YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[Galloism]

Yeah, you’re right. As someone else mentioned, a bunch of left wing and LGBT channels were demonetized as well for violating the ToS.

And as others have noted, it’s not just political shit that gets demonetised for stupid reasons.

I actually think the DoJ pursuing an antitrust investigation is long overdue. Just in principle.

[Alvecia]

And this happened all in short order huh?
Forgive me if I’m skeptical that a channel that only contained old music managed to get removed from every notable social media site for literally just that.
Honestly, there more info you give the more it just sounds like they shut themselves down.

Edit: lol

I don't know when the Twitter or Facebook account got yeet'd, might have been recent or it might have been in the past.

I get you're a Brit so you might not be super in tune with our social media companies but their milquetoast neolib bias isn't exactly a secret. All three platforms go out of their way to routinely fuck with both the left and the right.

If all politics are targeted then no politics are targeted.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't know when the Twitter or Facebook account got yeet'd, might have been recent or it might have been in the past.

I get you're a Brit so you might not be super in tune with our social media companies but their milquetoast neolib bias isn't exactly a secret. All three platforms go out of their way to routinely fuck with both the left and the right.

If all politics are targeted then no politics are targeted.

By left I mean actual socialist and commie types. If you're a Clinton or Biden supporting liberal you can say or do just about anything you want on all of those platforms. But god forbid you be anything more than that.

[Alvecia]

And as others have noted, it’s not just political shit that gets demonetised for stupid reasons.

I actually think the DoJ pursuing an antitrust investigation is long overdue. Just in principle.

I’d would be too, but as I mentioned earlier, I don’t think YT’s dominance is much to do with YT itself, but more the inertia of their user base.

[Liriena]

If all politics are targeted then no politics are targeted.

By left I mean actual socialist and commie types. If you're a Clinton or Biden supporting liberal you can say or do just about anything you want on all of those platforms. But god forbid you be anything more than that.

I'm still pissed that Rational Disconect's video debunking Stefan Molyneux and other's white genocide conspiracy theories has been suspended since last year because it got mass flagged by the whitest snowflakes of Youtube.

[Alvecia]

If all politics are targeted then no politics are targeted.

By left I mean actual socialist and commie types. If you're a Clinton or Biden supporting liberal you can say or do just about anything you want on all of those platforms. But god forbid you be anything more than that.

True, Twitter and Facebook are notorious for being havens of liberal thought.

[Galloism]

By left I mean actual socialist and commie types. If you're a Clinton or Biden supporting liberal you can say or do just about anything you want on all of those platforms. But god forbid you be anything more than that.

I'm still pissed that Rational Disconect's video debunking Stefan Molyneux and other's white genocide conspiracy theories has been suspended since last year because it got mass flagged by the whitest snowflakes of Youtube.

You know, the wild west of ideas isn't so bad in the grand scheme of things, relative to the alternative.

[Ifreann]

Yes, the huge corporation is clearly leftist.

I mean, YouTube is owned by Alphabet Inc, the same company which owns Google, and Google has been caught in a number of cases of institutional bias.

This is an opinion piece, but contains lots of sources - https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 248099002/

"Biased against Republicans and conservatives" doesn't mean "leftist". It doesn't even mean "liberal", necessarily.

Crowder, so far as I've seen, is a propagandist for the right. Part of that involves mocking liberals and leftists. He doesn't make jokes that offend and shock his right wing, conservative audience to get a laugh out of them. He makes jokes that his audience think would trigger the libs. His fans aren't offended when Crowder calls Maza a lispy queer. They're fucking gleeful at the thought of how offended Maza would be to hear that. So much so that some of them run off to one of Maza's videos or a Vox article he wrote or his Twitter and say it to him themselves.

So he's more like Steven Colbert than Jay Leno.

Ok.

I don't watch enough American entertainment media to understand this distinction. If I was going to make a comparison I'd say that Crowder is a comedian in kind of the same way that John Oliver is. Oliver, if you weren't aware, insists whenever asked that he is not a journalist, his show isn't journalism, he insists that he's a comedian and it's a comedy show and he takes no credit/responsibility for the "John Oliver Effect". But that's pretty obviously bollocks. He does make jokes, sure, but he makes jokes while contextualising and explaining to the public some topic that he and his team have researched. Which is journalism.

