Social Steven crowder demonetized

[GearSolidMetal]

so edgy man

Yes, I'm edgy, and you're figgy.
We should start a sitcom.

 

[Oiler]

Yes, I'm edgy, and you're figgy.
We should start a sitcom.

So can we take any slur and just replace a letter?

No problem there?

You want your kids exposed to that?

*****

I think the ONLY honest possible defense to your position is a mentality of "i love everyone, but im going to also be savage and dont be so sensitive, laugh at yourself"

Here, that first piece is missing

 

[SRN]

He will be banned soon. That seems to be the plan actually, to either push him out or ban him for repeatedly ignoring our policies. A few weeks ago he posted a message he received from Youtube over some alleged copyright violation. Crowder had already proved it was original content but they didn't even allow him to counter.




Off topic but Youtube banned Don Shipley. I believe his last upload was about that Native American that was brutally smiled at by those evil white kids. Stolen valor, not a Vietnam vet or a Recon Ranger, discharged as a private... lol

 

[GearSolidMetal]

So can we take any slur and just replace a letter?

No problem there?

You want your kids exposed to that

Is there ANYTHING you leftists don't like that you don't want to censor and ban?

You're calling for the banning of a comedian based off of JOKES he's made. Now you've realised how badly you're getting your asses handed to you on that subject, so now you're becoming the fashion police, saying he should be banned for selling T-shirts with one letter of one word removed, and replaced with a leaf and fruit.

Meanwhile, leftists are selling and wearing....

You are completely un-self-aware to how you are hypocritically delusional.

 

[Oiler]

Is there ANYTHING you leftists don't like that you don't want to censor and ban?

You're calling for the banning of a comedian based off of JOKES he's made. Now you've realised how badly you're getting your asses handed to you on that subject, so now you're becoming the fashion police, saying he should be banned for selling T-shirts with one letter of one word removed, and replaced with a leaf and fruit.

Meanwhile, leftists are selling and wearing....

You are completely un-self-aware to how you are hypocritically delusional.

Im not calling for him to be banned (but demonitization is not banning btw)

Im simply saying he is being a bigot

Im not a leftist, id like a moderate repub to win in 2020, i listen to shapiro a lot.

But, if you want people walking around in t shirts with mis-spelled slurs, thats unfortunate. But, do make these distinctions

1. I can be against the message, but still defend the right to say it

2. Youtube is a private company. What happened to freedom and free markets?

3. Arent you being a snowflake for whining about the tragic demonitization?

 

[floivanus]

When advertisers are crucial to your bottom line, you've certainly failed at business if you've alienated all of them.

Pretty sure the only sponsor that Crowder has is Walther, and... they’ve not pulled out, Youtube demonetized most channels 70-80% already a few years ago, now they’re going the rest of the way immediately after Vox boy whines to them.

Friend of mine does youtube videos; used to make in his words “5-10 times what I do now” he’s got a patreon page pulling in assloads every month (5k patrons, average $5 donation) so Youtube was paying out crazy good money before the first adpacolyspe which definitely explains why people are irritated at them; while they get demonetized and age restricted other channels that post defamatory content, false news and the mainstream legacy media get to keep raking in the bucks; youtube could ask sponsors where they want the ads and code the thing so easily but won’t. And this isn’t just political content; makeup videos, home improvement, gaming, technology, outdoors, sports how tos, fitness and hunting/shooting videos have all been struck. Even people who’s content is JUST 3d printing have had the money train cut off by Youtube, guaranteed most of those people have done jack to piss off any sponsor

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Im not calling for him to be banned (but demonitization is not banning btw)

Whatever. You want him to be punished by an authority.

Im simply saying he is being a bigot

He makes fun of everyone.

Everytime he has Ben Shapiro on, he makes Jew jokes.

An old employee was straight, but looked gay, so his name was 'Not-Gay Jared.'

He calls his lawyer 'Half-Asian.'

His producer is 'Quarter-Black.'

And he does impressions of everyone he mocks, including Trump.



Its like we haven't lived in a world that South Park and Family Guy hasn't been on TV for over two decades.

But, if you want people walking around in t shirts with mis-spelled slurs, thats unfortunate. But, do make these distinctions

Do you want said clothing to be banned, and people who manufacture and wear the clothing to be arrested?

1. I can be against the message, but still defend the right to say it

...and be financially punished for it, and probably banned.

2. Youtube is a private company. What happened to freedom and free markets?

...except to wear clothing with naughty words.

3. Arent you being a snowflake for whining about the tragic demonitization?

Oh this is rich.

A Marxists is posing as a journalist spreading FakeNews on the internet, and when he's called on his bullshit he bitches and moans to a massive media company to silence him...

