YouTube to Remove Thousands of Videos Pushing Extreme Views - Sensationalist Headlines

What's really interesting is how bigotry and racial identity changed in America, and why. Up until a moment in US history, white people in the (relatively) prosperous eastern US cared about your ethnic origin -- were you italian, polish, irish, etc. Everyone was "white" but nobody was looking for "whiteness", everyone was looking at everyone's immigrant origins, and biases were predicated on national stereotypes. New York City kept the "tradition" alive longer than anywhere else, in a sense. But a curious event occurred that changed American society's views forever. A Catholic orphanage had too many kids and the local community didn't have any interest in adopting these lowborn street urchins of various European ethnic backgrounds. They were white society's unwanted castoffs, victims of circumstance or abandoned on the orphanage doorstep. The orphanage had an idea and sent word to a Catholic church in the west, out in I think New Mexico, seeking good Catholic families in the area who would be willing to adopt these children and rapidly-approaching-adulthood youths. While no longer the 'wild west', the west was still in need of lots of people, while the east was already developed and crowded, and sending orphans to good homes would be a good way of giving these orphans new and better lives while helping Amerca expand and grow westward. A number of families responded enthusiastically and underwent the legal process for vetting and adoption and everything was all set. Did I mention that all of the families who agreed to adopt the orphans were all Mexican? Mexicans living and working legally in America and contributing to develop their local American community, but brown Mexicans and not white-skinned Europeans all the same. There was no shortage of white families in the host community that was going to receive the kids, but none of them were interested in adopting these unwanted underclass white kids. That is, until they found out Mexicans were taking the white kids in. The Catholic Mexican families were vetted before they signed the adoption papers, passing all requirements before legally becoming the parents of these orphans nobody else wanted, but when the kids arrived in town, a posse of white adults physically kidnapped the children from their new (Mexican) families, because no way in hell were these white kids being raised by non-whites, even if it meant being taken in by families that didn't actually want them. Almost overnight, white racial identity became us vs the Other, whites versus everyone else -- all because Mexicans dared to adopt white children that nobody else wanted. Being irish or italian didn't matter as much now, because you had to band together to protect "the white race" from external attack. Where you were from was less important than the colour of your skin and hair and eyes and the shape of your nose.

Can you source that, please? Not just the single anecdotal story, but the entire cause and effect chain you're arguing for? (i.e. That this event is what caused white identity) Let me clarify that any race based identity is incredibly idiotic, but I've never heard anyone give the reasoning for it that you've given.

Inversely I find it fascinating to see how some posters will come out to decry censorship when it affects things they care about then seemingly disappear, nowhere to be found, when it's things they don't care being censored. For the record, Stev is massively exaggerating what happened with Crowder. He didn't get "nuked". Youtube just won't let him make money from ads until he takes down a link to a homophobic t-shirt he was advertising on Youtubes platform. Maybe these other channels got caught up in collateral damage, it's happened before and it's a legitimate claim, but since Stev seemingly forgot to source his claim here it's hard to say. It didn't look like it was a few edgy jokes, it looked like it was a consistent campaign targeting one person he didn't like, who just so happened to be gay. I would also say that you are again exaggerating the power of Vox compared to the amount of influence Steven Crowder has as a youtuber with nearly 4 million subscribers. Wasn't Vox one of those companies who recently had lay-offs? Given Crowders operation is 4 dudes in a studio I imagine he has far less overhead than Vox does. I find it fascinating that in your mind you have somehow turned this around to where Maza is the bully and Steven Crowder is the victim. On the other hand, I think this is the only part of your post that gets anywhere near making a cogent point. I think there are legitimate concerns to be had when a company like Youtube says they are going to be cracking down on extremism. When the Christchurch shooting happened, Reddit banned or quarantined subs for supposedly sharing the shooters manifesto, despite some of those subs trying to police themselves and banning people who posted it there, all while leaving places like t_d alone. I think what's tragic about your fair-weather liberalism is that you are so close to understanding the real problem, then you just fall into the same tribalism that you pretend you aren't a part of. It is massively ironic to try and peg yourself as some sort of non-aligned centrist looking at this from neutral ground only to immediately follow this up by trying to equivocate Contrapoints and Three Arrows with Steven fucking Crowder. Of course people would be singing a completely different tune, what an absurd comparison. What are the bigger problems at play?

No they didn't, they merely created a system without any ethical oversight or control. The programmers designed a system which would maximise view time and advertising revenue but they failed to consider any ethical issue which would come with such a system. The programmers didn't care if the system put people into a cycle of radicalisation, they didn't care from their own ignorance or malice about ethical programming. If anything positive could come out of this it is perhaps it will be easier to teach new programmers that ethical issues actually matter and that you can't "just focus on coding" when what you're coding is something which will effect millions of people's lives.