Likewise, Crowder makes jokes, but he makes jokes while pushing right wing propaganda. The difference is that Crowder's jokes are part of and in service to the propaganda. So I'd say that Oliver is a comedian and a journalist, but Crowder is a propagandist and not a comedian. Crowder calling Carlos Maza a lispy Mexican queer serves the same purpose as Crowder spouting some climate change denial nonsense. He might be laughing, and his viewers might be laughing, but the point is reinforcing the belief in the stereotype of easily triggered SJW snowflakes, just like the point is to reinforce the belief that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

If you think that Carlos Maza has that kind of harassment coming, whatever, but it isn't offensive comedy.

Carlos Maza is a public figure, like Crowder, like Donald Trump, like Oprah, like Steven Colbert. That comes with people making fun of you in ways that aren't fair.

Something something presidential harassment.

Anyway, the notion that you can be a public figure without people talking about you is absurd. We draw the line at invoking action against people, so if someone can show where Crowder said "here's Maza's personal number, send him a million text messages", then you'll have a point. Until then, you don't - people talk about public figures. Even public figures talk about other public figures. It's what they do.

Like I said, I don't really care if you think Maza has this kind of harassment coming, and I don't care if you think that all public figures have this kind of harassment coming, and I don't care if you think that it's okay for Steven Crowder or anyone else to harass public figures as long as they don't explicitly tell other people to do likewise.

---

Why is anyone surprised by this still? YouTube is obviously leftist, but like the right-wing always says, "why do you just go make your own site/show/videogames?"

Pretty funny that they can't take their own advice.

Because laws against anti competitive business practices aren't being enforced in this market. Hell the whole reason this censorship is happening is because youtube is caving to lobbying from legacy media to censor their competitors.

Sure, somehow Vox made Crowder call Maza a lispy Mexican queer for years on end.

---

Most all of it was uncopyrighted stuff from the 1900's afaik, marching songs or anthems and whatnot. Bit odd that the channel would exist for years with no issues only to suddenly vanish when YouTube decides to yeet everything.

It's pretty much those kinds of websites' MO whenever there's any sort of rule-breaking controversy. And that's one thing I'd criticize about Maza's choice to try to appeal directly to Youtube: he should have known by then that, if Youtube did take decisive action, it would do so in the most kneejerk, scattershot and idiotic way possible.

Same happens with Twitter and Facebook: someone in the media or politics makes up a fuzz, and suddenly posting any meme with a gun on it gets you suspended.

I don't think he did try to complain directly to YouTube. I think he was just complaining on Twitter about the abuse he gets, and then other people complained to YouTube. Big props to only-good-skullboi Shaun for tricking YouTube support into replying to him and then asking about why Crowder was being allowed to break the rules.

[Liriena]

I mean, YouTube is owned by Alphabet Inc, the same company which owns Google, and Google has been caught in a number of cases of institutional bias.

This is an opinion piece, but contains lots of sources - https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 248099002/

"Biased against Republicans and conservatives" doesn't mean "leftist". It doesn't even mean "liberal", necessarily.

So he's more like Steven Colbert than Jay Leno.

Ok.

I don't watch enough American entertainment media to understand this distinction. If I was going to make a comparison I'd say that Crowder is a comedian in kind of the same way that John Oliver is. Oliver, if you weren't aware, insists whenever asked that he is not a journalist, his show isn't journalism, he insists that he's a comedian and it's a comedy show and he takes no credit/responsibility for the "John Oliver Effect". But that's pretty obviously bollocks. He does make jokes, sure, but he makes jokes while contextualising and explaining to the public some topic that he and his team have researched. Which is journalism.

Likewise, Crowder makes jokes, but he makes jokes while pushing right wing propaganda. The difference is that Crowder's jokes are part of and in service to the propaganda. So I'd say that Oliver is a comedian and a journalist, but Crowder is a propagandist and not a comedian. Crowder calling Carlos Maza a lispy Mexican queer serves the same purpose as Crowder spouting some climate change denial nonsense. He might be laughing, and his viewers might be laughing, but the point is reinforcing the belief in the stereotype of easily triggered SJW snowflakes, just like the point is to reinforce the belief that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

Carlos Maza is a public figure, like Crowder, like Donald Trump, like Oprah, like Steven Colbert. That comes with people making fun of you in ways that aren't fair.

