YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[Valrifell]

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.

As far as I can see demonetization is the only thing concerning this particular outcry and thread topic. They do remove videos, but the overwhelming majority of the schlock goes unchallenged and the problem isn't purely partisan or ideological, pretending it is and the right is the sole victim just sparks counter-backlash and frustration.

[Ors Might]

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.

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.

Good thing I didn’t say that.

But killing people isn’t wrong. You just provided a scenario where it isn’t. Thus saying its wrong to kill people would be inaccurate. Kinda like how it’s dumb to say it’s wrong to silence people then go on to immediately say how you need to silence people. It’s either wrong for it’s own sake or it isn’t.

[Valrifell]

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

That could not possibly matter less.

It does if you're trying to frame this as someone losing their livelihoods. It's simply not happening that way, the people being affected typically have alternate streams of revenue or are so big that a few demonetized videos doesn't really matter all that much, after all, you make most of your views within the first week or so of a video going live.

This isn't "won't somebody think of the poor YouTubers " and pretending that it is is disingenuous.

[Ors Might]

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.

As far as I can see demonetization is the only thing concerning this particular outcry and thread topic. They do remove videos, but the overwhelming majority of the schlock goes unchallenged and the problem isn't purely partisan or ideological, pretending it is and the right is the sole victim just sparks counter-backlash and frustration.

I’ve been calling out Youtube for being shitty on a bipartisan basis.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

That could not possibly matter less.

It does if you're trying to frame this as someone losing their livelihoods. It's simply not happening that way, the people being affected typically have alternate streams of revenue or are so big that a few demonetized videos doesn't really matter all that much, after all, you make most of your views within the first week or so of a video going live.

This isn't "won't somebody think of the poor YouTubers " and pretending that it is is disingenuous.

Not sure someone like carl Benjamin fits into that category.

[Valrifell]

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.

This is quite literally never how that has worked. Under no circumstances is a TV network obligated to give neo-Nazis a television program.

As far as I can see demonetization is the only thing concerning this particular outcry and thread topic. They do remove videos, but the overwhelming majority of the schlock goes unchallenged and the problem isn't purely partisan or ideological, pretending it is and the right is the sole victim just sparks counter-backlash and frustration.

I’ve been calling out Youtube for being shitty on a bipartisan basis.

I would say "so have I" but honestly I don't think anyone would really believe me.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's a very convenient rationalization there.

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

You're guys on the progressive left using straight up Nazi philosophy and then wondering why everyone hates you. "Strike first or else they'll get you" Carl Schmidt stuff with the whole "Oh no our liberal society can't resist a highly intolerant and regimented attack by people who are intolerant of everyone else, guess we better do it first!".

Other than that observation, who gets to decide who is right in that situation, or is it just a nihilistic us V them battle?

[Des-Bal]

It does if you're trying to frame this as someone losing their livelihoods. It's simply not happening that way, the people being affected typically have alternate streams of revenue or are so big that a few demonetized videos doesn't really matter all that much, after all, you make most of your views within the first week or so of a video going live.

This isn't "won't somebody think of the poor YouTubers "

No it really doesn't matter. If you're cutting someone's income off as a matter of pure viewpoint discrimination you are undeniably a fuck. It doesn't matter if they have money, it doesn't matter if they have other income, someone threatening your money is someone presenting a threat and it is ultimately your fuckery is at issue.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

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.

This is quite literally never how that has worked. Under no circumstances is a TV network obligated to give neo-Nazis a television program.

I’ve been calling out Youtube for being shitty on a bipartisan basis.

I would say "so have I" but honestly I don't think anyone would really believe me.

It's an entirely different platform and you know it. A tv network prioritises its time between different viewpoints, depending on ratings and the like. Youtube doesn't make those sorts of prioritisation decisions, since their is no limitation on funding or on airtime.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

As far as I can see demonetization is the only thing concerning this particular outcry and thread topic. They do remove videos, but the overwhelming majority of the schlock goes unchallenged and the problem isn't purely partisan or ideological, pretending it is and the right is the sole victim just sparks counter-backlash and frustration.

