No it is not. Why would it be?
Social Steven crowder demonetized
- Thread starter Happy Man
- Start date
No it is not. Why would it be?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 62,203
- Reaction score
- 131,751
Repeatedly mocking a man on racial and sexual grounds is harassment. What is missing here? Crowder has also been told all he has to do is stop linking to a "socialism is fors" t shirt and he can be re monetized. Boo fucking hoo. Youtube is being completely reasonable in this instance.
How is it possible for someone to be 'harassed' when they voluntarily watched a YouTube video?
As for the T-shirts, its not 'f*gs' its 'figs.'
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2017
- Messages
- 5,627
- Reaction score
- 1,902
Socialists now consider the word 'fig' to be offensive.
They will soon announce other cookies to be banned.
Chocolate striped cookies have to go!
Can you provide some examples? It's your claim and it's your duty to provide evidence of this. That's how it works around here, boss. Thanks in advance!
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 10,508
- Reaction score
- 77
Agreed. This is no different than how brown people should start their own countries instead of crying when we deport them.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 10,354
- Reaction score
- 7,748
Keep crying, nazi boi.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2019
- Messages
- 22,680
- Reaction score
- 25,910
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019...e-and-commerce/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Free choice has created a challenge the law can’t overcome.
If you pay any attention to conservative Twitter, you’re aware of this week’s incident in social-media censorship. YouTube has “demonetized” conservative comedian Steven Crowder’s YouTube channel. He’s not banned, but he’s lost one of his income streams. His offense was targeting a Vox journalist, Carlos Maza, in his bits, including calling him names like a “lispy queer” and a “sprite.”
I’m not going to spend too much time on Crowder’s case. Many of these social-media controversies share a dreary sameness. A right-wing speaker says something outrageous and faces consequences, while multiple left-wing speakers seem to spew venom with impunity, including at people (like, say, conservative Christians) who are also ostensibly protected by various social-media anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies.
The regularity of the controversies — combined with the persistence of the overt viewpoint discrimination — is resulting in a demand that government “do something” to solve the problem. But the problem is far too complex and deep-seated for the government to solve. And if the government tries to step in with too heavy a hand, it’s going to violate the law. It’s past time for an honest, realistic look at the true cultural, commercial, and constitutional challenges to social-media fairness.
Let’s deal with the most serious issue first. The American tech industry — especially in Silicon Valley — exists in a largely common ideological culture. While there of course exists some degree of overt discrimination against conservatives, the reasons for the monoculture reach well beyond overt discrimination. At elite levels tech is young, coastal, and disproportionately drawn from elite academies. In other words, it’s located in the most blue parts of America, is comprised of the most blue age demographic, and draws its workers from the most blue educational institutions.
Even then, however, the market in theory can rather easily correct the problem. Social-media companies have national (and global) ambitions. They became (and remain) economic titans in part by serving tens of millions of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and will happily vote for him in 2020. If Trump supporters en masse chose to punish even one social-media platform, it would suffer a colossal economic setback.
Here’s the blunt truth, however — most red Americans either don’t know or don’t care about social-media censorship. They certainly don’t care enough to delete their apps. This isn’t a market failure; it’s a market verdict. Apathy rules, and this apathy is sustained in part because social-media companies have chosen their targets carefully. There are few normal Americans who want to jump off their favorite app because YouTube censored someone who uses phrases like “lispy queer” or because Facebook ditched Alex Jones, a man who claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.
Those who do truly care about censorship are a rounding error in the market. They’re part of the tiny slice of American citizens who are not only engaged in online conservative politics, they’re motivated enough to do something about censorship. This small group has no meaningful market impact, but it does punch above its weight in one key area — access to government power. They know senators. Senators know them.
But that brings us to the rather important topic of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment limits the government’s power to force a private corporation to provide a platform for speech it despises. Government regulation of media is an almost impossibly complex topic (if you want to dive into the topic in the social-media context, I can recommend this March 2019 analysis from the Congressional Research Service), but here’s a general principle — the more any social-media company curates its content, the more First Amendment protection it is likely to enjoy.
In a very direct way, as Facebook or any other social-media company works on its algorithms, tries to filter out fake news, and refines its community standards, it’s staking out its identity as a private actor making specific speech and membership choices to build a specific kind of private community.
Moreover, if the government launches other action (like, say, an antitrust investigation) in reprisal for social-media companies’ exercising their constitutional rights, then even that other action may well be shut down by federal courts.
But to say that there is no easy way to combat the challenge of social-media censorship is not to say there is no way at all. Persuasion, engagement, and market pressure are preferable to attempts to recruit the government to erode First Amendment protections that, in other contexts, stand as a firewall protecting conservative causes and conservative speakers from the emerging culture of coercion.