Something something presidential harassment.

Anyway, the notion that you can be a public figure without people talking about you is absurd. We draw the line at invoking action against people, so if someone can show where Crowder said "here's Maza's personal number, send him a million text messages", then you'll have a point. Until then, you don't - people talk about public figures. Even public figures talk about other public figures. It's what they do.

Like I said, I don't really care if you think Maza has this kind of harassment coming, and I don't care if you think that all public figures have this kind of harassment coming, and I don't care if you think that it's okay for Steven Crowder or anyone else to harass public figures as long as they don't explicitly tell other people to do likewise.

---

Because laws against anti competitive business practices aren't being enforced in this market. Hell the whole reason this censorship is happening is because youtube is caving to lobbying from legacy media to censor their competitors.

Sure, somehow Vox made Crowder call Maza a lispy Mexican queer for years on end.

---

It's pretty much those kinds of websites' MO whenever there's any sort of rule-breaking controversy. And that's one thing I'd criticize about Maza's choice to try to appeal directly to Youtube: he should have known by then that, if Youtube did take decisive action, it would do so in the most kneejerk, scattershot and idiotic way possible.

Same happens with Twitter and Facebook: someone in the media or politics makes up a fuzz, and suddenly posting any meme with a gun on it gets you suspended.

I don't think he did try to complain directly to YouTube. I think he was just complaining on Twitter about the abuse he gets, and then other people complained to YouTube. Big props to only-good-skullboi Shaun for tricking YouTube support into replying to him and then asked about why Crowder was being allowed to break the rules.

As usual, Shaun is the best at Twitter at all times.

[Washington Resistance Army]

By left I mean actual socialist and commie types. If you're a Clinton or Biden supporting liberal you can say or do just about anything you want on all of those platforms. But god forbid you be anything more than that.

I'm still pissed that Rational Disconect's video debunking Stefan Molyneux and other's white genocide conspiracy theories has been suspended since last year because it got mass flagged by the whitest snowflakes of Youtube.

YouTube in general is just a clusterfuck of bad ideas and bias. The sooner someone knocks them off the throne the better imo.

[Liriena]

I'm still pissed that Rational Disconect's video debunking Stefan Molyneux and other's white genocide conspiracy theories has been suspended since last year because it got mass flagged by the whitest snowflakes of Youtube.

YouTube in general is just a clusterfuck of bad ideas and bias. The sooner someone knocks them off the throne the better imo.

Pornhub will light the way!

[Washington Resistance Army]

YouTube in general is just a clusterfuck of bad ideas and bias. The sooner someone knocks them off the throne the better imo.

Pornhub will light the way!

>tfw this isn't even a joke

Jesus Christ the clown world shit is true lol

[Liriena]

Pornhub will light the way!

>tfw this isn't even a joke

Jesus Christ the clown world shit is true lol

Femboys with Bad Dragon toys reciting the bread book as far as the eye can see. It'll be great.

[Ifreann]

Big props to only-good-skullboi Shaun for tricking YouTube support into replying to him and then asked about why Crowder was being allowed to break the rules.

As usual, Shaun is the best at Twitter at all times.

Twitter Chad Shaun vs Twitter Virgin Everyone Else.

---

YouTube in general is just a clusterfuck of bad ideas and bias. The sooner someone knocks them off the throne the better imo.

Pornhub will light the way!

Pornhub's bad too. Pay your sex-workers, folks.

[Worvan Yar]

Youtube is a sad state of affairs... They're going the way of Nationstates, in a way.

[Galloism]

I mean, YouTube is owned by Alphabet Inc, the same company which owns Google, and Google has been caught in a number of cases of institutional bias.

This is an opinion piece, but contains lots of sources - https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 248099002/

"Biased against Republicans and conservatives" doesn't mean "leftist". It doesn't even mean "liberal", necessarily.

I mean, in effect, it's the same thing.

