Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Disabled Comments On Livestreams Of A Congressional Hearing On White Nationalism Because They Were Too Hateful (buzzfeednews.com)
Tuesday's hearing was meant to examine the rise of white nationalism and white supremacy and the role social media plays in its spread. Then the comments got hijacked. From a report: YouTube moderators disabled comments on livestreams of the House Judiciary Committee's hearing about hate crimes the rise of white nationalism on Tuesday, deeming them too hateful for the platform. The comment sections quickly flooded with hate speech and white nationalist memes before the hearing had even started. The comments included derogatory remarks about women on camera, anti-Semitic slurs, far-right memes with references to "white genocide," and pro-Trump slogans. The channels' comments sections were deactivated within an hour. [...] YouTube's disabling of comments is ironic: House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York, made special reference in his opening statement of the role social media platforms play in spreading hate speech and extremism in his opening statement.
I don't know if these "You Tube Moderators" have looked around much, but you can find hateful comments on pretty much any video. Why block comments on just this one?
If YouTube wants to block "hateful comments" why do they allow comments anywhere?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hey Anonymous Coward - Don't quote the constitution if you don't understand it.
The constitution says THE GOVERNMENT can't censor your speech. Last time I checked, there was no mention in the constitution of private corporations like YouTube.
So it looked like the typical slashdot post comments then?
I understand what a "white supremacist" is. I understand what a "French Nationalist", or a "Argentinian Nationalist" would be. However, the term "White Nationalist" is semantically and massively wrong (but then, so would "Black Nationalist" or "Asian Nationalist"...) After all, what nation is titled as "White"?
I get that stamping out racism is a good thing, but seriously, folks - at least don't mangle the language while you do it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I'm no babe in the woods (I completed my 100th trip around the block last week), but I've seen some comment threads on news sites that would convince you Neanderthals didn't go extinct; they're alive and well. You just hope the comments are more troll/bombastic in nature and not what people truly believe (OK, maybe I am still a bit naive).
Free Speech. Guaranteed by the first (foremost) amendment to the supreme law of the land.
Anyone who would knowingly abridge it is an enemy of the United States of America.
Period. Full Stop.
All Trump supporters should be tied to a post and flogged with a clue stick whilst wearing a refrigerated steel butt plug up their fundament <- That was free speech, now mod me up for making use of the 1st amendment.
Seriously .... it's amazingly bad, how often online conversations or comments on social media devolve into utter garbage. I imagine in this instance, it was egged on because of the political topic of discussion. Furthermore? I'm fairly confident the vast majority of "white supremacist" comments were made by teenagers trying to get a rise out of people.
I mean, sure -- you really DO have these racist hate groups around. But they're generally rather disorganized or lack enough membership to do anything significant. You have FAR more people who are just angry and like to talk trash than you do people who are truly committed to promoting neo-nazis or some kind of white supremacy movement.
It's nearly the 10 year anniversary of John Gabriel's groundbreaking theory. https://www.penny-arcade.com/c...
The narrative here seems to be "talk about white nationalists, and gangs of white nationalists show up to prove just how demented and determined to be assholes they are."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Free Speech. Guaranteed by the first (foremost) amendment to the supreme law of the land.
Anyone who would knowingly abridge it is an enemy of the United States of America.
Period. Full Stop.
All Trump supporters should be tied to a post and flogged with a clue stick whilst wearing a refrigerated steel butt plug up their fundament <- That was free speech, now mod me up for making use of the 1st amendment.
So, modded down to -1 already, it's fun being censored by a bunch of Trump supporters who usually are the first to complain about being censored for hating on brown people in violation of their rights under the 1st amendment.
... and their perspective of blatant discrimination got validated by YouTube promptly censoring them.
"Oh, but it's a corporation, not the government censoring them" isn't a great argument when you also claim that corporations own the government, and in this case, I'd agree with you that Google has an amazingly large, malign, influence on the government.
For the same reason the Government uses newspapers to advertise and TV networks for televised addresses. Just because the government can use private companies for providing services does not mean that private companies suddenly become branches of the government, and bound to the first Amendments.
