
YouTube bans Stefan Molyneux, David Duke, Richard Spencer for hate speech - nickthegreek
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-molyneux-duke-richard-spencer-conduct-hate-speech
======
cjslep
When I, a white young boy, grew up in The South and saw the Klan, my father
taught me to never do business with them, never enable their behavior, never
let their organization rent rooms from venues I may own, and to decline all of
their business even if they were paying extra to be your customer.

For as long as he could remember, and his father before him, the Klan and
other fringe organizations would always cry and shed tears about how they were
being pushed to the edge and ostracized from the local communities. Most of
the town ignored these common pleas. We knew how to deal with them and ignore
them, we had our inoculated culture. A few businesses were locally known to be
"Klan friendly", but it should surprise no one that they are not rich mega-
corps.

It seems that in the internet age, this sort of culture of inoculation has not
been passed on to the outside world communities, though the far-right
ideologies may have. It is _normal_ to decline the business of people you
don't want to do business with. It is _normal_ for it to be the fringe
believers -- the ones that by their own choice are pushing themselves to live
on that fringe. It is the simple free-market economy of supply and demand
telling them that their demand is not necessary.

However, my father also taught me to be careful with this pushing of the
fringe. It is a delicate balance of liberty with liberty-destroying ideology.
The paradox of tolerance, etc. It should be very closely watched.

It is a _win_ for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them
but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". They will shed
tears in public and privately rejoice at the welcoming change. It is a grant
of liberty they suddenly inherited with tech to have had such a huge audience
and defenders of their speech on private platforms all this time. It is only
now that the culture of inoculation is catching up.

We should watch it closely & carefully though. We shouldn't be shedding tears
for them.

~~~
skinkestek
> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them
> but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe".

Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN:

tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and
it might be of interest to everyone here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929)

~~~
empath75
People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it
comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

~~~
pjc50
Not exactly .. people will come out to defend "free speech". But somehow the
cause in question is nearly always far right.

~~~
fzeroracer
I did some very small experiments on such a thing a while ago. One was an
example of someone being unjustly detained in violation of their rights [1]
and another was an actual example of government censorship [2]. The first one
was flagged and killed immediately, the second received zero response.

On HN, all of the 'free speech' stories I see always pertain to the far-right
and/or incredibly vitriolic individuals getting removed from platforms. They
receive massive amounts of votes and spur on large flamewars. HackerNews
unfortunately is just as prone to falling into certain narrative traps as
other websites and one of them that seems to come up more and more frequently
is free speech and individual rights but only as it pertains to the far-right.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20504332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20504332)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19976398](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19976398)

~~~
laretluval
The discrepancy could be because Hacker News cares more about technology
platforms than Alabama public TV. For an example of HN getting upset about
government censorship on a technology platform, see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219)

~~~
fzeroracer
I'm not sure that's the case. Some examples looking back on some of the most
popular HN stories tend to align well with either tech platforms or issues
dealing with personal rights. Such as [1] or the Snowden and Julian Assange
situations [2] [3]. Or for the sake of not cherry-picking, when the Supreme
Corut legalized same-sex marriage [4]. Although perhaps somewhat morbidly, the
top comment seems to demonstrate one of the problems I find with HN.

With my first story I figured it would fit well with the people that tend to
advocate for personal rights because it was an example of an American citizen
being wrongfully detained for three weeks, but it ended up flagged because I
think people tend to circle the wagon around anything tangentially related to
immigration.

The second example was about a direct example of government censorship and the
inconsistency of free speech advocates. Google's actions and bending to China
for the sake of maintaining profitable behavior is bad, yes, but they also are
not the government. The government should be held to even higher standards and
yet it seems people are not willing to do so for this administration. An
example of that is that people here were praising the administration's threats
against Twitter as some sort of pro-freedom move.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21517722](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21517722)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12494998](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12494998)

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19632449](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19632449)

[4]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9784470](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9784470)

------
ra1n85
Twitch and Reddit enacted bans simultaneously:

[https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-
tru...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/29/reddit-bans-pro-trump-forum-
in-crackdown-on-hate-speech-344698)