So he's more like Steven Colbert than Jay Leno.

Ok.

I don't watch enough American entertainment media to understand this distinction. If I was going to make a comparison I'd say that Crowder is a comedian in kind of the same way that John Oliver is. Oliver, if you weren't aware, insists whenever asked that he is not a journalist, his show isn't journalism, he insists that he's a comedian and it's a comedy show and he takes no credit/responsibility for the "John Oliver Effect". But that's pretty obviously bollocks. He does make jokes, sure, but he makes jokes while contextualising and explaining to the public some topic that he and his team have researched. Which is journalism.

Likewise, Crowder makes jokes, but he makes jokes while pushing right wing propaganda. The difference is that Crowder's jokes are part of and in service to the propaganda. So I'd say that Oliver is a comedian and a journalist, but Crowder is a propagandist and not a comedian. Crowder calling Carlos Maza a lispy Mexican queer serves the same purpose as Crowder spouting some climate change denial nonsense. He might be laughing, and his viewers might be laughing, but the point is reinforcing the belief in the stereotype of easily triggered SJW snowflakes, just like the point is to reinforce the belief that anthropogenic climate change isn't real.

I feel like this is one giant insult to John Oliver. Even being used in the same sentence as Crowder is a debasement. John Oliver's show is brilliant. Crowder is... meh.

However - there is one person John Oliver has harassed on YouTube, at least to the extent crowder has. Do you know who is the one person John Oliver has relentlessly harassed on YouTube?

Sepp Blatter. And he didn't call Sepp a queer. He called him a Swiss Demon. And called for his firing, even attacking advertisers to force him out. He did way worse than Crowder did. It wasn't long after John Oliver's videos FIFA was threatened with a bombing where the Swiss Demon was attending.

Why is this ok? Because Sepp Blatter is a public figure, and John Oliver didn't call to bomb him.

Anyway, relentlessly criticizing a public figure is not a bad thing. I know you agree with Donald Trump here that criticizing a public figure relentlessly is harassment,, even in unfair ways, but it's just not true.

Carlos Maza is a public figure, like Crowder, like Donald Trump, like Oprah, like Steven Colbert. That comes with people making fun of you in ways that aren't fair.

Something something presidential harassment.

Anyway, the notion that you can be a public figure without people talking about you is absurd. We draw the line at invoking action against people, so if someone can show where Crowder said "here's Maza's personal number, send him a million text messages", then you'll have a point. Until then, you don't - people talk about public figures. Even public figures talk about other public figures. It's what they do.

Like I said, I don't really care if you think Maza has this kind of harassment coming, and I don't care if you think that all public figures have this kind of harassment coming, and I don't care if you think that it's okay for Steven Crowder or anyone else to harass public figures as long as they don't explicitly tell other people to do likewise.

Talking about public figures just isn't harassment. Now if he directed people to harass someone, that crosses a line. If he doxxed Maza, that crosses a line. Talking about him in his videos is just not harassment.

It's uncouth, but it's not harassment, otherwise Donald Trump is literally the most harassed person in all of history.

[-Ocelot-]

Youtube is a sad state of affairs... They're going the way of Nationstates, in a way.

I don't think Youtube is becoming 4chan's chattel.

[Aclion]

Context is important. All because one reporter, at a company laying off people because they can't compete with youtubers claimed he was being harassed and called on youtube to deplatform his companies competitors.

I'm pretty sure Vox and Crowder don't share the same target audience, so calling them "competitors" is a bit much.

If they're not competing then we have to ask why these producers seem to be picking up so many viewers at the moment Vox, Huffpost and the rest are crashing, where these viewers came from, and what the people that were watching vox are watching now.

[Liriena]

I'm pretty sure Vox and Crowder don't share the same target audience, so calling them "competitors" is a bit much.

If they're not competing then we have to ask why these producers seem to be picking up so many viewers at the moment Vox, Huffpost and the rest are crashing, where these viewers came from, and what the people that were watching vox are watching now.

I imagine most of the people leaving Vox and HuffPo moved onto podcasts and BreadTube.

[Ifreann]

"Biased against Republicans and conservatives" doesn't mean "leftist". It doesn't even mean "liberal", necessarily.

