, that's just a damn shame isn't it?
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#804Good Riddance! They had it cushy for a long time... now reality bites. This is the West, we fought wars against Fascism. Our biggest mistake was tolerating them a 2nd time.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#805Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Social media companies have argued that they cant be held liable for things posted to their platforms in the past and have tried to position themselves at neutral platforms. When they start to become the arbitrators of what is and is not to be posted they are no longer neutral platforms like the phone company. Social media companies don't become more liable just because they moderate. They all do that already. There…
It is a gray area and social media platforms sit somewhere in-between being a common carrier and a being a publisher. Your right there is no hard legal line but the more they decide what is allowed and what is not allowed the more they move farther away from being a common carrier. > Social media companies don't become more liable just because they moderate. Actually they do: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/c…
It appears that those links describe the conditions before passage of the communications decency act of 1996. That was all overturned by section 230 of the CDA.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#806Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you're missing it, but yeah, reverse racism is not a thing. The concept of racism is meaningful in the historical and societal context of systemic oppression. A black person saying "all white people are bad" is not feeding into and exploiting hundreds of years of prejudice stacked against an under-privileged group. Edit: a black person in the US, different cultures are different contexts.
It's really unfortunate to see downvotes for this. The belief in reverse racism in America is pretty widespread and I imagine we'll eventually see people understand what it means to say it doesn't exist. The rejection of reserve racism isn't a reaction based on anger like "they hurt me first and more so I can hurt them." That's not what this is about. It's about not minimizing the prejudice black people suffer from e…
I think you're right and we should just use a different word instead of fighting against the plain meaning. It shouldn't come as a surprise that when it takes 4 paragraphs to explain why the plain meaning of a word isn't how the word's allowed to be used, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#807Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a vision for what could end up happening. We will see a bifurcation of Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit into a conservative and liberal version. There appear to be many (apparently unsuccessful) attempts right now to do exactly that. The recent swath of bans could change that however. It's not too dissimilar to message board culture from the aughts. You essentially had federated versions of Reddit. It lo…
Twitter, YouTube, Facebook serve a global audience - but the “conservative”/“liberal” dichotomy you describe is unique to the USA. If social media companies will be bifurcated as you say, it’ll be a tiny fraction of their American audiences - leaving the rest of the world sticking with the mainstream. Those smaller Ameri-centric sites will fail to reach critical-mass needed to sustain themselves in the long-term and…
The bans will expand to the rest of the world soon enough. There is no way to satisfy this beast and no border that will contain it.
After Biden wins, I'd guess we'll have a couple years of laxer enforcement and that will doom the alternatives.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#808Earlier 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.” https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-reporting/acc...
> “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.” The majority where? I can't find any specifics on what the majority qualifier is applied to (ex: the community in which the speech occurs, the geographic community of the user, etc).
I’m guessing the whole thing is very USA centric, and they haven’t really thought through the implications of having users from across the world.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#809Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. That's... not what happened? He's explicitly stated that he deleted his blog due to the fact that the NYT are planning on doxxing him in a story about SSC. He's fine with the stor…
I do disagree, there was a lot of discussion about this on SSC prior to Scott shutting it down. If you just read what's on the site now, you're missing most of the important background information. In particular, the "reporter" at the NYT was clearly looking to get SSC cancelled, so Scott self-cancelled before that could happen, on his own terms.
I'm ambivalent about his decision, but it was definitely his to make and probably is in the best interest of his patients (and himself)—at least in the short-term. The world, however, has lost a really good blog and community.
Re: YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech
#810Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929
Wait? We have a a “rep” on Twitter? HN is like one of the most civil places on the Internet insofar as ones where any debate of substance happens.
Yes; just search Twitter for "orange site".