[https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-
accoun...](https://www.engadget.com/twitch-suspends-donald-trump-
account-174145621.html)

Seems odd for multiple independent companies to act in concert like this.

~~~
Acrobatic_Road
It is coordinated. Remember when Alex Jones got banned from literally
everything on the same day?

The reddit bans wave was leaked in advance. The more actors involved in a
coordinated action the harder it is to keep a secret.

Original leak:
[https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hh1pjd/redd...](https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hh1pjd/reddits_largest_ever_banwave_is_coming_monday/)

~~~
dmix
> Apparently they're going to ban a large number of subs on Monday and frame
> it as an anti-racism initiative

Has this been announced or was this just speculation?

~~~
jacquesm
"Apparently they're going to ban a large number of subs on Monday and frame it
as an anti-racism initiative"

Frame it? It _is_ an anti-racism initiative. It may have side effects as well
but that is the main driver.

~~~
Acrobatic_Road
They did not ban racist subreddits like /r/blackpeopletwitter and
/r/fragilewhiteredditor.

If you don't know, to post on /r/blackpeopletwitter you have to send a photo
of your skin color to the moderators. They are literally racially segregating
users.

~~~
dogma1138
“While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups
or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of
people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.”

[https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-
reporting/acc...](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/rules-
reporting/account-and-community-restrictions/promoting-hate-based-identity-or)

~~~
ars
> For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the
> majority

Are they serious? So basically racism is OK as long as it's toward people who
are the majority?

~~~
Avamander
Yes. The rule basically says that you can't be racist towards white people.

~~~
techntoke
Asians are the majority, not white people.

------
chrisco255
It's a purge. It won't stop with these three. The censorship will continue to
get worse and be disproportionately applied to those on the right until all is
left with the world.

Conservatism has a place in society. I'm not endorsing any of these guys
viewpoints nor am I associating them with conservatism in general, because
it's a broad group of over 100 million people in the U.S. with a diverse range
of opinions that lean to the right. It's extremely important that society be
balanced and not tilted to the extremes of either ideology. This process of
selective banning and purging will not end well for Silicon Valley. The
problem is they are not approaching the left's extremists with the same
fervor. In fact they're turning a blind eye to the vicious hate against cops
and conservatives on their own platforms.

And a lot of this hate is disproportionate to reality. That is, the perception
of the problem exceeds the actual statistical problem.

I'm of the strong opinion that a society needs it's left and right brain to
function properly and constructively in order to tackle the diverse set of
problems we face. If there is no push-pull give and take between these two
groups, then society will become unstable and increasingly more polarized.

I'm a free market capitalist, but with Silicon Valley's recent muscular
intervention into free speech, and the overwhelming propaganda power they
possess, I fully support the break up of big tech monopolies in social media,
search, and app stores.

~~~
ohgodplsno
>Conservatism has a place in society.

Literal white supremacists and nazis however, do not. Those people should be
pushed so far off any platform that their only option left is to be the
crazies screaming on Times Square that the end of the world is coming.

These people actively contributed to fostering hatred in societies, And no,
you will not fight them off with debates. The time it takes you to rebuke a
single one of their arguments means they can spew a dozen more of theirs.

By the way, it's not free speech. The government isn't banning them.

~~~
phonypc
> _By the way, it 's not free speech. The government isn't banning them._

Free speech is a principle outside of the 1st amendment.

------
geronimoe
I don't think people would have a problem with this if the political public
squares (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, etc) - and that IS what they are - applied
these policy changes to everyone equally.

What's happened is we've already gone over the edge. Racism has been redefined
to only be effectively possible by white people in the West. The intention of
this change is racist in itself.

Putting aside freedom of speech, what people likely have a problem with is all
the OTHER racists on YouTube NOT getting banned and instead being PROPPED UP.

These bans are political, not civil justice. If these racists were A) a real
problem, and B) not singled out as a faction among multiple other racist
factions, then people might believe this is fair.

To those that contend that criteria A has been met: The modern rise of white
supremacists in the West is being spurred by racist politics; it's almost as
if they want to corner these people into extremist ideas.