The left has plenty of platforms advocating for its views and this is the tail end of a long push to completely deplatform, vilify, marginalize, and censor any views that go against the identity politics of the progressive left.

If I have a whole meal and you have a slice of bread, and I take your bread and bin it but say it's okay because i'm putting my slice of bread in too, then I sit down to the rest of my meal, is that convincing?

[Ifreann]

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 support some people on Patreon. Some of them, Patreon basically is their job. The thing I support them doing through Patreon is what they do for a living and Patreon is how they get paid to do it.

To maintain their personal autonomy to say whatever they want without losing their job, you'd have to force me to continue being their patron no matter what they say or do. You'd have to stop me from withdrawing my patronage. Which infringes on my personal autonomy, doesn't it?

[Ors Might]

The paradox of tolerance is complete bullshit, in all honesty. It makes the assumption that because we tolerate people having beliefs, we must therefore allow them to put their beliefs into action. Supporting one’s right to say it inevitably leads to supporting their right to do it.

So pro-choicers, how has tolerating pro-life opinions impacted your ability to oppose pro-life policies?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That could not possibly matter less.

It does if you're trying to frame this as someone losing their livelihoods. It's simply not happening that way, the people being affected typically have alternate streams of revenue or are so big that a few demonetized videos doesn't really matter all that much, after all, you make most of your views within the first week or so of a video going live.

This isn't "won't somebody think of the poor YouTubers " and pretending that it is is disingenuous.

Some have alternative sources of revenue, yes. But let's not pretend this doesn't severely effect their bottom line. Especially compounded upon previous adpocalypses.

[Ostroeuropa]

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 support some people on Patreon. Some of them, Patreon basically is their job. The thing I support them doing through Patreon is what they do for a living and Patreon is how they get paid to do it.

To maintain their personal autonomy to say whatever they want without losing their job, you'd have to force me to continue being their patron no matter what they say or do. You'd have to stop me from withdrawing my patronage. Which infringes on my personal autonomy, doesn't it?

There's a difference between siding with the privatization of the roads to the point you decide nobody except Tories is allowed to drive on them anymore or you'll throw a fit, and forcing you to pay people to drive on them. The modern public square is online, and the left is actively driving people out of it.

[Des-Bal]

I support some people on Patreon. Some of them, Patreon basically is their job. The thing I support them doing through Patreon is what they do for a living and Patreon is how they get paid to do it.

To maintain their personal autonomy to say whatever they want without losing their job, you'd have to force me to continue being their patron no matter what they say or do. You'd have to stop me from withdrawing my patronage. Which infringes on my personal autonomy, doesn't it?

Of course you didn't go with the example of patreon cutting someone off because that would actually be analogous and wouldn't involve the ridiculous leaps it takes for this to involve your autonomy in any way shape or form.

[Ifreann]

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.

If speech can have consequences then it can infringe on other people's rights.

If speech can't ever infringe on other people's rights then free speech is irrelevant.

Pick one.

---

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.

As above, if speech can have consequences then those consequences can harm people. Are you saying that we should allow people to be harmed?

---

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


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.

Good thing I didn’t say that.

But killing people isn’t wrong. You just provided a scenario where it isn’t. Thus saying its wrong to kill people would be inaccurate. Kinda like how it’s dumb to say it’s wrong to silence people then go on to immediately say how you need to silence people. It’s either wrong for it’s own sake or it isn’t.

People have a right to life, yes? But we accept that that right can be violated in order to preserve the rights of others.

Try to have a think about that fact with regards to the right to free speech. Maybe something similar could happen where we violate someone's right to free speech in order to protect the rights of others.

---

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

You're guys on the progressive left using straight up Nazi philosophy and then wondering why everyone hates you. "Strike first or else they'll get you" Carl Schmidt stuff with the whole "Oh no our liberal society can't resist a highly intolerant and regimented attack by people who are intolerant of everyone else, guess we better do it first!".

