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

If you think Crowder and PragerU are extreme and need to be deplatformed, it says more about you than them.

Okay, how is climate denial not extreme? What do you consider extreme, "kill all Jews"?

First of all I don't think hes a literal nazi. He is not a member of the nationalist socialist party. But if you repeatedly take time out of your day to support the same causes as white nationalists and talk in the same way as white nationalists and associate with white nationalists. At some point unless I have a very good reason to believe agreement/shared values isn't the case then I should assume the worst given the circumstances. If he is essentially doing what a nazi would do if a nazi were in his position then for all intents and purposes its not such a massive leap to say that it becomes hard to draw the difference. Which is why I don't bother and just call a duck a duck and a piece of shit a piece of shit. I'm far too lazy to spend time giving more attention and views to this waste of space so I cannot provide a massive quote pile. I do however recall him having an entire video on "the whole nazis were actually socialists all along(((!!!)))" shtick. Its a frequent talking point for those who want to distance people from an accurate understanding of what nazis are and were and its not uncommonly used by neo nazis.

relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejdlkfXwPQc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI put together the videos are over 1h40min long, so i understand that the people who most need to watch them probably won't. suffice to say, crowder does not espouse moderate politics

Why? Stating this as an argument means fuck all. Why does it say more about him, than them? They are, after all, doing nothing but spreading objectively false information. You, as such a stalwart defender of truth, justice, and the american way, really shouldn't be looking at them as anything but charlatan liars. Why DO you view them differently than a factual reading of them, and their behaviour?

Yeah I have a feeling a lot of memeshit and dark humor is going to end up caught in the crossfire as bots cant tell genuine extremism from memetastic shitposting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HurC8aTsVCE Defending pragerU says a lot about you when they're historical revisionists denying colonial crimes, and lie about everything else. pure propaganda.

Crowder is a straight up liar who directly and intentionally misrepresents information, for the sake of furthering his agenda you'd have to be straight up in denial to pretend he isn't extreme

If this is the definition of extreme, then boy do I have news for you.

Where was I saying "that's what makes them extreme" what

Alright, what kind of shit would he have to spew to count as extreme? Or are we just so fucking right shifted that climate denial, Nazi apologizing, trans phobia, and misogyny aren't extreme?

A lot of people take very hard stances. Unless I'm missing something, he doesn't espouse any stances outside of your typical conservative.

Isn't this just stating 'the typical conservative in my opinion is extreme'?

Then maybe we need to redefine somethings here? Being anti LGBT is an extreme view. They're fucking people, and you(not you specifically) do not have a right to disregard them, their vote, their voice, or their stance in society because they were born different. Being "pro white" is an extreme stance, acting like white people are in any way shape or form discriminated against by a "systematic" approach is an extreme view unsupported by any aspect of American society. The idea of the "Great replacement" is a flat out extremist view meant to galvanize people into being afraid of the "Other". Currently, it seems to me, that the side of the political spectrum most devoted to "freedom" is most actively working to restrict who gets "Freedom" from at risk groups. That's extremism, and needs to be called out as such.

I personally consider it crankish, but that's not the same thing. I define fringe, far left or right, or extreme more concretely as wholesale rejections of liberalism. I also connect the erosion of previously accepted meanings for these words to the erosion of any sort of civic virtue left in democracy, which is connected to violence and repression that is never tempered and always degenerates. I don't see why I shouldn't view calls for banning PragerU or Crowder as part of that excess. I would also dispute the idea the other guy's claim on irrational fear-mongering since it's pretty evident that the modern scope of crises in our day, such as climate change, have consistently been used to create a politician's mandate for an equally-sized scope of government intervention that sometimes needs be pushed through. I consider that the basis of PragerU's attacks on the case for climate change and action needed. So long as power is involved, people will be driven to attack the logic justifying it. I am giving you a factual reading. Crowder is not a Nazi nor is PragerU some danger than needs to be scrubbed from society. Suggesting otherwise is proposing a spook to fuel a moral panic that, unlike the truth you mention, is not self-regulating. I don't even remotely agree with their characterization of events and figures and don't view the empire very positively (instead I understand the nationalist and left-wing forces against it, as problematic as they could be), but to pretend the idea that it didn't have a role in the export of liberalism and capitalism is wrong. The empire was part of the historical basis for not only globalization, but the formation of a modern national identity and government in many places. This isn't a right-wing revisionist opinion, this is something even Marx believed. There would be no modern Arab or Indian nationalism without it. Where PragerU goes deeply wrong is in suggesting that this is part of the empire's purpose and a moral justification, which I would agree is chauvinism.

I feel your dispute is pretty baseless and is as thin as cheesecloth on this matter. The basis of PragerU's attacks on the case for climate change is their money comes from oil.

So you're just going to deny that he holds views that fall into the well of "extremism" because he's on your side? Nice

I appreciate your language here with 'feel' and avoiding making a hard claim. I think that factors into it, but I would just suggest there's an overlap of interests here between those oil interests and that of more conservative and non-urban parts of society that don't like the growth of government and see it as part of the regimentation they want to avoid and don't trust to take care of them. Government inherently narrows the range of viable lifestyles and values, its expansion is never very peaceful. He's not on my side, I'm not a libertarian or a PragerU fan. I do disagree with your idea of extremism and what requires scrubbing from society, yes. I consider it abuse of power and part of a moral panic.