I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism, and that's by
understanding the root causes of it and addressing them.

These bans are a farce, and meant to consolidate far-leftist power - not
liberal power.

~~~
nkurz
> I am an adherent to Daryl Davis' way of dealing with racism

For those who are unfamiliar, Davis is a black American who has directly
befriended and changed the minds of a number of Ku Klux Klan members. He has a
collection of their former robes that serve as trophies. In my view, he's a
stunning role model.

This article describes his approach in more detail:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-
aud...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-audacity-of-
talking-about-race-with-the-klu-klux-klan/388733/). If you search his name,
you'll find a lot more, including a fascinating documentary:
[https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/accidental-
courtes...](https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/accidental-courtesy/).

~~~
gsk22
He is definitely an inspiring story, but I wouldn't call him a role model. It
is not the burden of each person who is a minority to befriend those who hate
them, and his approach is undeniably a dangerous one.

------
zozbot234
Keep in mind that YT had been funneling viewers towards extreme, bizarre,
fringe videos for a long time - including quite a bit of hateful content. This
is something of their own doing.

~~~
ars
I'm not sure what you are watching, but I have never been funneled to anything
even remotely like that.

YT sends you videos based on your watch history. If you watch hate videos to
see what kind of stuff people are saying then you should delete them from your
history to avoid YT finding you more.

~~~
masklinn
Multiple experiments have demonstrated that as you follow recommendations it
drives you more and more towards extreme content. If you don’t follow recs it
obviously has no “drive” to keep you on as you’re not following the journey.
Basically the recommendations system always tries to drive you towards
slightly more “engaging” content.

Zeynep Tufekci, amongst others, published about it back in 2018.

~~~
tantalor
Sure but you could say the same of woodworking videos, marble racing videos,
or any niche topic.

This is not a surprising outcome; it is totally expected.

~~~
masklinn
> Sure but you could say the same of woodworking videos, marble racing videos

I was replying to someone stating it does not happen.

> or any niche topic.

It is absolutely not limited to niche topics.

> This is not a surprising outcome; it is totally expected.

The drive towards extremism is absolutely not “expected”.

------
gguevaraa
Christ, spez is getting hammered in the announcements. I mean seriously, he's
basically saying it's alright to be discriminatory against the "majority",
whatever that means. Dude doesn't even clarify what that means, just skirts
around the question.

Lot of people are wondering why r/BlackPeopleTwitter or r/politics haven't
been banned despite blatant racism or calls to violence. People are pretty
pissed at spez, to say the least.

Also, kudos to that one user pointing out how 10 mods oversee 90% of
subreddits.[1]

I've linked the thread[0]. The comments pointing the insanity are highlighted

What a trainwreck but oh well, enjoy being the next Digg plebbit.

[0]:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/updat...](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/)
[1]:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/updat...](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/fwe18po/?context=3)

Edit: "Spez, answer the fucking question. So is it according to reddit policy,
a white person can’t say “all black people are bad” but a black person can say
“all white people are bad”? If this is the case, this is racist" (LMAO)

~~~
FiloSottile
Not sure if you're missing it, but yeah, reverse racism is not a thing. The
concept of racism is meaningful in the historical and societal context of
systemic oppression. A black person saying "all white people are bad" is not
feeding into and exploiting hundreds of years of prejudice stacked against an
under-privileged group.

Edit: a black person in the US, different cultures are different contexts.

~~~
nbardy
Racism is racism no matter what direction it's pointing. You don't need to
have experienced hundred's of years of prejudice to experience racism. Racism
is treating someone differently because of their race. It is wrong full stop,
no matter the status of the perpetrator or the victim.

~~~
sagichmal
This is a valid but narrow definition of racism. It's not really useful when
speaking at a cultural level.

------
fvdessen
I haven't watched Stefan in a long time, is he now producing content in the
same register as David Duke & Richard Spencer ? It did not seem to be the case
a few years ago.

~~~
Edd314159
I used to listen to Stefan Molyneux about 10 years ago because he had some
interesting views on free market economics. Now I look him up on Wikipedia and
find out he's turned into a white nationalist. What the hell happened?

~~~
evanlivingston
Perhaps there is an association between strongly supporting principles of free
markets and problematic ethics.

