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

861–870 of 983 posts

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

#861

Post by rowanG077 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #799
rowanG077 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are other video hosting platforms that work perfectly well, as far as I can see.

Excluding porn youtube is essentially a monopoly. If you can't go to youtube you immediately land in very small and obscure video streaming sites.

If you compare this to the "real" world it would be the same as not being able to say what you want in public spaces. Youtube is THE public space for video content.

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

#862

Post by dragonwriter »

bhupy wrote: post #634
klyrs wrote: post #428

Earlier 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.

> GP is talking about the principle of free speech, which is why we have the First Amendment to begin with.

The principle of free speech behind the first amendment is that active choice in what message to spread by private parties produces a desirable marketplace of ideas analogous to a marketplace of goods, where ideas compete on their merits to convince people to devote resources to spreading them, and that this—which not only involves but relies centrally on editorial decisions by the people owning the tools of communications as to which ideas they want to spread—is critical to the progress of good and failure of bad ideas, and is inhibited when the state has their hand on the scales which is why the state must remain neutral so that private actors can act in this area.

The idea of free speech that motivates the first amendment supports free, active, and vigorous decisions as to what content to relay and not by private platform owners. That's the whole point.

There are other competing, incompatible.concepts of free speech besides the one motivating the first amendment, and some of them do have different things to say about private action, but if you want to appeal to the idea of free speech behind the first amendment, it is of no use to your argument here.

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

#863

Post by [deleted] »

roenxi wrote: post #579
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…

> 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"... The "far-right" is becoming a broad term in media usage and will end up in the same place as "racist" where it is a category that catches the views of a good 40% of people. It isn't obvious that wins for the far right is a bad thing. Nobody is going to lose sleep over the Klan b…

[deleted]

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

#864

Post by mantap »

zapnuk wrote: post #855
mantap wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without free speech, there would be no LGBT Pride in the first place. They were seen as extremists. Having free speech but only for people who say mainstream things is equivalent to saying "I like the world as it exists today". That is conservatism by definition.

Without discrimination there wouldn't need to be LGBT Pride to begin with. White-nationalism was tried and didn't work to say the least. Content creators, like the ones banned, advocate for a world of 50-200 years ago. They are conservatives. Limiting their reach is anything BUT conservatism by definition. Also, there are plenty of conservatives content creators who user lies and deception to spread their dated belie…

White nationalists are the canary in the coal mine. Sure, nobody cares about the canary itself. But everyone should care why the canary died, because it has implications for us all.

What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.

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

#865

Post by leereeves »

krageon wrote: post #860
rayiner wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HN is pretty well known to be a cesspool of terrible far-right ideas. What's more, they're not mocked or booed off but enabled. You don't endear yourself to the general public by doing so.

"Far right" according to the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, perhaps. One should never confuse the people who dominate social media with the general public.

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

#866

Post by pjc50 »

patrickaljord wrote: post #859
pjc50 wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publishing official government statements is bad, including when there is no sane way to independently verify them, but slander you've just made up is fine?

They did a bit more than publishing official statements. They were very vocal about denouncing and shaming anyone doubting those statements including my whole country France was attacked, boycotted and more by these people.

Which specific people and newspaper articles?

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

#867

Post by empath75 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #756
user982 wrote: post #737

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?

Hitler was a vegetarian that loved animals.

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

#868

Post by empath75 »

skinkestek wrote: post #537
empath75 wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

>People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. ...and they will be voted down quickly. > And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down. Examples please :-) The closest thing I can come up with is when I kind of reliably get downvoted every time I say I'd support a ban on nazis but that seems to be die hard free speech people, not nazis.

People are voting up people defending molyneux _in this thread_!

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

#869

Post by Kednicma »

etherael wrote: post #627
Kednicma wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take your second branch, and I'll take the contrapositive: Because there is such overwhelming evidence that all humans belong to a single genetic legacy, one single race, we therefore must reject the entire premise that started the statistical inquiry. Instead, we are obligated to realize that IQ is not correlated with some mythic "g" number, and instead correlated with socioeconomic status and quality of educat…

> I'll take your second branch, and I'll take the contrapositive: What I originally said was; "it does exist, it doesn't necessarily imply that the racial phenotype in question must be "superior" or "inferior"?" So the contrapositive to that would be that it does imply that racial phenotype differences must also necessarily imply superior or inferior. To give you credit though, that does not seem to actually be what…

Glad to hear it. One nitpick: The contraposition of some claim P -> Q is not ~P -> ~Q, but ~Q -> ~P. I hope that you study some logic and biology in your newfound spare time. Best of luck.

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

#870

Post by thu2111 »

TomSwirly wrote: post #853
thu2111 wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't, actually. I guess "WhitePowerTube" would have been Stormfront? I never visited the site but I remember hearing about it when Google seized their domain name and wouldn't give it back. There's a nice fantasy about these parts that the deplatforming left somehow created all these platforms and will stop when people they disagree with go away. No. These platforms were mostly created by people committed to f…

> people committed to free speech That's quite a euphemism for Stormfront! > the deplatforming left Maybe I have a different viewpoint because my grandfather spent some years in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp, but I just see organizations like Stormfront as completely wrong and to be crushed by any legal means. The endless association of free speech with white supremacy is tiring. The First Amendment gives a corpora…

That wasn't a euphemism, I was referring to the origins of Twitter, Reddit, YouTube etc where they were committed to allowing a whole range of viewpoints. So you misunderstood me pretty badly. That's perhaps an argument for free speech you'd find understandable - if you can censor peopleb at will there's always a risk you'll not correctly understand them and incorrectly, unfairly shut someone down.
Post reply on HN