So you can put words like "Scrub from society" in my mouth, and you can maintain your "civility", but I can't ask you simple questions like why you don't condemn shit that is objectively false and harmful because like in the last thread, it's "beyond the scope of the topic" or whatever half assed excuse you used there? Look, you can pretend these people are harmless, they're not. They're causing verifiable harm, and you don't seem to be concerned in any way, shape, or form. You are however, vastly more concerened that people hear shit that is harmful, and are upset about it, and want to have some way to react to it beyond just "let it happen". These views are creating pockets of misinformation that leads to extremism that leads to violence. But you're only ever vocally worried about the left, and all the things the left does wrong. Why can you not for one moment acknowledge that a group you "don't support" like PragerU is literally a propaganda wing for the right? Why can we NOT critique that? Why can we not ask that such a thing not be given a platform?

Is massive disruption to the global population, famine, and war 'more peaceful' in your opinion than not allowing the oil lobby to misinform the American public to give themselves a shield to hide behind while they knowingly continue to mine profit out of future blood and suffering? Also I find it ridiculous to assert as a maxim that everything a government does 'narrows the range of viable lifestyles and valuables'. Please kick that argument to the road as it has nowhere to go. Yes, and I'm sure criminals dislike it when the police are expanded in their local area. Should we be 'understanding' of that and go 'well, they should have their voice'? If someone was spreading misinformation about how a meteor was not going to impact the earth in 2 years, thus causing plans to stall to save the planet and thus lead to truly awesome despair and suffering would you say shutting them down would be 'an abuse of power and a part of moral panic'? Is it immoral to you for the government to step in and stop someone from causing harm to others?

You already pretend to be an "enlightened centrist". All you do is shit on the left and talk about how the left is wrong, and is the sole cause of issues in our society. How can you possibly believe for a second, that anyone is dumb enough to just believe this act? If you truly are shitting on "both sides" as you say, why have you never made any real criticism of anything the right has ever done on this site? Seriously.

That's the thing though, isn't it? It's not just crankish, it's extreme - it's unapologetic and uncompromising rejection of facts. Sure, it's all done under the guise of enlightened rational skepticism, but it's pretty transparent because we don't see the same scrutiny applied to sources that attack climate change and the extent of human involvement in it. "Extreme views" don't necessarily have to be obviously political. Anti-scientific views, like climate denial or anti-vax are also extreme. And both are extremely harmful to individuals and society as a whole.

I don't give a shit how many hours of videos are uploaded every second, you don't have to sort through every single 30 second clip of grandma singing happy birthday that will only ever get watched by 7 people. If a channel starts getting outsized attention for being host to racists, white nationalists, and bigots, then you get people to look at it. Why are channels promoting actual hate speech seemingly given a free pass while history channels get struck down immediately? How does a parody video consisting entirely of sound clips recorded by a guy get instantly copyright claimed and forced to share profits? Whatever the fuck they're doing now is clearly broken as shit and so far their only response has been to keep tweaking whatever automated systems they're using in the hopes of never having to hire another person. If YouTube can't sustain their current size without using shitty algorithms that can't differentiate historical footage from actual hate speech and targeted harassment, then the whole site can go die in a fire.

It's not that they're extreme. It's that they're pushing extremely problematic views like white replacement, climate change denial, and extreme nationalism.

You know if someones views are literally "LGBT people dont deserve rights/are subhuman" they should never be allowed to espouse their beliefs on any public platform ever. "Freedom of speech" is honestly not worth the infestation of bigots that inevitably follow.

Sorry, I think we're talking past each other. As I said, I was using extreme specifically in the sense of something that can't be based on and therefore assaulted by reason, which is distinct from crankish. PragerU's arguments evidently can be assaulted by reason since people have posted a number of critiques of PragerU videos, all of which are freely funded and spread by regular people in a self-regulating system far more preferable than management by power very few people have access to.

PragerU videos get way more airtime for being a "small" youtube channel than their size would normally allow. They're funded by well heeled oil barons who stand to gain from the ignorance of the electorate. Sure, some people can show how they're factually wrong, but they're peddling that inaccuracy as "truth" and for millions of people, that will now be their "Truth". Why does exposure to ideas you happen to be more "friendly" to worry you less than "leftist" ideas? Why does outright lies from "Your side" worry you less than people wanting to stop that? I don't think an oil company will be any less restrictive than a govenrment, in fact I would argue they'd be more restrictive than you think. I believe this is true for a crony capitalist society far more than it would be for a society with a strong government. You always talk about how the "LEFT" degrades democracy but never how oil barons who literally stand to profit from degrading democracy are at fault I can't take you seriously honestly

Scaling problems require scaling solutions, and hiring more people doesn't scale. Even more so when youtube is already not profitable.

I don't believe Youtube is not profitable. Google says it "barely breaks even" but they have never offered proof. I think it's just something they say to scare away competitors.

I'll believe that it isn't directly profitable. They get a lot of juicy data out of it (which google values) but I just don't see it producing that many tangible assets. Most videos make no ad revenue at all, and a LOT of content creators upload super long videos that never get any views; see, everyone trying to become a LPer, vlogging into the void, etc.