Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Was Youtube Right to Ban Bismarck?

YES
30
50%
NO
30
50%
#15088974
What I have never understood is if the actions of sites to protect their product integrity is so damn bad, why hasn't something come along and replaced it?

What people need to understand is that free speech cannot accept or infringe other legal rights. Which is why libel and slander are such a thing and insighting violence is illegal. And Youtube, who are responsible for their content, have the right to decide what they do and do not show on their platform because they are responsible for it. And that doesn't stop the alt-right from legally spreading their propaganda from the Internet. On the contrary. But they obviously want to use a means that reach the most minds. And if their voice was strong enough they wouldn't need youtube.
#15089034
Verv wrote:I would like to apologize, then. I had assumed you would want your post related back to the thread and discussion at hand, which largely is about the legality of certain kinds of speech.


In terms of whether or not is is legal for Youtube to ban them: it is.

Well, now that that whole debate is over, we can discuss whether or not it is a good idea for the law to be this way.

And since hate speech is apparently useless, the law seems fine.
#15089432
Pants-of-dog wrote:In terms of whether or not is is legal for Youtube to ban them: it is.

Well, now that that whole debate is over, we can discuss whether or not it is a good idea for the law to be this way.

And since hate speech is apparently useless, the law seems fine.


It is currently legal, but there are legal fights which are saying that YouTube is breaching their contracts through double standards and efforts at demonetizing and shadow banning right wing content.

Moreover, prominent politicians, including the President, and political commentators have talked about how this ought to be handled differently.

So, if you are being criticized by such a huge group of people and have a virtual monopoly because no other startups can really easily do what you have done, it may be the case that the "legality" is irrelevant.

The thread title and poll are acutally was YouTube right to ban the Alt-Right?, not if it was legally permitted.

Moreover, we have not establsihed whether or not 'the Alt Right' itself is just walking hate speech.

A bit premature, POD!
#15089434
Verv wrote:It is currently legal, but there are legal fights which are saying that YouTube is breaching their contracts through double standards and efforts at demonetizing and shadow banning right wing content.

Moreover, prominent politicians, including the President, and political commentators have talked about how this ought to be handled differently.

So, if you are being criticized by such a huge group of people and have a virtual monopoly because no other startups can really easily do what you have done, it may be the case that the "legality" is irrelevant.

The thread title and poll are acutally was YouTube right to ban the Alt-Right?, not if it was legally permitted.


You are the one who wanted to discuss the legality of it.

Now you seem to not want to discuss it.

Fine.

Do you think hate speech is useful?

Moreover, we have not establsihed whether or not 'the Alt Right' itself is just walking hate speech.


Since they are, by definition, white nationalists, and since white nationalism has been traditionally associated with various forms of discrimination against blacks, indigenous, and people of colour, it makes a certain sense to use the metaphor of “walking hate speech” to describe the alt-right.
#15089464
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are the one who wanted to discuss the legality of it.

Now you seem to not want to discuss it.

Fine.

Do you think hate speech is useful?


Oh, I had wanted to discuss the legality of hate speech in general, not specific to YouTube. My evidence for this comes from post #15,087,664, where I say:

Would you define hate speech for me? I think it's possible that we could have a definition of hate speech that was limited which would have a much lower impact on free speech and potentially would even strengthen public discourse by universally removing a lot of the crud from it.

But I simply worry that it will be broad and less about the violence of the rhetoric and more about outlawing the ideologies that the people in power dislike.


But, there also is a debate about what the standards for a social network / platform type website should be if it advertises itself as open to the public and political speech in general.

You are missing the context of the earlier discussion.

Since they are, by definition, white nationalists, and since white nationalism has been traditionally associated with various forms of discrimination against blacks, indigenous, and people of colour, it makes a certain sense to use the metaphor of “walking hate speech” to describe the alt-right.


It's a little tricky to define the alt right, but sure, let's say Alt Right = White Nationalism.

White nationalism is defined by its desire for a white ethnostate or the advancement of a white identity. Richard Spencer stated in a speech to the University of Texas that the one thing he ewas advocating was a moratorium on all immigration, and no other policy concerning any specific discrimination against African-Americans. This is much like what Jared Taylor has also said on his podcast a bunch of times.

Even though Richard Spencer is a very toxic name and the Alt Right is (mostly) his baby, it does not come with the cartoonish discrimination you imply it advocates.

Is that really hate speech?

