YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[Valrifell]

Y'all kept using it as an emotional crutch to non-arguments and everyone kinda got sick of it.

The idea that people should be able to say what they feel without fear for their livelyhoods shouldn't be a difficult one.

A nice and unrelated platitude that nobody really follows on the internet.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

That's not the real problem, though. The real problem is that while YouTube and Google drape themselves in rainbow flags for Pride month, their platforms are being used to promote anti-LGBT hatred, and they're letting it happen because it makes them big money.

I remember when free speech was a left-wing issue, that was so nice, what happened?

Like many ideologies, "free speech for me, but not for thee."

[The Emerald Legion]

I remember when free speech was a left-wing issue, that was so nice, what happened?

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Nonsense. They understand that silencing their political opponents makes it awfully convenient to maintain control.

[Des-Bal]

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Leftists sure do understand how speech can silence others, it's why they protest and seek to deplatform those they disagree with

Like many ideologies, "free speech for me, but not for thee."

.
Everybody's playing the same game.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Leftists sure do understand how speech can silence others, it's why they protest and seek to deplatform those they disagree with

Like many ideologies, "free speech for me, but not for thee."

.
Everybody's playing the same game.

Consistency is very hard to come by on this issue, I try and stay as close to it as possible, although I accept that it can't be totally free (otherwise defamation and the like suddenly becomes okay.)

[Ostroeuropa]

I remember when free speech was a left-wing issue, that was so nice, what happened?

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

That's a very convenient rationalization there.

[Ifreann]

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Nonsense. They understand that silencing their political opponents makes it awfully convenient to maintain control.

Mhmm, leftists are in control and need to briefly demonetise Steven Crowder or he'll overthrow us with his homophobic t-shirts and racist shenanigans.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I remember when free speech was a left-wing issue, that was so nice, what happened?

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Speech alone cannot forcefully silence someone. Demoralize them maybe, but not silence them through force.

[Ifreann]

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

That's a very convenient rationalization there.

Thinking that the paradox of tolerance is a convenient rationalisation is a very convenient rationalisation.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Nonsense. They understand that silencing their political opponents makes it awfully convenient to maintain control.

Mhmm, leftists are in control and need to briefly demonetise Steven Crowder or he'll overthrow us with his homophobic t-shirts and racist shenanigans.

In control of the political narrative. The idea propagated by the left is that if that guy with the homophobic t-shirts is allowed to say what he feels, lgbt people will feel what...scared? Unable to speak? Nonsense, if people state opinions that disagree with your own it should make these people more likely to speak up and challenge them.

[Des-Bal]

Consistency is very hard to come by on this issue, I try and stay as close to it as possible, although I accept that it can't be totally free (otherwise defamation and the like suddenly becomes okay.)

No slander/libel, no calls or solicitations to commit a crime, and apply that without any viewpoint discrimination.

Mhmm, leftists are in control and need to briefly demonetise Steven Crowder or he'll overthrow us with his homophobic t-shirts and racist shenanigans.

Nobody's saying those fears are valid they're saying it's stupid and you should stop.

[Ors Might]

Can’t we just come together and shit upon Youtube crappy algorithms and general demonetization policies?

That's not the real problem, though. The real problem is that while YouTube and Google drape themselves in rainbow flags for Pride month, their platforms are being used to promote anti-LGBT hatred, and they're letting it happen because it makes them big money.

Not seeing the problem there unless they’re actively agreeing with, endorsing, and promoting those beliefs.

I remember when free speech was a left-wing issue, that was so nice, what happened?

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Silencing people is wrong, thus you need to silence people?

[Ifreann]

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Speech alone cannot forcefully silence someone. Demoralize them maybe, but not silence them through force.

If speech can't do anything then why is it important that speech be free in the first place?

[Des-Bal]

Not seeing the problem there unless they’re actively agreeing with, endorsing, and promoting those beliefs.


Silencing people is wrong, you need to silence people?