Jesus Christ, the utter lack of understanding on the part of some here just astonishes. This black and white thinking, this inability to comprehend nuance or complexity, and the fundamental ignorance that gets married to it, so that your lack of knowledge gets coupled with astonishing arrogance, that you become blind to how things are actually supposed to work.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As usual, the dullards miss the teeny, tiny caveat to the First Amendment. It only applies to the government.
As has been stated who knows how many times, a company is free to limit free speech if it so chooses. This is no different than if a casino doesn't want to provide service to someone. It's their property, their rules. Same with YouTube.
It has nothing to do with being an "enemy" of the U.S. It has to do with a company doing what it wants on its platform. Don't like it? Don't frequent YouTube.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The narrative here seems to be "talk about white nationalists, and gangs of white nationalists show up to prove just how demented and determined to be assholes they are."
That's certainly the narrative. I'd bet the reality is "the chans saw this as a wonderful opportunity to troll, plus some actual white nationalists (who were also channers).".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Upwards of 4% of European DNA is Neanderthal DNA; black Africans have zero Neanderthal DNA.
The point is not that one group is "better" than another, but this idea that all humans are clones of each other, and that race is a social construct, makes no sense; it makes no sense in the raw numbers, and it makes no sense in everyday life.
People know it's bullshit.
Now, look into average IQ measurements. Come on; you can do it. Stare into that deep abyss, and know reality for what it is.
YouTube's disabling of comments is ironic
If by "ironic" you mean "totally fucking predictable" then yeah, I suppose it was.
Nope, no sig
But the interesting difference between your lawn and google's lawn is google has opened their lawn to the public. For now you are correct but we do need to have a conversation about privately owned public spaces.
But I don't see anyone banning Che Guevara shirts.
Because Google does have an amazingly large, malign, influence on the government?
Just look back at Trump's history, he's been a racist all along. Miller is as well, but Trump is a willing participant.
any place at all where speech is truly free is going to be flooded with hatred trying to drown out everything else.
It's unfortunate, and I don't have a solution, but it is an incontrovertible fact of life.
I totally disagree. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, and more speech is always better. The issue comes in echo chambers that are cut off from one another either voluntarily or by force. These allow extreme ideas and sentiment to exist. Some of the best research on getting rid of extremism states that two people talking will do more than nearly any amount of censorship.
It's a lot harder to use the n-word when a friend will smack you in the back of the head. It's a lot harder to breed resentment when people close to you say "not cool" when you post about white genocide. Virtue signalling usually gets you odd looks when you do it on the bus. But get into a community of like minded people who enforce such behavior and that all goes out the window.
Being social and interacting with others is a muscle like any other (even the "brain muscle")... without training and exercise one can easily become an NPC.
That's certainly the narrative. I'd bet the reality is "the chans saw this as a wonderful opportunity to troll, plus some actual white nationalists (who were also channers).".
Don't worry, the media is currently all over the rainbow clowns(honkhonk) are really a white nationalist and neo-nazi symbol.
The reality is, youtube doing this proves both sides right. YT is censoring some views(politically correct or not) and thus validating it. And the opposing side is "see look at all that hate! They were right!" Pure accelerationism all the way down, looks like the NZ nut was spot on.
Om, nomnomnom...
I find it amusing and interesting that the "conservatives" want businesses to have rights and religion when they are discriminating against gays, but freak out when some business decides they don't want said "conservatives" as a customer.
It's a bit like the "tolerance" groups that only have tolerance for the groups/religions/etc. THEY like.
Left/Right, D/R, doesn't matter. They are all stupid. :)
Hmm... I'm not certain. I am convinced that Trump thinks HE himself is (genetically and presidentially and otherwise) superior, but I think it is mostly at a personal, familial level rather than at a racial level. Rather I suspect Trump is so solipsistic that he has no real feelings about groups as such. Therefore I think Trump can be played by the racists, but he isn't nearly as sincere about it as Miller and Bannon. I think Trump has always been a puppet, and the only trick to pulling his strings is to convince Trump it was his idea in the first place. As long as you are pushing him from behind, Trump thinks he's leading.