I am totally open to the idea that it may even be the norm to use racial epithets and say disgusting things if you are Alt Right, but if someone is decidedly not doing this and posting content on YouTube that is AR, I find it hard to say that this is hate speech.

... and... regardless... hate speech is free speech, and therefore is protected speech.
#15089466
Hate speech is not protected speech(at least in the REAL world), and never should be. You're dreaming. :lol:

Absolute Free speech is not a right.
#15089477
Verv wrote:Oh, I had wanted to discuss the legality of hate speech in general, not specific to YouTube. My evidence for this comes from post #15,087,664, where I say:

But, there also is a debate about what the standards for a social network / platform type website should be if it advertises itself as open to the public and political speech in general.

You are missing the context of the earlier discussion.


I understand why you want state intervention against a private company.

1. It is extremely successful.
2. It is not supporting the political views that you and the state want them to support.

But if you want to provide some other definition of hate speech, go ahead.

It's a little tricky to define the alt right, but sure, let's say Alt Right = White Nationalism.

White nationalism is defined by its desire for a white ethnostate or the advancement of a white identity. Richard Spencer stated in a speech to the University of Texas that the one thing he ewas advocating was a moratorium on all immigration, and no other policy concerning any specific discrimination against African-Americans. This is much like what Jared Taylor has also said on his podcast a bunch of times.

Even though Richard Spencer is a very toxic name and the Alt Right is (mostly) his baby, it does not come with the cartoonish discrimination you imply it advocates.


Since you also say it is defined by white nationalism, that “the cartoonish discrimination we imply”.

Is that really hate speech?

I am totally open to the idea that it may even be the norm to use racial epithets and say disgusting things if you are Alt Right, but if someone is decidedly not doing this and posting content on YouTube that is AR, I find it hard to say that this is hate speech.


Since I said you had used a decent metaphor, no, the alt right are not really hate speech, since they are really people and hate speech is not really people.

But if some person constantly talks about how the immigrants and lesbians are ruining the country, maybe it is easier for companies like Youtube to unplug their entire account than scour their videography for the three or four baking videos by ConfederateThor69.

... and... regardless... hate speech is free speech, and therefore is protected speech.


Why is it free speech?
#15089485
Pants-of-dog wrote:I understand why you want state intervention against a private company.

1. It is extremely successful.
2. It is not supporting the political views that you and the state want them to support.

But if you want to provide some other definition of hate speech, go ahead.


I had actually wanted the distinction of social media / platform to exist so that all Americans could exercise free speech as they see fit on it. After all, social media is now a major factor in any election.

Since you also say it is defined by white nationalism, that “the cartoonish discrimination we imply”.


I think it's more complicated than that but it isn't that important to the discussion, even though it is in the thread title, because this is really just a seriosu discussion about free speech.

Since I said you had used a decent metaphor, no, the alt right are not really hate speech, since they are really people and hate speech is not really people.

But if some person constantly talks about how the immigrants and lesbians are ruining the country, maybe it is easier for companies like Youtube to unplug their entire account than scour their videography for the three or four baking videos by ConfederateThor69.


The argument is actually that social media / platforms function unlike publishers and if are open for the whole public to use cannot discriminate against the user's political or religious beliefs.

YouTube doesn't have a videography... They aren't curating videos. They are trying to get loads of people to make loads of content to get loads of views to bring in advertising money.

If YouTube was owned by a Christian conservative who took down videos that advocated the legitimacy of transgenderism for people under 18, and otherwise allowed all manner of other political positions, I think you'd see the merit in this position.

Why is it free speech?


This isn't a philosophical question or anything, right?

Justice Holmes Jr., in 1919, decided that any sort of inflammatory speech is protected as long as it does not pose a threat of imminent violence. This was backed up in many places throughout the 20th century through other Supreme Court decisions.

I've covered those exceptions on previous pages.

Do you think people have a right to practice free speech?
#15089491
Verv wrote:I had actually wanted the distinction of social media / platform to exist so that all Americans could exercise free speech as they see fit on it. After all, social media is now a major factor in any election.

The argument is actually that social media / platforms function unlike publishers and if are open for the whole public to use cannot discriminate against the user's political or religious beliefs.

YouTube doesn't have a videography... They aren't curating videos. They are trying to get loads of people to make loads of content to get loads of views to bring in advertising money.

If YouTube was owned by a Christian conservative who took down videos that advocated the legitimacy of transgenderism for people under 18, and otherwise allowed all manner of other political positions, I think you'd see the merit in this position.


Since Youtube is a private corporation, it is not restricted by freedom of speech.