~~~
alentist
Interesting speculation. On the other hand, there _is_ an association between
strongly opposing principles of free markets and problematic ethics.

------
mchusma
This is not directly related, but I saw the policy: "videos alleging that a
group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion
based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation
or veteran status"

I'm curious if anyone know the root of "veteran" on this list? I am just not
familiar with that kind of -ism (veteran-ism?).

~~~
epc
Veterans are a protected class (at least under labor law) in the US based on a
1974 (VEVRAA).

~~~
lowmemcpu
I'm surprised that makes the jump from employment/labor law to speech/politics
policies.

Strawman: If I were a politician campaigning and were to say something like,
"Veterans do not deserve benefits and I don't think we should fund veteran
benefits" or "Veterans do not deserve our blind respect", am I now
discriminating and will get banned from the platform?

~~~
epc
<#include I–am–not–a–lawyer–this–is–not–legal–advice.h>

My understanding dates to the 1990s but a covered company does not get to pick
and choose what areas a protected class may be discriminated against. So, if a
class is considered protected from labor discrimination you cannot
discriminate against that class in any of your business areas (based on
membership in that class. Basically: if someone is a member of a protected
class, you cannot discriminate against them, you cannot foster discrimination
against them by your employees, products, or services.

My personal opinion is that a candidate who said that veterans should lose
benefits as part of their campaign would probably slide through this sort of
prohibition, however if that politician called for some sort of action against
veterans then they would get censored/banned/whatever.

Again, not a lawyer.

~~~
mchusma
Thanks. I suspect there may be no actual cases of YT actually banning videos
for anti-veteran speech, but it is on their list because it is on a list of
protected classes.

------
noxer
Soon to be found on Telegram I guess. Seem to be the only growing platform
that does not ban opinions. Probably because they do not need to make
advertisers happy.

Conclusion: Ads still ruin the internet.

~~~
zapnuk
It's disgusting to see racism, transphobia, misogyny, and general hate speech
spread by Molyneux and others be normalized as 'opinions'.

They aren't interested in discourse, they only want to spread their garbage
while cowordly hiding behind a dated concept of free (hate) speech. Molyneux
especially dodges every debate where his oposition is somewhat knowledgeable.

~~~
iratewizard
>dated concept of free (hate) speech

Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.

~~~
zapnuk
Some content fosters the development of extremists/terrorists.

This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only
objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically
brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there
have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist
content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators.

We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I
don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly
leads to more violence.

~~~
mantap
Without free speech, there would be no LGBT Pride in the first place. They
were seen as extremists.

Having free speech but only for people who say mainstream things is equivalent
to saying "I like the world as it exists today". That is conservatism by
definition.

~~~
zapnuk
Without discrimination there wouldn't need to be LGBT Pride to begin with.

White-nationalism was tried and didn't work to say the least. Content
creators, like the ones banned, advocate for a world of 50-200 years ago. They
are conservatives. Limiting their reach is anything BUT conservatism by
definition.

Also, there are plenty of conservatives content creators who user lies and
deception to spread their dated believes. The ban only targeted the worst of
the worst, the ones that actually advocate for (white)ethnostates.

~~~
mantap
White nationalists are the canary in the coal mine. Sure, nobody cares about
the canary itself. But everyone should care _why_ the canary died, because it
has implications for us all.

What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media
websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing
which _ideas_ are acceptable to talk about.

~~~
zapnuk
Well if the canary develops into a monkey who convinces the most single minded
people to do stupid stuff you might as well get rid of them and get a new
canary - which is basically what happened here.

> What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media
> websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also
> policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.

White nationalists kill and social media websites share some part of the
blame. To say that the more pressing issue is that they police which ideas are
acceptable is laughable when you consider the great extend they allow for
extreme views. There are literally still holocaust denies still allowed on
their platforms.

------
mikhailfranco
Chess channel _agadmator_ was taken down by a YouTube bot:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjrYWPxsG8)

He speculates the bot detected phrases like _" white will always be better
here...",_ etc., then goes on to say that in his ~1800 uploads _" it's pretty
much black and white to the death in every video"._

He appealed, but was immediately rejected by the automated appeals system. The
channel was restored when further responses and feedback from subscribers
eventually got a human in the loop at YouTube.

------
kyle_martin1
This is suspicious. So much for free-speech and open debate. Just let people
hear both sides and make up their own minds.