...and you're calling me the snowflake.



Funny how you haven't even mentioned Gaza is any of your posts.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

Great stuff.

To me the simple solution is either make these platforms regulated utilities (that operate under 1st Amendment constraints), or create ones that do. Let the ACLU run it. If shit ain't a crime it's good to go. Warrants needed for all information. Make it as easy as possible for everyone to bring over as much info as possible. See what develops. Same shit, different website. No censorship, pigs snooping, or information selling.

 

[ferrisjso]

Move to Venezuela. The American dream is more alive there for people like you.

What a low IQ reply.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

They can do what they want with their platform, but why not just be honest about your intentions? Own up to it, and just say we don't want anyone on the right to be on it.

I know it's hard to make your opinions on this known, but being disingenuous and basically lying about what your company is doing, just makes you look like a bunch of little figs

 

[Gucci 'Trap God' Mane]

I totally understand, but we both know what it means or are you really such a child that you can't see what it really means?

Do you need a hug? You thin skinned little lemming

 

[xcvbn]

Great stuff.

To me the simple solution is either make these platforms regulated utilities (that operate under 1st Amendment constraints), or create ones that do. Let the ACLU run it. If shit ain't a crime it's good to go. Warrants needed for all information. Make it as easy as possible for everyone to bring over as much info as possible. See what develops. Same shit, different website. No censorship, pigs snooping, or information selling.

Not just the platforms. You need the whole shebang starting with ISPs otherwise this entire thing shifts over to them and we're back at square one.

Also, if not done correctly(or if people with bad intentions write the laws) we could see internet use become a privilege following more government regulation. Imagine a DMV for internet use

 

[Gucci 'Trap God' Mane]

Even a guy who suffers from Beals-Hecht and gets mocked on a daily basis is telling him to grow thicker skin
Carlos blocked him after. Guess the truth hurts, doesn't it guys?

 

[AngryPorto]

Crowder is a homophobic douchebag but he doesn't deserve to be banned, although demonetization is a trickier issue. What's worse is YT's latest crackdown in response to this will cast too broad a net and tons of channels will suffer.

 

[ocean size]

Can’t have freedom.

The situation you are posting about is what constitutional freedom looks like.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not just the platforms. You need the whole shebang starting with ISPs otherwise this entire thing shifts over to them and we're back at square one.

Also, if not done correctly(or if people with bad intentions write the laws) we could see internet use become a privilege following more government regulation. Imagine a DMV for internet use

I don't have all the details worked out. Can't imagine anything insurmountable.

You'd need to give me something more here to generate any concern.

 

[MilesAbove]

I was thinking about this some more, while listening to the silly-boi Joe Rogan. I think the problem for Steven Crowder is that he is not kind, nor funny.

If Rogan had done this exact same things, his fans may have acted somewhat similar. However, Rogan would rarely make such a poor attempt at comedy. And if he did, he would have then directed some follow-up directly to the "victim of the joke". It would be likely that he'd invite him on or have a longer discussion to try and understand the issue.

Now, Rogan would make better jokes. He'd also likely apologize if it hurt someone. He'd also listen to the person who was hurt by it. Rogan would almost certainly not be demonetized. I think that it would cause a kerfuffle and then it'd die down.

I think this was a fair back-and-forth on this. Rogan doesn't do a great job defending the Crowder side, but I appreciate he does given an attempt (he gets caught in Right-Wing dog whistling a couple times, but I think he sincerely believes it due to who he surrounds himself with). And both agree like many of us do in here.... it's the future applications of this precedent that is worrisome. But are they wrong to kinda slap Crowder a bit? Not really.

 

[Hard To Tell]

Meanwhile, here is the kind of content that Vice puts out which these social media platforms are happy to allow



Basically, the promotion of pedophillia.

 

[GtehMVP]

Do you need a hug? You thin skinned little lemming

lmao, that guy's hilarious

Carlos Maza is such a little bitch. I can't believe anyone listens to that guy, or gives a shit about his hurt feelings. I can't even stand Crowder, but like Maza, I just ignore him. If the crazy keeps getting crazier, the pendulum swing is going to be unprecedented. Google are such idiots too. With an antitrust case brewing, the last thing they need to do is capitulate to communists, though I'm guessing it's run by far left socialists.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Meanwhile, here is the kind of content that Vice puts out which these social media platforms are happy to allow



Basically, the promotion of pedophillia.

That video is hell on earth and all the people who ‘liked’ it need putting on a watchlist.

Adult men cheering on small children, at least one of whom appears to own a “transparent dress”

Not even joking, this is straight up paedophilia.