I mean, in effect, it's the same thing.

Only if you think that liberalism and leftism have no tenets or beliefs or principles beyond opposing the right. And I won't pretend to have read Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto, but come on, I think we both know that they don't say "Just piss off the right and then do whatever". Alphabet Inc. doesn't want to bring about a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the workers control the means of production and the guiding principle is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Google doesn't want to foment a revolution that will see the wealth of their executives and shareholders seized and redistributed.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

As usual, Shaun is the best at Twitter at all times.

Twitter Chad Shaun vs Twitter Virgin Everyone Else.

He actually stripped all the flesh off his face in order to better emphasise that gorgeous chad skull-shape.

[Galloism]

I mean, in effect, it's the same thing.

Only if you think that liberalism and leftism have no tenets or beliefs or principles beyond opposing the right. And I won't pretend to have read Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto, but come on, I think we both know that they don't say "Just piss off the right and then do whatever". Alphabet Inc. doesn't want to bring about a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the workers control the means of production and the guiding principle is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Google doesn't want to foment a revolution that will see the wealth of their executives and shareholders seized and redistributed.

There's a reason why I said "in effect" and not "in principle". I mean the effects are the same, regardless of whether or not the underlying reasons are different.

An organization that censors the right and lets the left run free, or censors the left and lets the right run free, is effectively working in the interests of the left or right respectively - regardless of their personal politics. Their bias is shown in their effects.

Bill Clinton's crime bill wholesale screwed black people in this country, particularly black men. But I doubt that was Bill's intent, even if that's what it did.


So is Donald Trump suffering the most harassment of anyone in history, and anyone who criticizes Donald Trump regularly and calls him names should be demonetized on YouTube? I noticed you skipped over that whole section.

[Nevv Vegas]

Not Big Surprise. All this gives is more support for the YangGang. People like Crowder, Sargon and Avellone are moderates and this only shows what Google is and what it stands for. A moderate would hope that the senate trials were not a difficult PR event for the tech companies.

[Ifreann]

Only if you think that liberalism and leftism have no tenets or beliefs or principles beyond opposing the right. And I won't pretend to have read Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto, but come on, I think we both know that they don't say "Just piss off the right and then do whatever". Alphabet Inc. doesn't want to bring about a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the workers control the means of production and the guiding principle is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Google doesn't want to foment a revolution that will see the wealth of their executives and shareholders seized and redistributed.

There's a reason why I said "in effect" and not "in principle". I mean the effects are the same, regardless of whether or not the underlying reasons are different.

An organization that censors the right and lets the left run free, or censors the left and lets the right run free, is effectively working in the interests of the left or right respectively - regardless of their personal politics. Their bias is shown in their effects.

A company being biased against the right is only being leftist in effect if being leftist means just pissing off the right.

So is Donald Trump suffering the most harassment of anyone in history, and anyone who criticizes Donald Trump regularly and calls him names should be demonetized on YouTube? I noticed you skipped over that whole thing.

I told you twice that I don't care about your excuses and justifications and apologetics. I'm now telling you now for a third time. I don't care. How many times do you need to be told a thing before you actually hear it? Because I'm not going to be reading this thread all night to keep telling you if you haven't gotten it yet.

[Galloism]

There's a reason why I said "in effect" and not "in principle". I mean the effects are the same, regardless of whether or not the underlying reasons are different.

An organization that censors the right and lets the left run free, or censors the left and lets the right run free, is effectively working in the interests of the left or right respectively - regardless of their personal politics. Their bias is shown in their effects.

A company being biased against the right is only being leftist in effect if being leftist means just pissing off the right.

Well, in practical effect is the same as being leftist, at least form the perspective of both right and left users.

So is Donald Trump suffering the most harassment of anyone in history, and anyone who criticizes Donald Trump regularly and calls him names should be demonetized on YouTube? I noticed you skipped over that whole thing.

I told you twice that I don't care about your excuses and justifications and apologetics. I'm now telling you now for a third time. I don't care. How many times do you need to be told a thing before you actually hear it? Because I'm not going to be reading this thread all night to keep telling you if you haven't gotten it yet.

I might be responding to a lot of your posts in the future with "Presidential Harassment!"