I think my favorite part about these situations is that it's essentially kicking an ant hill. You kick the hill, they come out and complain about their freedom of speech (aka ability to complain about niggers and kikes ) being attacked, and then scurry into whatever dark hole they can find because they know it's a losing battle. Those that stand their ground are stomped by anyone with an ounce of decency.

VOX has over 6 million subscribers. So even ignoring their entire website and news arm, they still have more absolute reach.

I never said Vox wasn't bigger, I just said Stev was overexaggerating the difference in scope they have to make Steven Crowder look like a victim. I never said there were. It's just weird that out of all the journalists that he could harp on it's this specific gay one. My point has nothing to do with the fact that he makes his gayness known. Someone already responded to this point; it's absolutely asinine. I think it's amazing that you cherrypicked three quotes out of my post and failed to read and comprehend all three of them, but while you are here, I found that quote you said I was lying about last year. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/58148/ae9c281a-fb45-4b11-8533-bfe3f2564733/Untitled.png UC Berkeley panel blasts motives of conservative speakers He's referring to traditionaly western, and especially traditional American, ideals, like: Christian, and therefore Jewish, religion being important to day to day life, being a moral foundation, etc. Free market capitalism being the best economic system A small government being fundamental to the freedom of the individual Many sex and gender differences being real, and that they should be celebrated instead of fought against Etc. As is obvious, these are exactly the things the left wants to destroy, in the name of progress. They say a totally secular society is best, and many argue that the less religion the better. They say that free market capitalism is oppressive, and that we need socialistic institutions to compensate. They say a large government is necessary to ensure the rights of individuals. They say that the genders are fundamentally the same, and that society should reflect that. Etc. They want to "destroy" many parts of what were accepted as basic tenets of western society. In the words of Obama, they want to "fundamentally transform" the country, and you can't fundamentally transform something without at least partially destroying what existed before.

https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/transracialadoption.htm The first photo in the left sidebar is a photo of one such family affected by the kidnappings. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.fr.9400120 The Orphan controversy serves as the focal point for illustrating the author's major thesis that women's role in demarcating and policing racial identity is significant and understated in most historical investigations. The difficulties of documenting this influence and agency she freely admits, and while the trial transcripts give insights into the Anglo case against Mexican adoption, she is mainly reliant on secondary sources to interpret the feelings and attitudes of the prospective Mexican adopters. It is mainly, therefore, through the actions of the Anglo women that the reader comes to appreciate how a campaign to liberate Irish Catholic foundlings from placements in Mexican Catholic families turned into a struggle to maintain the colour line between white Anglos and non-white Mexicans. Gordon's task is to retell the story of the Arizona orphans while systematically connecting the narrative with its historical context and relevant paradigms in other scholarly works. Designating the Southwest frontier of the early 1900s as a site of ‘internal colonialism’, she invites comparison with studies of women's agency in other colonial contexts. Her analysis of the multiple forces at work in the lives of Anglo frontier women expands our understanding of the pressures on women to maintain moral superiority, class allegiance and racial purity in the face of difficult and challenging circumstances. Disclaimer: I have not read the book being reviewed, but I have no hope of sourcing where I originally read it so I had to track down sources describing the event. Ignore the feminism context (because that has literally nothing to do with this and the review is a feminist publication) and look at the historical content. Or read the full text of this review of the same book which details the actual events in much more detail and with much more accuracy than my hazy recollection: http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/00/01/09/reviews/000109.09lassont.html Where formerly there were gradations of status in the social order, descending from the Anglo capitalist ruling class through sparsely represented ethnic Europeans, whose standing was elevated by virtue of occupation or wealth, to upwardly mobile Mexican immigrant miners who formed the majority of the population, the orphan incident crystallized a once dynamic, multivalenced racial scheme into a bifurcated system of whites and nonwhites. The incident was part of a larger and more elaborate situation than I described, because I was going off of memory after learning about this maybe five or six years ago, but yeah, it pretty much did act as the catalyst for a fairly rapid change in society -- although I'm sure that American society did not instantly flip in every single location at the exact same time..

People say this is good but I don't particularly trust YouTube to not just paint a broad stroke and try to ban anything and everything tangentially related to "extremist content" as we've already seen in this thread with them banning (and later restoring with holes) an account for hosting Nazi propaganda for educational purposes.