I think it's more complicated than that but it isn't that important to the discussion, even though it is in the thread title, because this is really just a seriosu discussion about free speech.


Is hate speech useful?

This isn't a philosophical question or anything, right?

Justice Holmes Jr., in 1919, decided that any sort of inflammatory speech is protected as long as it does not pose a threat of imminent violence. This was backed up in many places throughout the 20th century through other Supreme Court decisions.

I've covered those exceptions on previous pages.


So it is not free speech if it causes harm or can reasonably lead to harm.

Would you agree?

Do you think people have a right to practice free speech?


What is the purpose of free speech? Why do we have that right in liberal democracies?
#15089586
Do you think people have a right to practice free speech?


Again and again. This is NOT the question. The question is "do people have the right to practice free speech on someone else's property". That is where you need to go on this.

Then if you are concerned that youtube or Facebook should be public spaces, like parks, then you need to talk about the government acquiring them so that they can be free from interference by the owners.
#15089687
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since Youtube is a private corporation, it is not restricted by freedom of speech.


There was zero response to the argument.

Is hate speech useful?


I don't know. What do you mean by hate speech?

So it is not free speech if it causes harm or can reasonably lead to harm.

Would you agree?


No, I wouldn't. It would not be free speech if

the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

(Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr.)


What is the purpose of free speech? Why do we have that right in liberal democracies?


It's a human right to say what you believe and to express yourself freely, so the purpose of free speech is fulfilling basic human rights.
#15089688
Drlee wrote:Again and again. This is NOT the question. The question is "do people have the right to practice free speech on someone else's property". That is where you need to go on this.

Then if you are concerned that youtube or Facebook should be public spaces, like parks, then you need to talk about the government acquiring them so that they can be free from interference by the owners.


So, a bakery is someone else's property, right? You would agree that no bakery should be forced to bake a cake for anyone they do not like, nor would they be forced to employ someone they disliked, right?

If I do not have free spech in place X b ecause its their property, but I enjoy free speech in other circumstances... then, it would make sense that being on someone else's property, I likewise give up other rights while I am there, too, yes?

Or what am I missing?
#15089695
Verv wrote:
then, it would make sense that being on someone else's property, I likewise give up other rights while I am there, too, yes?



To turn that into an actual argument, you need to elaborate on what rights you would be giving up, in what circumstances.

Or were you just being goofy?
#15089700
late wrote:To turn that into an actual argument, you need to elaborate on what rights you would be giving up, in what circumstances.

Or were you just being goofy?


So we give up our right to unfettered free speech on YouTube, we could then imagine that when I am at Kim's Cakes I am subject to her judgment about what can/cannot be said in her bakery, right?

I am also then probably subject to other things. For instance, maybe she does not want to make a cake expressing approval for the Alt Right, and she does not want Alt Right people in her shop.

It may also be the case that she does not want to make a gay pride cake, or cater a gay wedding / make a gay wedding cake, not because she dislikes gay people (Kim hates the Alt Right, after all, and will not make an AR cake), but because she is a born again Christian, she cannot celebrate a union she does not believe in (and making a cake for a wedding, to her, is being involved in its celebration). She can, however, make them a birthday cake, but this is just not something she wishes to do with her property.

I am not sure if "getting a birthday cake from Kim" is a human right. Maybe it is.

I am not sure if Kim is actually "discriminating" when she does this... and if she does, isn't she also discriminating against the Alt Right by not making the cake?

I can see how this would be confusing.

What is your take on this, Late?

I think we need to do either (1) or (2), as I stated over in post #15,088,942 in another thread.

I guess there are two ways to understand this problem:

(1) It's a matter for private businesses, who they employ and do not employ, and people can be hired/fired for any reason.

(2) There are human rights that should ensure that people cannot be fired for having perhaps an unpopular position or identity status.


Which boils down to either,

(1) Emphasizing positive rights (the right of the business to do what they want with their property)

(2) Emphasizing negative rights (the right to not have something done to you by others).

In scenario (1), YouTube is clearly right. If we were do to this consistently throughout society, then Kim can bake cakes for whomever/wahtever/whenever and hire or fire whomever/whatever/whenever.

In scenario (2), Kim has to bake the cake (bigot!), but now we have to consider who gets protected.

If gay people are protected from property owners outing them... then, I imagine, other minorities would be protected.

At some point, we will have to wrestle with this:

(1) Free speech and religion is a Constitutionally protected human right for Americans.

