Slashdot Mirror
PewDiePie Is Inexcusable But DMCA Takedowns Are Not the Way To Fight Him (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Felix Kjellberg, better known as PewDiePie, is the most popular YouTuber in the world. He's gotten himself into another controversy, this time for shouting the n-word while livestreaming a video game. The 27-year-old Swede has repeatedly been criticized for hate speech, and just last month said he would no longer make Nazi jokes after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia turned violent. But while playing PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds on Sunday, Kjellberg, who has over 57 million subscribers on YouTube, called another player the n-word before erupting into laughter. "What a fucking n****r," he said. "Jeez, oh my god. What the fuck? Sorry, but what the fuck? What a fucking asshole. I don't mean that in a bad way." Kjellberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and has yet to publicly acknowledge the incident.
In response to Kjellberg's use of a racial slur, a number of video game players and developers have condemned the creator. Sean Vanaman, the co-founder of video game company Campo Santo, decided to use copyright law to push back against Kjellberg. On Twitter, he said he was filing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown request against the famous YouTuber regarding a video in which Kjellberg plays Campo Santo's game Firewatch. There are compelling reasons to [remove hate speech from major internet platforms] by any means necessary, but DMCA overreach is among the least compelling options, considering that it unilaterally puts power into the hands of what are essentially uninvolved parties and allows for little arbitration or defense on the part of those who have their content removed.
In response to Kjellberg's use of a racial slur, a number of video game players and developers have condemned the creator. Sean Vanaman, the co-founder of video game company Campo Santo, decided to use copyright law to push back against Kjellberg. On Twitter, he said he was filing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown request against the famous YouTuber regarding a video in which Kjellberg plays Campo Santo's game Firewatch. There are compelling reasons to [remove hate speech from major internet platforms] by any means necessary, but DMCA overreach is among the least compelling options, considering that it unilaterally puts power into the hands of what are essentially uninvolved parties and allows for little arbitration or defense on the part of those who have their content removed.
Seriously, who?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No one ever got their feelings hurt and woke up the next morning with Leprosy. This 'hate speech' crusade is just ridiculous.
I'm not advocating hate speech, but why is there the need to censor "n****r" when "fucking asshole" was printed in plaintext?
These are all just words. It's no different than "chink" or "beaner". By censoring them we elevate their status and perpetuate the undesirable meaning behind them. It's just stupid.
Even slashdot required me to censor it to post. wtf.
DMCA overreach is among the least compelling options, considering that it unilaterally puts power into the hands of what are essentially uninvolved parties and allows for little arbitration or defense on the part of those who have their content removed.
It seems like if a DMCA takedown is so powerful then it shouldn't be blindly accepted. This is just a symptom of the problem that is the DMCA.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Wrong != inexcusable.
If the country had both a history and a present-day pattern of oppressing "fucking assholes" you might have a point
No, the point is even more valid when you have a history of oppression. History has shown time and time again that the way you fight the words and idea of oppression is with better words and ideas.
You cannot get rid of entrenched attitudes like racism, sexism and other bigotry by suppressing it. All this does is hide it from view where it festers and erupts and then all of a sudden you wake up to find you have a sexist, racist Oompa Loompa as a leader.
The idea is so old there is even incorporated into a children's fairy tale. Remember sleeping beauty where the king bans all spinning wheels but she still gets pricked because the first time she sees one she is so curious about it?
Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.
If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.
And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?
The game company gave explicit license to everyone to stream game play and monetize it, and made no mention on that page of any limitations.
Thus, PDP owned copyright to that video, as a unique public performance, by implicit license from the game company. The DMCA takedown is false and thus actionable.
PDP should be smart and sue the ever living fuck out of the game company.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yes. Too many people have too much invested in milking grievances and hunting witches for such a thing to be excused.
If people started accepting apologies and being tolerant and magnanimous and kind and understanding, we'd all live happier, more peaceful lives.
And then what would community organizers do to become rich and powerful? Who would pay professional protestors? What would diversity coordinators do at colleges? How would you get out the racial vote to elect the same old politicians to continue to fail to solve any problems?
So much this.
In gaming lingo, all the people who get triggered over a word (or image, flag, symbol, etc etc) are being *farmed* by the professional shit-stirrers like those mentioned in your post, who are only looking to gain wealth and political power from all the the hatred, division, and strife they incite, to the greater misery of everyone.
Holy crap, people! This is kindergarten stuff! Here's a little milk-and-graham-crackers quiet-time story.
"Little kindergartner Johnny pulls Sally's hair whenever the teacher isn't looking, and she screams and cries. He keeps pulling her hair and laughing at her screaming and crying. Then, Sally decides to *not* scream and cry. Little Johnny isn't enjoying pulling Sally's hair any more and stops doing it."
The End
Take the power to offend away and the offender loses interest when he isn't rewarded with the reaction he wants.
Now, go finger-paint something and stop empowering haters!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It seems pretty self evident that what the BLM hashtag means (at least originally) is "black lives matter as much as white lives", as fueled by the many instances of blacks being killed in questionable circumstances, with no consequences at all for those that caused the deaths.
So rebutting this by saying #AllLivesMatter comes across (to some) like saying "all houses matter", ignoring the fact that one of the houses is burning.
While I personally think 90% of social justice political correctness is bullshit, criticizing BLM while ignoring the context of where it's coming from seems misguided.