To rebuild a culture of liberty online, conservatives have to engage two audiences, first and most directly the small audience of men and women who hold the levers of corporate power. Do not presume bad faith. Do not presume that every key executive in every social-media company has closed his or her mind. In fact, we’ve seen persuasion work. We’ve seen accounts reinstated and apologies issued. It happens.
At the same time, conservatives need to reach the very large audience of indifferent Americans who either don’t see the problem with demonetizing a comedian they don’t know or don’t fear the slippery slope enough to take any meaningful action. This is the longtime challenge of the free-speech advocate, to convince people to care about free speech even when the relevant speaker says words they don’t like. This is an old problem, but free-speech advocates have won that argument for a very long time. They can win it again.
Then there’s also the matter of our own, individual commercial ambitions and our own entrepreneurial energies. It is foolish to presume that the companies that dominate the marketplace today will do so indefinitely, and it’s foolish simply to cede the halls of Facebook or YouTube to ideological opponents. Just as conservatives need to send philosophers into Stanford, we also need to send our programmers into Menlo Park and our entrepreneurs to San Jose.
But what conservatives cannot and should not do is use the government to erode freedom for the alleged purpose of saving freedom. The alleged “easy” solution — the fast fix of federal legislation — is likely blocked by the First Amendment. Moreover, there’s something fundamentally entitled and not-conservative about claiming that you should have government-mandated access on terms you prefer to a platform you didn’t create, that’s maintained by people you oppose, and that you should have that access for free.
Even if the Supreme Court allows intrusive regulations to take hold, the resulting new legal doctrines will create the sharpest of two-edged swords. One party never holds the permanent levers of power, and so censors must always ask, “Will my monster turn on me?” And with the impulse to censorship on the rise, the answer to that question will be “yes.” The government does not exist to correct market outcomes that well-connected conservatives do not like.
Free choice has created a challenge the law can’t overcome.
If you pay any attention to conservative Twitter, you’re aware of this week’s incident in social-media censorship. YouTube has “demonetized” conservative comedian Steven Crowder’s YouTube channel. He’s not banned, but he’s lost one of his income streams. His offense was targeting a Vox journalist, Carlos Maza, in his bits, including calling him names like a “lispy queer” and a “sprite.”
I’m not going to spend too much time on Crowder’s case. Many of these social-media controversies share a dreary sameness. A right-wing speaker says something outrageous and faces consequences, while multiple left-wing speakers seem to spew venom with impunity, including at people (like, say, conservative Christians) who are also ostensibly protected by various social-media anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies.
The regularity of the controversies — combined with the persistence of the overt viewpoint discrimination — is resulting in a demand that government “do something” to solve the problem. But the problem is far too complex and deep-seated for the government to solve. And if the government tries to step in with too heavy a hand, it’s going to violate the law. It’s past time for an honest, realistic look at the true cultural, commercial, and constitutional challenges to social-media fairness.
Let’s deal with the most serious issue first. The American tech industry — especially in Silicon Valley — exists in a largely common ideological culture. While there of course exists some degree of overt discrimination against conservatives, the reasons for the monoculture reach well beyond overt discrimination. At elite levels tech is young, coastal, and disproportionately drawn from elite academies. In other words, it’s located in the most blue parts of America, is comprised of the most blue age demographic, and draws its workers from the most blue educational institutions.
Even then, however, the market in theory can rather easily correct the problem. Social-media companies have national (and global) ambitions. They became (and remain) economic titans in part by serving tens of millions of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and will happily vote for him in 2020. If Trump supporters en masse chose to punish even one social-media platform, it would suffer a colossal economic setback.
Here’s the blunt truth, however — most red Americans either don’t know or don’t care about social-media censorship. They certainly don’t care enough to delete their apps. This isn’t a market failure; it’s a market verdict. Apathy rules, and this apathy is sustained in part because social-media companies have chosen their targets carefully. There are few normal Americans who want to jump off their favorite app because YouTube censored someone who uses phrases like “lispy queer” or because Facebook ditched Alex Jones, a man who claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.
Those who do truly care about censorship are a rounding error in the market. They’re part of the tiny slice of American citizens who are not only engaged in online conservative politics, they’re motivated enough to do something about censorship. This small group has no meaningful market impact, but it does punch above its weight in one key area — access to government power. They know senators. Senators know them.
But that brings us to the rather important topic of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment limits the government’s power to force a private corporation to provide a platform for speech it despises. Government regulation of media is an almost impossibly complex topic (if you want to dive into the topic in the social-media context, I can recommend this March 2019 analysis from the Congressional Research Service), but here’s a general principle — the more any social-media company curates its content, the more First Amendment protection it is likely to enjoy.
In a very direct way, as Facebook or any other social-media company works on its algorithms, tries to filter out fake news, and refines its community standards, it’s staking out its identity as a private actor making specific speech and membership choices to build a specific kind of private community.