Having said that, I do have to agree that there is plenty of racist stuff in Trump's past. The Central Park Jogger stuff is especially bad, but there was some less racist stuff mixed in, too. For example, if a black celebrity could help him make some money, then Trump was much more concerned about the money than the race.
I just don't think Trump was smart enough to come up with the idea of the Department of White Homeland Security, and his willingness is not that important. In fact, now he seems to be getting cold feet.
If Trump had any imagination, then I'd think he was afraid of a protest mocking one of his own rallies. I still want to see the video of "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" In my imagination, the protesters are in Trump face, and the video builds to an angry crescendo before collapsing into howls of insane rage.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Marsh v Alabama doesn't apply because a) YouTube set up rules of conduct regarding comments from the beginning. It did not single out one specific type of speech it would ban over another and b) YouTube also limits what can be posted as far as videos, and has done so from the beginning. Neither is an abridgement of free speech.
The only ones outsourcing totalitarianism are Republicans who keep claiming the free market will fix everything, then turn around and use taxpayer money to prop up the free market and businesses. Or, in the current case, crawl into their holes while the corrupt con artist rides roughshod over them because they're too stupid and cowardly to do their duties as members of Congress to reign in his dictatorial ways.
And for the record, I do agree that free speech should be defended. If nothing else, it reveals to the world the true nature of an individual. That said, there are limits, and a company has every right to censor speech on their site if that speech bumps up against their rules.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
How about it? Nobody is saying that social media platforms play the sole role in spreading hate speech. But right now, we're talking only about their role.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
There is an awful lot of anger out there.
Those of Caucasian decent have been told for years that they are racists simply because of their skin color.
They can't be discriminated against because they aren't the right color.
They have something called " White Privilege " that, apparently, is some sort of " I win " button available on tap.
They get turned down for jobs and education slots because the Company or University has to have enough minorities lest they be called racists too.
Standardized tests are all racist because, apparently, minorities have issues with them. So they just get rewritten to make the numbers look better.
Slavery is still their fault apparently, irregardless of the fact the last " slaves " in America were freed ~150 years ago.
( The reparations movement, and all the politicians using it to further their political career, can just f*ck off. )
Starting a #WhiteLivesMatter movement would instantly be classified as some White Nationalist Klan Nazi Terrorist Group and the media would just lose it.
Given the above:
Is there anyone out there who doesn't think a very small percentage of impacted folks might be just a tad bit angry about it all ?
Is there anyone out there who doesn't think an even smaller percentage of that small percentage might even be REALLY angry about it ?
And of that laughably tiny percentage, a few folks might actually do something rather radical ?
This is shocking why ?
Maybe they're just tired of being the " Bad Guy " for nothing more than their skin color.
someone who wants to form a whites only ethno-state. This is a thing that exists and is growing and therefore needs a name. What else would you call that? And how is it mangling the language?
It reminds me of one of my mainframe buds who couldn't wrap his head around the concept of metadata. "It's just data!". Well, no, it's not. It's data about data. "But that's just data". Yes, but it's a kind of data, and it became increasingly common and important to discuss so we made a term for it so that we could discuss it more clearly and succinctly.
Same thing here. I could say "Persons who advocate for a White Ethno-State" but if I'm going to be talking about them a lot "White Nationalist" is easier. Now, that I'm stuck talking about them a lot shows how bad things have gotten....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The Problem is that when you cut programs for fighting domestic terror in a country where white supremacists account for a disproportionate amount of attacks and then say both sides are bad when literal Nazis are rallying, well...
There just comes a time to call a Spade a Spade. I don't care of Trump really drinks the Kool-Aid or is just doing it for the votes or even the lulz. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hiel Hitler's like a duck, it's a White Nationalist. Sooner we stop living in denial the better. This will not end well for us otherwise. Ignoring reality never does...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/