~~~
Inu
Remember when Noam Chomsky argued for allowing Holocaust deniers to lecture at
universities, so that students could make their own judgement and disproof
absurd theories?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair)
Guess it was a different time.

------
howmayiannoyyou
Molyneux earned the ban. I've personally reported him several times. Not to
say the other didn't also deserve it, but Molyneux was on my radar.

~~~
qez
What did he do to deserve a ban?

~~~
IkmoIkmo
>
> [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux)

Stuff like:

> The Left is infested with pedophiles - they promote the welfare state and
> feminism in order to get protective fathers out of the home, so they have
> easier sexual access to the children of single mothers.

> The primary purpose of feminism is to lower white birthrates.

You can have freedom of speech, just do it on your own platform if you want to
say such nonsense. Makes sense to me that a mainstream commercial platform
like Youtube with normal community guidelines wouldn't allow this stuff.

I mean, there's some de facto holocaust apologetics in there, some stuff about
arabs being too low IQ to accept the US bringing democracy through invasion,
some stuff about the 2008 financial crisis being caused by minorities having
too low an IQ etc etc. It's all pretty sad. Not everyone deserves a platform
with extremely-cheap infrastructure to reach hundreds of millions of people
like on Youtube with a message like this, easily ban-worthy if you ask me.

------
jMyles
There's a problem here that is too rarely discussed:

When we do finally achieve substantial decentralized agency for ideas and
media, which cannot be censored, it will be tainted in its roots by the fact
that these jackasses are the people who will flock to it first.

How can we build a censorship-resistant society where the most creative,
peaceful, unifying ideas are the basis of our dialogue?

~~~
andrekandre
i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over
social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others
that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience
and time to go through

so, in an "open market" it becomes harder to shut down bad ideas with "open
debate" (which i would argue we need a way to do, now more than ever)

i think until there is some way to do this in a general way - some kind of
"anti-twitter" \- these kinds of bannings will just keep happening because no
one seems to really know how what to do otherwise...

~~~
jMyles
> i think the problem is, some types of groups/ideologies work very well over
> social media (accusatory messages, memes, rumors, conspiracies) while others
> that are more thoughtful dont seem to do as well, because they take patience
> and time to go through

I can't help but notice that the inflammation of this kind of content
dovetails nicely with the profit motive of the medium in question.

If we were able to open and audit the entirety of the algorithmic decision-
making regarding what appears in users' feeds, does any of us doubt that
hostilities and insecurities are amplified?

------
jhonatan08
Sometimes I wonder if there are better solutions rather than bans. Banning
sounds like sweeping the dirt under the rug. I am afraid haters might
concentrate in underground social networks, away from the spotlights, creating
a "us and them" situation.

~~~
superkuh
Don't worry, the payment processors and corporate banks with federal charters
simply will refuse to deal with them. They won't be able to buy services or
connectivity. And then when they try to set up their own payment networks
they'll be charged with trumped up KYC law infractions and put in prison.

~~~
manfredo
Can't they still accept paper checks? I think banks are obligated to honor
them. Groups like the KKK and the Daily Stormer have managed to stay in
business.

------
VectorLock
Stefan Molyneux not to be confused with Peter Molyneux.

------
madballster
A year or two ago, Canadian conservative professor and YT superstar Jordan
Peterson announced he was going to free conservative and "alternative content
producers" from the yoke of Valley owned online media companies by creating
his own, conservative media platform. What ever happened to this? Vaporware?

