YouTube Remonetizes Steven Crowder

[Loben III]

basically asking why people laugh in the first place.

No? I'm asking what's funny about a particular thing, that particular thing being a slurs with the intent of ostracizing and demeaning a group of people. That's different from humor and laughter in general.

youre asking whats funny in demeaning a group of people.

seriously?

its the reaction.

[The Emerald Legion]

Hate speech is arguably the point and feature for the far right and not a flaw. Otherwise, they'd be a moderate. There exists a politics of fear and hatred that a sizeable amount of people are into or always have been throughout all of history. On that basis, hate speech isn't a problem from my perspective; if Youtube's limited liability from what other people choose to do is iron clad.

Yeah, but there's a point where it crosses the line. I mean, I believe under US law (which Google and thus Youtube are beholden to) hate speech falls under intimidating speech and is thus not protected under the First Amendment. Even then, in Europe hate speech is definitely criminalized. So, if my party's ideology is something illegal, then the platform I am using has no obligation to keep me there, because they are a private institution and can deny service to anyone. If I go out and say "we should restrict immigration", it's a valid statement. If I say "Hey, Bill, wanna go get your pitchfork and murder the black guy down the street?", then that's a criminal incitement to violence. Politics of fear and hatred like you're talking about is, in my belief, essentially such an incitement to violence in ideological form. It's like if a really radical left channel advocated that pedophilia was a valid sexual orientation. They are thus advocating an illegal act by saying that fucking kids is okay. Should we support that because it's an ideological position? Of course not!

You're incorrect. Hate speech has no real legal basis for punishment in the US when not attached to threats of action.

[The Holy Therns]

Honestly, I don't think he should've been sanctioned to begin with. If advertisers want to break with Youtube over minor nonsense like this, I'd tell them to pound sand were it my website. There are other advertisers who'd look the other way. They really going to deny themselves the biggest video platform on the internet? Probably not. If called out on allowing neo-Nazi videos, I'd point to Communist videos being allowed and insist that I can't ban one without banning the other.

It's so surprising and unexpected that you, of all people, would hold this position.

Re: Crowder, I very very vaguely recall hearing about him once, when he got demonetized, and never before, and never again until now.

[Aureumterra]

"YouTube is bad because it doesn't bad people I disagree with!"

Actually, Youtube is bad because it's capitalist. Everything else wrong with it (from conservative indoctrination to child grooming) is kind of a secondary effect of it.

>Youtube
>Conservative

[Cordel One]

Actually, Youtube is bad because it's capitalist. Everything else wrong with it (from conservative indoctrination to child grooming) is kind of a secondary effect of it.

>Youtube
>Conservative

Uh yeah

[Outer Acharet]

Yeah, but there's a point where it crosses the line. I mean, I believe under US law (which Google and thus Youtube are beholden to) hate speech falls under intimidating speech and is thus not protected under the First Amendment. Even then, in Europe hate speech is definitely criminalized. So, if my party's ideology is something illegal, then the platform I am using has no obligation to keep me there, because they are a private institution and can deny service to anyone. If I go out and say "we should restrict immigration", it's a valid statement. If I say "Hey, Bill, wanna go get your pitchfork and murder the black guy down the street?", then that's a criminal incitement to violence. Politics of fear and hatred like you're talking about is, in my belief, essentially such an incitement to violence in ideological form. It's like if a really radical left channel advocated that pedophilia was a valid sexual orientation. They are thus advocating an illegal act by saying that fucking kids is okay. Should we support that because it's an ideological position? Of course not!

You're incorrect. Hate speech has no real legal basis for punishment in the US when not attached to threats of action.

You're right, it isn't on the federal level, though on state or local levels it is stricter in many places. I mention criminal incitements to violence below, though.

[Washington Resistance Army]

"YouTube is bad because it doesn't bad people I disagree with!"

Actually, Youtube is bad because it's capitalist. Everything else wrong with it (from conservative indoctrination to child grooming) is kind of a secondary effect of it.

YouTube indoctrinates people into whatever ideology they show a vague interest in. Welcome to the algorithm age.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

No? I'm asking what's funny about a particular thing, that particular thing being a slurs with the intent of ostracizing and demeaning a group of people. That's different from humor and laughter in general.

youre asking whats funny in demeaning a group of people.

seriously?

its the reaction.

It's only funny when you do it to everyone. When you target certain groups and not others, it becomes clear you're not really joking.

[Des-Bal]

Fantastic, he should have never been demonetized.

You're right, it isn't on the federal level, though on state or local levels it is stricter in many places. I mention criminal incitements to violence below, though.

You are mistaken or lying. Where speech does not incite imminent lawless action is protected under the first amendment.

[The Two Jerseys]

what was he demonetized over again?

The gay "journalist" had a hissyfit and blackmailed YouTube by threatening to use his position at Vox to get sponsors to pull their money.

[Des-Bal]

what was he demonetized over again?

People who consistently choose to be unhappy chose to be unhappy about him.