Wanting to protect people's rights from Nazis is Nazi philosophy. Very good argument. "You're just like Hitler!", leftism utterly destroyed.

It's like you're not even trying any more.

Other than that observation, who gets to decide who is right in that situation, or is it just a nihilistic us V them battle?

Yeah, how do we even decide who is right when the fucking Nazis come into conflict with liberal democracy. Tough question, gonna need a lot of BrainForce Plus to puzzle this one out.

---

The paradox of tolerance is complete bullshit, in all honesty. It makes the assumption that because we tolerate people having beliefs, we must therefore allow them to put their beliefs into action. Supporting one’s right to say it inevitably leads to supporting their right to do it.

So pro-choicers, how has tolerating pro-life opinions impacted your ability to oppose pro-life policies?

Since legalising abortion here there's been several incidents of pro-life campaigners protesting outside clinics, yelling at and harassing people they believe are seeking abortions in order to stop them from doing so. But they're only using words and not using physical force so I guess that's fine?

[Ifreann]

I support some people on Patreon. Some of them, Patreon basically is their job. The thing I support them doing through Patreon is what they do for a living and Patreon is how they get paid to do it.

To maintain their personal autonomy to say whatever they want without losing their job, you'd have to force me to continue being their patron no matter what they say or do. You'd have to stop me from withdrawing my patronage. Which infringes on my personal autonomy, doesn't it?

There's a difference between siding with the privatization of the roads to the point you decide nobody except Tories is allowed to drive on them anymore or you'll throw a fit, and forcing you to pay people to drive on them. The modern public square is online, and the left is actively driving people out of it.

Yes, you can tell by how Steven Crowder's videos are all still on YouTube, and monetised again now that he's taken the "Socialism Is For F*gs" shirt off his store. Brutal leftist censorship has destroyed this millionaire's life.

[Ostroeuropa]

There's a difference between siding with the privatization of the roads to the point you decide nobody except Tories is allowed to drive on them anymore or you'll throw a fit, and forcing you to pay people to drive on them. The modern public square is online, and the left is actively driving people out of it.

Yes, you can tell by how Steven Crowder's videos are all still on YouTube, and monetised again now that he's taken the "Socialism Is For F*gs" shirt off his store. Brutal leftist censorship has destroyed this millionaire's life.

The issue is new content creators and those with less influence rather than those already established.

Wanting to protect people's rights from Nazis is Nazi philosophy. Very good argument. "You're just like Hitler!", leftism utterly destroyed.

It's like you're not even trying any more.

The Nazis wanted to protect people from a group just like the Nazis (But targeting their people) too. That's the entire rationale behind the paradox of tolerance as Carl Schmidt, Nazi Philosopher, expresses it in the friend-enemy distinction.

The strike first aspect is the key part that you're not acknowledging.

It's line for line the same argument.

Liberal society cannot stand up to an intolerant group with high in group bias. Therefore we have to do it first, or we'll be their victims.

You're here waffling about how liberal society cannot stand up to an intolerant ideology, so we have to be intolerant first.

What exactly is the difference you're pretending exists?

[Ors Might]

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

If speech can have consequences then it can infringe on other people's rights.

If speech can't ever infringe on other people's rights then free speech is irrelevant.

Pick one.

---

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.

As above, if speech can have consequences then those consequences can harm people. Are you saying that we should allow people to be harmed?

---

Good thing I didn’t say that.

But killing people isn’t wrong. You just provided a scenario where it isn’t. Thus saying its wrong to kill people would be inaccurate. Kinda like how it’s dumb to say it’s wrong to silence people then go on to immediately say how you need to silence people. It’s either wrong for it’s own sake or it isn’t.

People have a right to life, yes? But we accept that that right can be violated in order to preserve the rights of others.

Try to have a think about that fact with regards to the right to free speech. Maybe something similar could happen where we violate someone's right to free speech in order to protect the rights of others.