It appears conservative content creators knew their days were counted on
advertising-financed mainstream media outlets, yet they did not prepare
accordingly. Obviously there is a market for their content, what is so hard in
organizing and creating their own media outlet?

~~~
akvadrako
He did create it, but I haven't seen anything of value on there:

[https://www.thinkspot.com/](https://www.thinkspot.com/)

JP has also been out of the picture for the past year or so.

I think the main issue is most conservatives just aren't interested in a
siloed forum; the whole point in commenting is to convince others.

------
nailer
Oddly /r/sino, a CCP, anti-democracy, anti-human rights subreddit that often
brigades /r/hongkong is still up.

Edit: oops, this should have been a reply to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681872](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681872)

------
arprocter
Strange coincidence, considering what happened on reddit earlier

~~~
mattigames
There is safety in numbers, they can argue that reddit did it as well (either
in court or somewhere else)

~~~
arprocter
It makes the 'we take our rules seriously' talk look stupid - they only took
action because someone else did first

------
s9w
"hate speech" is a made up word and neither illegal or "bad". You're
applauding a rebranded social score and a secondary justice system.

~~~
lukifer
I can form a trivial argument for why almost _any_ hot-button political
opinion is "hate speech", even through the most charitable definition of
"advocating violence or diminishing essential human dignity".

\- Pro-Life: You don't respect women's bodily autonomy, because you believe
women are "less-than".

\- Pro-Choice: You don't respect the fetus's right to life, because you
believe pre-birth infants are "less-than".

\- Pro-War: You don't respect the sacrifices of American troop or those who
died on 9/11, because you believe privileged Westerners are "less-than".

\- Anti-War: You don't respect the lives of civilians who die in drone
strikes, because you believe Muslims are "less-than".

Lately, I've been cross-referencing the language of dehumanization with how
uncontroversial it is to express an opinion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
"necessary evils". And perhaps they were (I've heard the arguments and I'm
aware of the historical complexity); yet most Americans suffer little
consternation to disregard the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, in
a way that would be horrifying if it was (a) present day, and/or (b) the
actions of some out-group rather than our own heroic Nazi-fighting forces.

All that said: I think it's _also_ pretty naive to pretend that emotionally
inflammatory rhetoric doesn't exist, or is inconsequential. Lately I've been
thinking about a different category: while "hate speech" is shunned in most
corners of polite society, our moral tribes largely tolerate (if not
encourage) "fear speech": "[Trump / Antifa] is _coming to get you_ ". Each
side's fear exacerbates the other in a positive feedback loop, akin to the
Cycle of Violence.

~~~
rubatuga
The necessary evils bit is probably a way to relieve our cognitive dissonance.
Anyways, do you have evidence to support your fear and hatred cycle, as well
as its prevalence in western society?

------
Animats
_" Videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify
discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender,
race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status."_

Not for suggesting a group be attacked. Not "hate". For expressing an opinion
on a political subject. Prohibiting that is scary. This is not a good thing,
and we will probably regret it in a few years.

Trump would like to shut down criticism of himself, and has tried. Black Lives
Matter might be muzzled for inciting to riot. This can backfire, badly.

 _" Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where ... all the children are above average."_

------
thinkingemote
Have twitch and YouTube also followed Reddit in allowing hate speech again
majority groups?

I mean the action is coordinated but have the policies?

~~~
erichocean
I don't think so, the policies are set by each social media company, but the
_targets_ of those policies are primarily determined by the SPLC and the ADL.

This makes hate speech enforcement fair and uniform across all of the major
social networks, and also reduces liability for the social networks since they
can point to an objective 3rd-party as the cause of the suspensions.

------
techlaw
One hopeful thing that might come from this time of forced isolation: time and
space to reflect on what is _genuinely meaningful_ to us in the long term as
individuals and as communities.

------
say_it_as_it_is
I guess internet media companies are eager to sort out bugs prior to the 2020
election campaign chaos fueled by interference from foreign political allies

------
vmchale
Good riddance!

~~~
quadrifoliate
Yeah. By his own admission, Richard Spencer wants the creation of a white
ethnostate in America [1]. A lot of debates featuring this person were going
on in college campuses across the country after the 2016 election moved the
Overton window enough for people like him to get an audience.

I was not born white, and there is no way I can become racially white. So from
a purely self-interested point of view, I'm glad that his "robust
philosophical discussions" about this topic are no longer available to
Americans.

[1] [https://time.com/4293564/the-billionaire-and-the-
bigots/](https://time.com/4293564/the-billionaire-and-the-bigots/)

~~~
kypro
Meanwhile, I could name serval black activists (some on YouTube) who advocate
for Black separatist movements inside the US who have had no, to very little
push back from these companies.