The thing with Varg's music is that, aside from a song on the Fallen album, it doesn't really try to push or even portray his extremist views, it's mostly just nerdy Lord of the Rings and viking shit that you find in a lot of metal. That usually make it easier to like his music compared to others of his kind that sings about killing black people or whatever.

Google has no obligation to help spread far right propaganda and conspiracy theories.

Because fuck free speech freedom of expression and having your own opinion or beliefs. There's no middle ground with you people everybody has to fall in line and think exactly like you or they're a bigot. Censoring any dissenting opinion or belief that doesn't fall in line with what you believe. I'd like to repeat something I typed up previously in this thread because it fits here as well: Whether something fits on the left-right spectrum only depends on where you live and what the definition of 'normal' happens to be there. A mormon preacher's idea of 'normal', 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' is going to be very different than what a sex worker sees as 'normal', 'left-wing' and 'right-wing'. The ideas we consider right-wing are just the ideas that are right-wing compared to what we believe. The ideas we consider left-wing are just the ideas that are left-wing compared to what we believe. Whether we consider an idea as extremist or not isn't based on how harmful the idea actually would be if it was implemented into law, it's a value judgement made by regular people like you or me through the lens of our own experiences. Being in the middle of the current political spectrum doesn't mean being objective or more correct, it just means being biased towards whatever the community we live in views as 'normal', and throughout human history what society has viewed as being 'normal' has often led to large numbers of people being unfairly harmed and discriminated against. As another example, things that are considered 'extremist' in the United States are often considered quite 'normal' in other countries, whether those countries happen to be Europe or China or North Korea. People living in countries and cultures different from you will have different ideas of what it means to be 'normal' or 'extremist' and there is no objective truth to what 'normal' or 'extremist' actually is. All we can do is actually assess ideas based on the potential harm they cause, but this idea that it is hypocritical to deplatform someone because they are on the 'other side' is nonsense because the 'sides' are relative and don't exist to begin with. Websites like YouTube or Facebook are private entities and they have terms and conditions that cover what is or isn't acceptable on their platforms. Just like how a restaurant can kick out a customer that is abusing staff members, a website like a forum or social media platform can ban or kick people off the site for breaking the rules they set against things like bullying and hate speech. Just like how on this forum you would be banned for flamming/trolling other users, in principle it isn't a violation of people's freedom of speech or censorship for social media websites to ban people who don't follow their rules. In practice however, social media websites tends to unfairly punish small users and deliver false positive punishments based on lazy algorithms that look for specific key words and don't understand context, while large users with lots of followers like celebrities get away with bullying and breaking rules that would get normal people banned. The issue isn't that YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. has a political bias and is or isn't banning people with the wrong opinions, it's that they have huge double standards in terms of what they allow on the site and let large users with lots of followers get away with saying stuff that would get the rest of us banned because they're lazy and they want to make money.

If silicon valley techbros stopped worshipping The Algorithm™, trying to automate away all of human existence, and instead started hiring actual people to sort through shit like this, we'd start getting somewhere. But doing that is admitting that they're not the all-powerful computer gods they think they are so it'll never happen.

What on Earth are you talking about No, you wouldn't. This isn't a problem you can solve by throwing humans at it. These services grow exponentially year by year, and it is completely infeasible to hire people at that rate. Even if it was, it would be completely infeasible to actually pay them, and would cut even further into content creator's payouts. This applies to all maknstream online services; it's completely infeasible to have a moderation team to look at billions of hours of footage and make judgment calls. God, you're imagining something that isn't real. There isn't a dogmatic cult for ~THE COMPUTER~, it's a problem that can literally only be addressed by computers.

Corporations having such dominant control over discourse is dangerous, the government can't stop you protesting merely because you insulted the other side, nor should they. Public debate has increasingly moved towards online services who have full control over what you see and what gets censored. Being a non-government entity they don't have to follow the same rulebook, and can pretty much deny anybody access to a speech platform for any reason without consequence or oversight. For many of these channels they are in the minority, so external oversight is useless when the majority is willing to look the other way because their speech isn't being affected. I also find that extreme right wing youtubers to be removed far more than extreme left wing. Perhaps there are more right wing youtubers, and I would be interested to see some data on it.

Youtube might have said he didn't break any rules. But when I look at the policies they have in place he kinda does.

Yeah, have people sort through this manually.

That's one of the most idiotic things I've read all week. Do you even imagine how many videos are actually uploaded to Youtube? What you're proposing is physically impossible. The Algorithm™ is there for a reason, not because someone kinda wanted to fuck around with automation. Youtube would not exist without it, not in a way we're used to.