(2) Americans are legally allowed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If they are privately so and otherwise not bothering people, but they face discrimination and being fired for their unpopular political views, do they deserve protections? Do they get the same negative liberties that LGBTQ & Muslims people get?

And... what if someone dislikes black or Jewish people on a religious basis? This adds a new component that transcends free speech. They believe these things on a religious level, and maybe if free speech does not protect them from discrimination, their religion might?

It's a crazy can of worms that comes into the fore when we prioritize negative liberty. This is why, maybe, positive liberty is better, but it has its own tangled mess: now the business owners literally do what they want and that can hurt a lot of feelz.
#15089706
:lol: Your silly cake analogy doesn't work unless the bakery allows everyone to come in and bake their own cakes.
#15089711
Verv wrote:
So we give up our right to unfettered free speech on YouTube



There are no "unfettered" rights.

The law is usually an attempt to balance competing rights and interests. Your rights have to be balanced against the rights of others, the needs of society, and the rights and interests of a business, in this case that is Youtube.

I asked you to get specific.

You failed.
#15089730
Verv wrote:There was zero response to the argument.


I already addressed your argument. If you want me to address it again, restate exactly how you want to force Youtube to provide bigots with platforms.

I don't know. What do you mean by hate speech?


If you are going to ignore my previous answer to this exact same question that I already provided in this thread, then there is no purpose to you asking this.

Is hate speech useful?

No, I wouldn't. It would not be free speech if

the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

(Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr.)


So words that cause actual danger and harm are not free speech. Got it.

It's a human right to say what you believe and to express yourself freely, so the purpose of free speech is fulfilling basic human rights.


No. You are just repeating that it is a right without explaining the purpose of the right.

When did the Anglo world first get free speech? Which historical events led to this?
#15089736
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already addressed your argument. If you want me to address it again, restate exactly how you want to force Youtube to provide bigots with platforms.


Oh, so I have to restate my arguments, but you don't have to? Sure. :lol:

If you are going to ignore my previous answer to this exact same question that I already provided in this thread, then there is no purpose to you asking this.

Is hate speech useful?


If we are using the Holmes quotation, then hate speech is not useful and is harmful, creating an evil that Congress has a right to prevent.


So words that cause actual danger and harm are not free speech. Got it.


words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils

So they have to be used in specific circumstances and create a clear and present danger.

No. You are just repeating that it is a right without explaining the purpose of the right.

When did the Anglo world first get free speech? Which historical events led to this?


Rights do not have purposes. Rights are end goals unto themselves.

Why do you think rights must have purposes?

I would say it is the other way around:

Government power and institutions functions for a purpose, and all other things take up the rest of the space. Not that all other things must justify themselves to government.

late wrote:
There are no "unfettered" rights.

The law is usually an attempt to balance competing rights and interests. Your rights have to be balanced against the rights of others, the needs of society, and the rights and interests of a business, in this case that is Youtube.

I asked you to get specific.

You failed.


How is an Alt Right person making a video without gore, pornographic content, or obscenity, but simply explaining their positions, a violation of someone else's irghts?

Godstud wrote::lol: Your silly cake analogy doesn't work unless the bakery allows everyone to come in and bake their own cakes.


It works in the sense that YouTube and a bakery are both businesses.

YouTube, however, is infinitely more powerful than a small bakery.

I do not understand a position where a mega-corporation has inalienable property rights, but a small timer would not. This literally sounds like crony capitalism.

I know you like to do very short posts and don't stretch your fingers out much, but if you would explain your position, I would be happy to interact with it more. I feel like you are just sniping.
#15089740
Verv wrote:Oh, so I have to restate my arguments, but you don't have to? Sure. :lol:
[


To be clear, you never talked about how you would force Youtube to cater to racists.

If we are using the Holmes quotation, then hate speech is not useful and is harmful, creating an evil that Congress has a right to prevent.

words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils

So they have to be used in specific circumstances and create a clear and present danger.


What specific circumstances?

But you are correct that hate speech is not useful. Since it is not useful, there is no reason to protect it.

Rights do not have purposes. Rights are end goals unto themselves.

Why do you think rights must have purposes?

I would say it is the other way around:

Government power and institutions functions for a purpose, and all other things take up the rest of the space. Not that all other things must justify themselves to government.


So you do not know about English history, and why free speech is actually useful.

Free speech guarantees that you are allowed to criticise the government, and keep them from oppressing you. That is one of the purposes. Do you understand how that works?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 37

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]