Personally I don't really mind people advocating for the creation of a state
based on what they perceive as insurmountable ethnic and cultural differences.
I think it would be hard to argue peaceful separatist movements have been a
force for evil in the world -- quite the opposite in fact.

The only threat from separatists movement in the US -- whether that is the
creation of Native American states, European States, or an African State --
would be whether the path to creating such a state is violent. So I struggle
on the whole to say, no, Native Americans cannot have their own state.
Likewise, if Europeans feel their culture or ethnic group is at threat then I
am fine with them advocating for a peaceful separatist movement.

------
steveeq1
So youtube is going to ban gangsta rap music for the same reasons, right?

~~~
scollet
What is your aversion to rap music and how is it relevant to this case?

------
CryptoPunk
When has Stefan Molyneux ever promoted hate speech?

------
henearkr
Bravo Google!

Well done :)

------
bofadeez
Meanwhile flat earth videos are okay

~~~
zapnuk
Flat earthers don't have the effect that their viewers go around shooting
people.

Far-right content creators on the other hand enable terrorists like the
Christchurch perpetrator.

~~~
DarthGhandi
I've seen dozens of instances of serious racial violence by blm activists
recorded in the last few weeks and cheered on by thousands of YouTube videos
demanding even more, surely that counts as "enabling terrorists"? Hate crimes
units across the country are investigating racially motivated attacks spurring
entirely from blm.

You won't see these people happily wanting a race war being banned though.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksuhDS1SqUI](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ksuhDS1SqUI)

Some of the leaders are literally calling for whites to wiped out.

[https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-
hu...](https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-human-should-
be-wiped-joseph-curl)

[https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-
hy...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-hypocrisy-
cheering-violence/)

~~~
zapnuk
The fact that you don't even reference a popular youtube content creators to
support your stupid argument shows its value.

Also, both last links are from a cherry-picking entertainment and blog sites,
not news sites that actually have editors and the desire to check sources.

~~~
iratewizard
Because if the 4th branch of government doesn't report it, it didn't happen.
Oddly enough, the older white woman who was shot a block from my house Friday
night in a random drive-by shooting didn't get reported. The gunshot and
scream must have been faked.

------
ss7pro
Welcome to Soviet Union this time DR ven by capitalism and profits.

------
telaelit
It's about time.

------
syshum
Hmm this comes on the same day as Reddit Purge... I wonder if there was some
Coordination there.

Some AG's might want to look in that for for their Anti-Trust Investigations

------
sunseb
Have a look at that to understand what's going on and where this madness is
heading :

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1340&v=2vyBLCqyU...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1340&v=2vyBLCqyUes)

------
claudiawerner
Since these threads often turn out the same way once they get popular enough
(assuming they don't get flagged first), a while ago I wrote a comment[0]
which can help sum up some arguments from "both sides" of the debate over
Internet censorship, and I hope it's useful to those who would otherwise
repeat a discussion that's been had many times before in these comment
sections.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757)

------
stillbourne
You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really
disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the
liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are
encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of
speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their
property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free
speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the
owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove
the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove
content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only
thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution
by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to
defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property
in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is
stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message.
Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to
terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For
instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their
prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content
provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law
does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a
private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on
its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort
of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services
outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code
Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are
of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service
is provided).

Edit: Free speech absolutists, isn't down-voting my comment moderation?
Ironic. How about just replying instead. I'm willing to engage in debate.

EditEdit: I'm trying to reply to everything as quickly as I can but HN is
telling me I'm posting to fast.

~~~
searchableguy
I have an easy answer to that: Youtube has more users than there are people in
US. If you had a service that was used by whole of US, shouldn't that be
public?