[Aeritai]

It sounds as though he stopped contravening YouTube's content rules. Presumably if he starts doing it again he'll get put back in the naughty corner. Bitchy squabbles between creators and drama llama response videos have long been part of YouTube's culture. Personally that turns me off of any channel involved, but going after someone for being an effeminate gay isn't really worse for me than going off on someone for some other characteristic of appearance or behaviour. He sounds like a jerk, but I won't watch him like I don't watch the other jerks. Problem solved.

Honestly, the problem isn't really Crowder himself. He's a talentless failson kept afloat by his exploitation of Youtube's architecture, like most other conservative grifters. For all their performative progressivism, Youtube's algorithm has allowed people with a lot of capital to use it as a massive conservative indoctrination platform.

Which is why I support breaking up Youtube. We're going back to the good old days of every man a website!

What do you mean by breaking up YouTube? Do you want the entire website and app deleted or just make it have less power?

[Czechostan]

Crowder should have just been banned, but YouTube was never going to do that while his channel was still bringing in that sweet, sweet engagement.

No, no. If he’d been banned, he would’ve gotten a talk show somewhere.

Time for White Power with Crowder to become real.

[Liriena]

what was he demonetized over again?

The gay "journalist" had a hissyfit and blackmailed YouTube by threatening to use his position at Vox to get sponsors to pull their money.

You left out the part where the journalist in question took action because Youtube all but admitted that Crowder was breaking their rules on targeted harassment and hate speech but were not going to take action on it.

While I don't think Maza necessarily did the right thing, you lot are being suspiciously one-sided on the actual facts of this story.

[Liriena]

>Youtube
>Conservative

Uh yeah

More specifically, Youtube's business model and architecture has made it one of the best platforms for billionaire-backed conservative astroturfing and inorganic propagandizing.

Not to mention a lot of conservative Youtubers have been caught exploiting the tagging system to push their propaganda onto children.

[Loben III]

Uh yeah

More specifically, Youtube's business model and architecture has made it one of the best platforms for billionaire-backed conservative astroturfing and inorganic propagandizing.

Not to mention a lot of conservative Youtubers have been caught exploiting the tagging system to push their propaganda onto children.

Oh and meanwhile leftist youtubers are just paragons of virtue right?

[Page]

More specifically, Youtube's business model and architecture has made it one of the best platforms for billionaire-backed conservative astroturfing and inorganic propagandizing.

Not to mention a lot of conservative Youtubers have been caught exploiting the tagging system to push their propaganda onto children.

Oh and meanwhile leftist youtubers are just paragons of virtue right?

Please, tell us about the bad things that leftist youtubers do.

[Kowani]

Oh and meanwhile leftist youtubers are just paragons of virtue right?

Please, tell us about the bad things that leftist youtubers do.

“Spread leftism”

[Purpelia]

Oh and meanwhile leftist youtubers are just paragons of virtue right?

Please, tell us about the bad things that leftist youtubers do.

The exact same thing that the righties do. Fundamentalist ideologues are all the same. Censoring either is bad because censorship it self is bad, not because one side is right or wrong.

[Loben III]

Please, tell us about the bad things that leftist youtubers do.

“Spread leftism”

Unironically this but what do they really do differently then what you accuse right wing youtubers of?

Is it the competition you’re worried about or what?

[Nuroblav]

if you support fascism, you should be banned. If you support communism, you should be banned.

Jreg would not be happy with this...

[Page]

Please, tell us about the bad things that leftist youtubers do.

The exact same thing that the righties do. Fundamentalist ideologues are all the same. Censoring either is bad because censorship it self is bad, not because one side is right or wrong.

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

[Loben III]

The exact same thing that the righties do. Fundamentalist ideologues are all the same. Censoring either is bad because censorship it self is bad, not because one side is right or wrong.

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

Wikipedia articles, hallmark of an actual argument.

[Ifreann]

Honestly, I don't think he should've been sanctioned to begin with. If advertisers want to break with Youtube over minor nonsense like this, I'd tell them to pound sand were it my website. There are other advertisers who'd look the other way. They really going to deny themselves the biggest video platform on the internet? Probably not. If called out on allowing neo-Nazi videos, I'd point to Communist videos being allowed and insist that I can't ban one without banning the other.

It's so surprising and unexpected that you, of all people, would hold this position.

Re: Crowder, I very very vaguely recall hearing about him once, when he got demonetized, and never before, and never again until now.

I understand that there was a persistent rumour that he drank dog ejaculate from his very expensive mug, but that seemed like a thing that people were making up.

---

Actually, Youtube is bad because it's capitalist. Everything else wrong with it (from conservative indoctrination to child grooming) is kind of a secondary effect of it.

>Youtube
>Conservative

Liriena didn't describe YouTube as conservative, he mentioned conservative indoctrination being on the site.

---

what was he demonetized over again?

The gay "journalist" had a hissyfit and blackmailed YouTube by threatening to use his position at Vox to get sponsors to pull their money.

The one and only gay in the entire field of "journalism". No need to use any names, we all know The Gay.

[The Holy Therns]

I understand that there was a persistent rumour that he drank dog ejaculate from his very expensive mug, but that seemed like a thing that people were making up.

Must've been pre-2016, this wouldn't stand out after that.

The one and only gay in the entire field of "journalism". No need to use any names, we all know The Gay.

And that Gay...

[turn]

...Was me.