Moreover, if the government launches other action (like, say, an antitrust investigation) in reprisal for social-media companies’ exercising their constitutional rights, then even that other action may well be shut down by federal courts.
But to say that there is no easy way to combat the challenge of social-media censorship is not to say there is no way at all. Persuasion, engagement, and market pressure are preferable to attempts to recruit the government to erode First Amendment protections that, in other contexts, stand as a firewall protecting conservative causes and conservative speakers from the emerging culture of coercion.
To rebuild a culture of liberty online, conservatives have to engage two audiences, first and most directly the small audience of men and women who hold the levers of corporate power. Do not presume bad faith. Do not presume that every key executive in every social-media company has closed his or her mind. In fact, we’ve seen persuasion work. We’ve seen accounts reinstated and apologies issued. It happens.
At the same time, conservatives need to reach the very large audience of indifferent Americans who either don’t see the problem with demonetizing a comedian they don’t know or don’t fear the slippery slope enough to take any meaningful action. This is the longtime challenge of the free-speech advocate, to convince people to care about free speech even when the relevant speaker says words they don’t like. This is an old problem, but free-speech advocates have won that argument for a very long time. They can win it again.
Then there’s also the matter of our own, individual commercial ambitions and our own entrepreneurial energies. It is foolish to presume that the companies that dominate the marketplace today will do so indefinitely, and it’s foolish simply to cede the halls of Facebook or YouTube to ideological opponents. Just as conservatives need to send philosophers into Stanford, we also need to send our programmers into Menlo Park and our entrepreneurs to San Jose.
But what conservatives cannot and should not do is use the government to erode freedom for the alleged purpose of saving freedom. The alleged “easy” solution — the fast fix of federal legislation — is likely blocked by the First Amendment. Moreover, there’s something fundamentally entitled and not-conservative about claiming that you should have government-mandated access on terms you prefer to a platform you didn’t create, that’s maintained by people you oppose, and that you should have that access for free.
Even if the Supreme Court allows intrusive regulations to take hold, the resulting new legal doctrines will create the sharpest of two-edged swords. One party never holds the permanent levers of power, and so censors must always ask, “Will my monster turn on me?” And with the impulse to censorship on the rise, the answer to that question will be “yes.” The government does not exist to correct market outcomes that well-connected conservatives do not like.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 4,415
- Reaction score
- 135
I feel like this shows that conservative market ideals are not a good faith position for the majority.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 81,338
- Reaction score
- 68,521
It's such a clusterfuck. Youtube won't just outright ban Crowder, because they don't want to seem biased. So instead of doing that, they create new guidelines that targets Crowder...and thousands of other channels including Team Fascist Blue, and now Maza is all "No, not my team! I only wanted that one guy who was picking on me to get hurt. How did you fuck this up, Youtube? This is all your fault!"
This is why Liberals shouldn't be allowed to run shit. Just a bunch of emotional, overreacting babies, who can't grasp the gravity of their bitch fits.
This Maza guy thought he had it rough before. LOL. He ain't seen nothing yet.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2019
- Messages
- 22,680
- Reaction score
- 25,910
The irony of this statement in this thread on this topic is delicious
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 10,508
- Reaction score
- 77
Not even similar but go head get your racism out buddy
You are too stupid to see the irony, I see.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 62,203
- Reaction score
- 131,751
I wish I didn't call him a 'fig' for not knowing Crowder's T-shirt said 'fig.'
Should have known he would be a coward with a trigger-happy block finger.
I'd love to read his tweets now and see his continued meltdown.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2015
- Messages
- 4,415
- Reaction score
- 135
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 62,319
- Reaction score
- 43,740
How is it possible for someone to be 'harassed' when they voluntarily watched a YouTube video?
As for the T-shirts, its not 'f*gs' its 'figs.'
Holy shit you're being really disingenuous here, it's pretty gross.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 11,923
- Reaction score
- 20,090
Don’t address the point. Shoo fly.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 62,203
- Reaction score
- 131,751
Is every late night comedy host 'harassing' Trump by endlessly telling jokes about him?
No, they are not.
They make the jokes not knowing, or caring, if Trump watches them.
How is this different than Crowder making jokes about Maza, not knowing, or caring if Maza watches them?
Maza heard about the video, that he was being mocked, made the decision to watch them, watches it, and is offended.
This is like if Trump complains about the late night hosts, when everyone knows Trump made to decision to watch them. Both situations are examples of thin skin.
The difference is, if Trump complains (and he has in the past), no one really cares. When Gaza complains, he complains, and complains, and complains, then starts bitching, and finally gets what he partially wants, so he bitches even more.... because he's gay, latino, and well connected.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 11,923
- Reaction score
- 20,090
The world is Gonna eat you alive.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 11,923
- Reaction score
- 20,090
Think a little bigger, and think harder.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 11,923
- Reaction score
- 20,090
Fuckin a, get a job.