Imagine there was a single food stall in the entire US. Should you allow food
stall which is really controlled by a few share holders and executives at the
top to decide whom to feed or not?

Again, the problem is not huge platforms banning toxic people. It's that only
a minority has a final say on who gets censored. That's not me, that's not you
and many of the hners here.

Edit: I am not saying this in defense of people in the post. I think they are
terrible people. I think we can't help some of them but we should help whoever
we can by offering rehabilitation and therapy. Many of the viewers of those
channels and conspiracy theories need help. Censoring them without lending
help to them in any way to improve them always backfires.

~~~
alistairSH
Somebody would open a competing grocery.

Likewise, racist and bigots can build their own internet platform.

~~~
searchableguy
That's a confusing answer to what I said. I am not defending anyone in the
post here but just yesterday, visa banned gab's CEO and his family. Now you
need to build a payment processor which is not possible for any individual to
do so. To how deep you want to go here?

Put your own cables in the sea?

~~~
sixstringtheory
I wrote out a long response and only then starting researching Gab. So instead
of my own words, here are some excerpts from their terms of service. If you
don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should consider
that Gab feels the same way:

> if you don't like what we're doing on Gab.com or simply want to manage your
> own experience, you can spin up your own Gab Social server that you control

> We have the right to disable any user name, password, or other identifier,
> whether chosen by you or provided by us, at any time if we believe you have
> violated any provision of these Terms of Service.

> You agree not to use the Website... To engage in any other conduct which, as
> determined by us, may result in the physical harm or offline harassment of
> the Company, individual users of the Website or any other person (e.g.
> “doxing”), or expose them to liability

> the Company reserves the right to take any action with respect to any User
> Contribution that we deem necessary or appropriate in our sole discretion

> User Contributions must NOT...be obscene...

And of course all the usual legalese like indemnification and arbitration.

AFAICT, the only difference between Gab and Twitter is that Gab has orders of
magnitude less users, and if they ever reached the usership levels of
Twitter/Facebook/Reddit I have no doubt they would behave in ways they
currently enjoy denouncing. I think they just want to have their cake and eat
it, too.

edit: grammar, again haha

~~~
searchableguy
> If you don't like the counterarguments you're encountering here, you should
> consider that Gab feels the same way

I am genuinely curious why you are trying to divert my initial point into a
different direction here. I gave an example of gabe to illustrate that there
needs to be some hard point for private companies to be responsible or adhere
strictly to the legality or public. Visa isn't a small private business that
is refusing to work with you. They are a global monopoly. If your argument is
there are more competitors, it doesn't matter if they all collude with each
like master card does with visa to keep competitors off or does something to
restrict people.

~~~
sixstringtheory
I don't mean to divert. Allow me to try to summarize:

You: Gab can't use Visa (A) for reasons, it's not reasonable to suggest that
(B) a competitor be built

Gab: we can kick you off (A') for reasons, you can always spin up a Gab
instance to run yourself (B')

What is the difference between A and A', and B and B'?

~~~
s1artibartfast
not the same poster, but I think the point they were making had to do with the
criticality of services and availability of alternatives?

Should the only grocery store in a town be able to refuse service to an
individual that they don't like? It is unlikely a single individual is in a
position to open a grocery store that can economically compete with the super-
wall-mart.

How about a gas station in the middle of a desert where refusing service might
literally result in death?

~~~
alistairSH
Instead of arguing criticality, can we reframe in terms of human rights?
Political speech and life/health are generally considered basic human rights.
Driving in the desert is not, so I don't see it as a valid comparison.

I find it hard to view Twitter as critical to expression of political speech,
when other platforms exist... literal soapbox in a park is available, plus
Gab, Facebook, mailing flyers, printing booklets, etc.

Access to food is certainly critical to ones life/health, so the government
should play some role in ensuring reasonable access. However, the bar for
intervention should be high. Is there no grocer at the next town over? No
farmer's market? No Amazon Fresh? No ability to grow your own food? If none of
those are viable options, then yes, the government likely should intervene in
some way.

As noted above, driving (let alone driving in the desert) is not a basic
right, so I could not in good faith argue for government intervention in the
gasoline/fuel market.