---

You're guys on the progressive left using straight up Nazi philosophy and then wondering why everyone hates you. "Strike first or else they'll get you" Carl Schmidt stuff with the whole "Oh no our liberal society can't resist a highly intolerant and regimented attack by people who are intolerant of everyone else, guess we better do it first!".

Wanting to protect people's rights from Nazis is Nazi philosophy. Very good argument. "You're just like Hitler!", leftism utterly destroyed.

It's like you're not even trying any more.

Other than that observation, who gets to decide who is right in that situation, or is it just a nihilistic us V them battle?

Yeah, how do we even decide who is right when the fucking Nazis come into conflict with liberal democracy. Tough question, gonna need a lot of BrainForce Plus to puzzle this one out.

---

The paradox of tolerance is complete bullshit, in all honesty. It makes the assumption that because we tolerate people having beliefs, we must therefore allow them to put their beliefs into action. Supporting one’s right to say it inevitably leads to supporting their right to do it.

So pro-choicers, how has tolerating pro-life opinions impacted your ability to oppose pro-life policies?

Since legalising abortion here there's been several incidents of pro-life campaigners protesting outside clinics, yelling at and harassing people they believe are seeking abortions in order to stop them from doing so. But they're only using words and not using physical force so I guess that's fine?

If free speech is capable of directly infringing upon rights, elaborate on what rights those are.

You haven’t demonstrated what rights are being violated.

I’m not sure how that’s relevant to your ability to simultaneously support people having opinions and oppose those opinions becoming policy.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

As above, if speech can have consequences then those consequences can harm people. Are you saying that we should allow people to be harmed?

Yes, we should allow some level of indirect harm, given that everything is capable of indirect harm, and if we attempted to ban everything that caused indirect harm, we'd be in a self-contradictory totalitarian nightmare world.

[Ostroeuropa]

If speech can have consequences then it can infringe on other people's rights.

If speech can't ever infringe on other people's rights then free speech is irrelevant.

Pick one.

---

As above, if speech can have consequences then those consequences can harm people. Are you saying that we should allow people to be harmed?

---

People have a right to life, yes? But we accept that that right can be violated in order to preserve the rights of others.

Try to have a think about that fact with regards to the right to free speech. Maybe something similar could happen where we violate someone's right to free speech in order to protect the rights of others.

---

Wanting to protect people's rights from Nazis is Nazi philosophy. Very good argument. "You're just like Hitler!", leftism utterly destroyed.

It's like you're not even trying any more.


Yeah, how do we even decide who is right when the fucking Nazis come into conflict with liberal democracy. Tough question, gonna need a lot of BrainForce Plus to puzzle this one out.

---

Since legalising abortion here there's been several incidents of pro-life campaigners protesting outside clinics, yelling at and harassing people they believe are seeking abortions in order to stop them from doing so. But they're only using words and not using physical force so I guess that's fine?

If free speech is capable of directly infringing upon rights, elaborate on what rights those are.

You haven’t demonstrated what rights are being violated.

I’m not sure how that’s relevant to your ability to simultaneously support people having opinions and oppose those opinions becoming policy.

It started when progressives fucked up and backed theocratic religious censorship on the grounds of feelings because the people demanding it were brown. That's when this wave of nonsense got started, when they became a bunch of Jannisaries.

That, plus the feminism movement up and deciding to withdraw into their own paranoid fantasy land in order to continue believing nonsense, so they had to focus on "feelings" instead of facts once stats started revealing they were full of shit.

It's used to perpetuate injustice and the unearned privileges of groups progressive side with, not to fight against intolerance, that is merely the excuse. They're an inverted supremacy movement in the same sense as inverted totalitarianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

The use of equality language to obscure the reality they are a supremacist movement.

[Karevka]

I'm going to pitch in again and say that the reason why many platforms either kick or demonetize these far right wingers is because of public image and perception. YouTube does not want to be seen as a "haven" for far right wingers where they make racist, homophobic, sexist etc. and make money off of it and have a myriad of news outlets breathing down their necks explaining why the alt-right should be booted off YT. It isn't some vague "left-wing agenda" as many say and most of those subject to demonetization should've saw this coming a mile away. In the end YouTube is just protecting/improving it's image which is normal for most companies.

