Too PC for me.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Sites like Twitch and Youtube are different from forums. On forums you usually just read a whole thread and you see everyone's comments in the discussion, so moderation is tighter and that makes sense. No one is forcing anyone to watch someone's twitch channel or youtube videos. One has to try to go and do those things and become a viewer. Therefore, tight censorship is not needed. I like to watch Hasan Piker sometimes, and if anyone else is too bothered by what he says, they can just stop watching him. I don't see what the issue is with letting Hasan say his piece and have whatever views he has. I know there are rules, but they are not good rules. Every social media website censors people for stupid reasons. Yes, we know there are TOS, but the main argument of people who want more open discussion and less censorship, is who watches the watchman? You can say that if the system of censorship is not abused and corrupted, then it's fine, but it is always abused and corrupted on every single social media site that exists out there. Every single one. A one hundred percent success rate. That's why I can be so confident on this issue, and see that your good intentions about trying to censor hateful speech, are always going to end up in a practical sense, with socialists and atheists and a million other groups being censored and taken down at the same time. Either the internet is going to be how it was in the early years of twitter and before that, or it's going to be a shit show with atheists like TJ Kirk getting banned for doing satire about Trump. There isn't really an in-between like you would probably like to see. It's not realistic to ever expect that.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sites like Twitch and Youtube are different from forums. On forums you usually just read a whole thread and you see everyone's comments in the discussion, so moderation is tighter and that makes sense. No one is forcing anyone to watch someone's twitch channel or youtube videos. One has to try to go and do those things and become a viewer. Therefore, tight censorship is not needed. I like to watch Hasan Piker sometimes, and if anyone else is too bothered by what he says, they can just stop watching him. I don't see what the issue is with letting Hasan say his piece and have whatever views he has. I know there are rules, but they are not good rules. Every social media website censors people for stupid reasons. Yes, we know there are TOS, but the main argument of people who want more open discussion and less censorship, is who watches the watchman? You can say that if the system of censorship is not abused and corrupted, then it's fine, but it is always abused and corrupted on every single social media site that exists out there. Every single one. A one hundred percent success rate. That's why I can be so confident on this issue, and see that your good intentions about trying to censor hateful speech, are always going to end up in a practical sense, with socialists and atheists and a million other groups being censored and taken down at the same time. Either the internet is going to be how it was in the early years of twitter and before that, or it's going to be a shit show with atheists like TJ Kirk getting banned for doing satire about Trump. There isn't really an in-between like you would probably like to see. It's not realistic to ever expect that.

So this whole statement is just irrelevant babble and blatant falsehoods mixed with an underlined Nirvana fallacy. This post is a cesspool of not even wrong.

Again total failure 

---

1. All sites have TOS and all sites will have TOS. It's a fact of the modern internet and thank goodness for it( Considering early Twitter was a toxic shithole as is every site with lax rules). We simply have to find ways to make it work as well as possible like any other set of rules

2. No one has a right to a private platform if you don't like the rules tough. No one forced to come to a platform or spew hateful bullshit. If the platform or community doesn't want their platform associated with you then they have the right to disassociate from you. None of this is censorship as you have no right to be there in the first place.

All IA's free speech warrior whining doesn't amount to spit

[Rev. Rye]

TOS are a necessary evil. You ever hear of 8chan? It is/was (I honestly don’t even know which tense is accurate at the moment) a website that basically ran under a single rule: don’t post content that breaks US law. That’s pretty much it. And as soon as people started spreading the word, it basically became a wretched hive of scum and villainy, with entire boards devoted to shit like: coordination of trolling and doxxing campaigns like Gamergate, shit that is as close as is legally allowable to child porn, Qanon, Nazism, and no less than three mass shooters using it to get the word out. As you can imagine, this led to 8chan becoming a board that’s so toxic that nobody wants to host them. This is what a site without TOS looks like.

That said, sometimes, the TOS of major sites can be ridiculous, or, frankly, completely arbitrary. As a fan of Mumkey Jones who followed his increasingly inexplicable banning from Youtube, I am incredibly aware of this.



(Note: several points of the video became dated. The channel he advertised at the end was deleted a few days after it started, and the theory he expounds about the FBI seeing his videos mocking spree shooter Elliot Rodger as a terrorist threat turned out to be false, so I’m left to assume it was something largely arbitrary.)

And the thing is, the bigger an organization gets, especially if they’ve dominated the market to such a degree that there’s no real alternative, if they wield their power in such an arbitrary fashion, there’s no real recourse. That said, at least there are other places for Vaush et al to stream. Hell, I’ve even seen Youtube hosting his streams, so at least there’s something.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why should there be ANY recourse? I’m a supporter of free speech, but that doesn’t require me to supply the speaker with a soapbox at my expense.

I may have told this before, but it bears repeating. My wife once terminated an employee instanter for referring to a customer who had just left the shop as a ‘hori’ (a pejorative for a person of Maori descent). When the woman complained and started making censorship noises, Ellen told her, ‘You can use that word all you like, you just can’t use it in MY shop.’

Same-same.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Garbage merchants think that other people should be made to carry their bullshit. That's the opposite of free speech, but hey, whatever.

[Rev. Rye]

Just for the record, it's one thing to get deplatformed for shit like spreading disinformation, hate speech, or encouraging violence. That shit makes sense. Especially the bans on disinformation, hate speech, and promotion of violence, since we've been dealing with the consequences of leaving those unchecked for the past couple years, and all those people have been giving us is normalisation of open white supremacy, an attempted insurrection, and a pandemic that won't fucking die. Even lesser offenses that are clearly stated as violations of the terms of service makes sense, even if the rules in question are stupid.

It's when they're being enforced arbitrarily that we have a real problem. Like, say, banning a YouTuber mocking a spree killer for reasons that are completely arbitrary, but keeping Peluchin Entertainment, a YouTuber who killed his own pets on camera, up for over two years despite a strong outcry. Or keeping LeafyIsHere's channel up for years, despite his channel being focused largely on bullying other YouTubers, and striking down iDubbz' video calling him out.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not arbitrary. It's money. Youtube tries to do whatever is in their financial interest. You don't get deplatformed for hate speech, for example..but for being bad at hate speech. Disinformation? Also not a thing they ban - the entire market of quack daytime tv cures and creams and ointments and self help books are too profitable. Encouraging violence is, to them, creating liability....not that they give a shit about the people targeted, their liability. We start out wrongfooted when we imply or even suggest that a for profit content host is interested or organized around the health of our society and must/should follow some kind of fairness or accuracy doctrine. They'll sell you that too, if you're buying..but that's all they'll be doing.

-as is their constitutionally garuanteed right, no less. It's owners can do whatever the fuck they want with it. The frozen peachists who treat it like it's a public utility are, themselves, against free speech and private property. You know....rights abrogators..... The sad story of hate speech online in the us at present doesn't actually begin with an account from the klan and an arbitrary relaxing of rules - it was a profit bubble for gaming, atheist, and skeptic channels. They out hate speeched each other in a race to the bottom that made everyone involved lots of money...until the bubble burst, at which point everyone(youtube included) pretended they never had anything to do with it and didn't want to be associated with it. At every point along the way, every actor involved swore that they merely wanted to be fair to both sides™ of a view. The view of their wallets, sure - but nothing else.