It's not enough to support people, you also have to treat their detractors with contempt and deny them any opportunity to be heard.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Speech alone cannot forcefully silence someone. Demoralize them maybe, but not silence them through force.

If speech can't do anything then why is it important that speech be free in the first place?

It's about personal autonomy. People should be free to say what they feel without the massive chilling effect of 'if I say this I'll probably lose my job'

[Des-Bal]

[
If speech can't do anything then why is it important that speech be free in the first place?

Strawman, the statement "speech alone can't forcefully silence someone" cannot extrapolated to "speech can't do anything."

Put one on the board.

[Ors Might]

Speech alone cannot forcefully silence someone. Demoralize them maybe, but not silence them through force.

If speech can't do anything then why is it important that speech be free in the first place?

Speech alone not being able to forcefully silence someone does not translate to speech being unable to do anything.

[Valrifell]

Nonsense. They understand that silencing their political opponents makes it awfully convenient to maintain control.

Mhmm, leftists are in control and need to briefly demonetise Steven Crowder or he'll overthrow us with his homophobic t-shirts and racist shenanigans.

You know, for the record demonetisation isn't the same thing as censorship by a long shot, this is what I was touching at earlier with people using the rallying cry of free speech as an emotional crutch to non-arguments.

You don't have a right to make money off your speech, you all understand this, yeah?

[Ifreann]

That's not the real problem, though. The real problem is that while YouTube and Google drape themselves in rainbow flags for Pride month, their platforms are being used to promote anti-LGBT hatred, and they're letting it happen because it makes them big money.

Not seeing the problem there unless they’re actively agreeing with, endorsing, and promoting those beliefs.

This idea that YouTube has nothing to do with the videos on YouTube is just silly.

It is. But leftists generally understand that some speech effectively silences other people, and so that speech must be restricted to uphold the rights of those people it would silence.

Silencing people is wrong, thus you need to silence people?

Kinda, yeah. A bit like how killing people is wrong, but if someone's killing people then you can kill that person to stop them and save lives.

[Valrifell]

If speech can't do anything then why is it important that speech be free in the first place?

It's about personal autonomy. People should be free to say what they feel without the massive chilling effect of 'if I say this I'll probably lose my job'

I don't think you appreciate how much money Crowder actually has.

[Ors Might]

Mhmm, leftists are in control and need to briefly demonetise Steven Crowder or he'll overthrow us with his homophobic t-shirts and racist shenanigans.

You know, for the record demonetisation isn't the same thing as censorship by a long shot, this is what I was touching at earlier with people using the rallying cry of free speech as an emotional crutch to non-arguments.

You don't have a right to make money off your speech, you all understand this, yeah?

Yeah. It’s somewhat scummy but it ain’t something that should be prevented via force.

Demonetization isn’t the only thing Youtube has been doing though.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Mhmm, leftists are in control and need to briefly demonetise Steven Crowder or he'll overthrow us with his homophobic t-shirts and racist shenanigans.

You know, for the record demonetisation isn't the same thing as censorship by a long shot, this is what I was touching at earlier with people using the rallying cry of free speech as an emotional crutch to non-arguments.

You don't have a right to make money off your speech, you all understand this, yeah?

If someone is offering the ability to make money off of speech, it should offer it to people regardless of what said speech is. If it doesn't, it's essentially offering a source of income to certain people, dependant on beliefs.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Speech alone cannot forcefully silence someone. Demoralize them maybe, but not silence them through force.

If speech can't do anything then why is it important that speech be free in the first place?

It can do things, good an bad (mostly good) it just can't exert force upon anyone, and that is why it is important to keep free.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It's about personal autonomy. People should be free to say what they feel without the massive chilling effect of 'if I say this I'll probably lose my job'

I don't think you appreciate how much money Crowder actually has.

I don't think I know who Crowder is, aside from the football player.

[Des-Bal]

I don't think you appreciate how much money Crowder actually has.

That could not possibly matter less.