[Ifreann]

Yes, you can tell by how Steven Crowder's videos are all still on YouTube, and monetised again now that he's taken the "Socialism Is For F*gs" shirt off his store. Brutal leftist censorship has destroyed this millionaire's life.

The issue is new content creators and those with less influence rather than those already established.

Wanting to protect people's rights from Nazis is Nazi philosophy. Very good argument. "You're just like Hitler!", leftism utterly destroyed.

It's like you're not even trying any more.

The Nazis wanted to protect people from a group just like the Nazis (But targeting their people) too. That's the entire rationale behind the paradox of tolerance as Carl Schmidt, Nazi Philosopher, expresses it in the friend-enemy distinction.

The strike first aspect is the key part that you're not acknowledging.

It's line for line the same argument.

Liberal society cannot stand up to an intolerant group with high in group bias. Therefore we have to do it first, or we'll be their victims.

You're here waffling about how liberal society cannot stand up to an intolerant ideology, so we have to be intolerant first.

What exactly is the difference you're pretending exists?

I don't know, man, maybe there is no difference between being a Nazi and opposing Nazis. Maybe those things are morally equivalent.

You've given me a lot to think about. *big sip of soy*

---

If speech can have consequences then it can infringe on other people's rights.

If speech can't ever infringe on other people's rights then free speech is irrelevant.

Pick one.

---

As above, if speech can have consequences then those consequences can harm people. Are you saying that we should allow people to be harmed?

---

People have a right to life, yes? But we accept that that right can be violated in order to preserve the rights of others.

Try to have a think about that fact with regards to the right to free speech. Maybe something similar could happen where we violate someone's right to free speech in order to protect the rights of others.

---

Wanting to protect people's rights from Nazis is Nazi philosophy. Very good argument. "You're just like Hitler!", leftism utterly destroyed.

It's like you're not even trying any more.


Yeah, how do we even decide who is right when the fucking Nazis come into conflict with liberal democracy. Tough question, gonna need a lot of BrainForce Plus to puzzle this one out.

---

Since legalising abortion here there's been several incidents of pro-life campaigners protesting outside clinics, yelling at and harassing people they believe are seeking abortions in order to stop them from doing so. But they're only using words and not using physical force so I guess that's fine?

If free speech is capable of directly infringing upon rights, elaborate on what rights those are.

You haven’t demonstrated what rights are being violated.

You're a smart lad, I'm sure you think think of a situation in which allowing certain kinds of speech could cause other people harm. There's the ever popular crowded theatre example I'm sure you're familiar with. Or maybe consider that defamation is a concept that exists.

I’m not sure how that’s relevant to your ability to simultaneously support people having opinions and oppose those opinions becoming policy.

Well do you think that it's okay for pro-lifers to stop people from having abortions by using their right to free speech? You know, yelling at them, calling them murderers and baby killers, threatening to take their picture and spread it around so everyone knows they had an abortion.

---

As above, if speech can have consequences then those consequences can harm people. Are you saying that we should allow people to be harmed?

Yes, we should allow some level of indirect harm, given that everything is capable of indirect harm, and if we attempted to ban everything that caused indirect harm, we'd be in a self-contradictory totalitarian nightmare world.

Ah, so you think that we can't have any restrictions on speech because if we did we'd logically have to ban everything.

You know there are already restrictions speech, yeah?

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't know, man, maybe there is no difference between being a Nazi and opposing Nazis. Maybe those things are morally equivalent.

You've given me a lot to think about. *big sip of soy*

So you're not going to acknowledge that the strike first mentality point? Nor how you're the very threat to liberal society you're pretending to save it from?

[Liriena]

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

What do you think the leftist and LGBT sides of Youtube have been doing for the past couple years?