I'm curious, how many of those videos are actually ever going to be relevant? How many of those are ever going to get more than a couple hundred views, surely the small fry can be ignored allowing manual review on the content that'll actually reach a wider audience?

If some far left tankie start denying the gulags existed, willingly spread falsehoods and conspiracies and support ethnic genocide then I have zero problem if they get deplatformed. Some extreme greens are anti vax as well, and I have no problem with them being deplatformed, even though I literally vote green. We dont need thoses people in the discourse. Oh shit your narrative is falling apart Fuck bad faith actors spreading misinformation in todays politic climate, they only cause harm. People are dying because of theses liars profiting from their industry of lies and misinformation. Right wingers are shooting innocents, climate change denial is causing uncalculable harm, anti vax conspiracies are killing otherwise healthy children and adults, today, because of online platforms allowing them to do so. Again, the right wing guy who killed dozens of innocents people just a few months ago in NZ literally cited Laura Sauthern's youtube conspiracy videos full of lies, as an inspiration for killing brown people in cold blood. We're past the point where closing your eyes and acting like every single idea is equal and sacred works.

An allegation to be sure, but not an absurd one at all. Tucker Carlson's mainstreamed plenty of white supremacist talking points.

Because it's the only way to take the power away from Crowder, the person who started calling him a "GAYWONK". Anything is okay in the pursuit of being right apparently, even fabricating the truth like you are now.

This is why I don't trust YouTube to handle this, they will inevitably fuck up and remove harmless/educational content. How long before someone posting a HoI4 video with some wehrboo overtones gets their stuff removed even though, Germaniphilia aside, they aren't advocating for fascist/national socialist policies eg racial segregation, extermination etc. I don't think it'll be a great loss if flat earthers, climate change deniers and nazi-esque (ie murder/mistreat migrants, other races, LGBTs etc) are kicked off but this could easily turn into a witch hunt.

You seem to be misunderstanding something. PragerU and Crowder are not "dissenting opinions" or "beliefs that don't fall in line". They're propaganda channels that actively and maliciously, and provably spread false information. This isn't a matter of opinion. Climate change denial (which both of these channels do) for example, is actively dangerous, and they have no place in public discourse no matter how professional they look.

IIRC Coldroll doesn't believe in climate change either so good luck with that one

It will turn into a witchhunt Youtubes end goal isn't to give a shit about this type of content, it's to increase the corporate stronghold on content and push away the average content creators. They purged weed channels and plenty of other channels, and they're going to continue doing that. When they purged content to make it more kid friendly they basically ruined the site, all while IGNORING the problem of 'Elsa gate' content. This means nationalist content to them includes anti-nationalist content. Any content that talks about it will be targeted by the math, intentional or not. Just look at how mainstream news got a mysterious and complete headstart, and suddenly 'new media' gets fucking swamped. This is new VS old media. There is going to be less and less content.

Oh he's anti-science too? Good shit lol

My own channel got suspended because of this, apparently posting WW2 footage with music in the background is considered hate speech? Hell the only 2 god damn swastikas you see in all my videos are shown ran over by an american tank or burning. I have a video called fucking "Avenge the Motherland" about the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany but I'm promoting hate speech? Fuck that.

PragerU is also paid shill for oil industry. I have no info on Crowder being paid to promote anti-science views, but I won't be even a little bit surprised if he is. Like, fuck it, at this point I hope that he is.

That is not at all what anyone saying. There's a difference between holding a different opinion, and actively spouting and trying to defend racist, homophobic, sexist, and other such propoganda. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the right wing has recently gone off the fucking deep end into a pit of legitimately abhorrent behavior from fascistic tendancies to actively embracing racist views. This is not acceptable. I'm sick of the political narrative continuously shifting to the right, people actually accepting shit like Crowder and PragerU as acceptable sources who say worthwhile things despite being nothing but right wing propoganda mouths who keep trying to serve up a hefty dose of fearmongering to the general populace. FUCK THAT. People like Crowder and PragerU do not deserve a platform, not because I disagree with them, but because they are disingenuous bad faith actors who do nothing but stir up a pot of some of the most abhorrent behavior humans can exhibit so they can get more clicks. If there were far-left wing personalities who were doing the same thing as well, spouting off rhetoric about the bourgeoisie like it's 1919 in the Red Square, then I'd have the exact same opinion, but you don't see left wing personalities actively advocating for the hatred of entire groups of people based off nothing but their skin color or the religious book they read. And fuck me, don't even try to compare social justice to that shit. Twitter might get outraged at a guy and ruin his life, but at least it isn't causing people to go out and shoot up Mosques and Churches.