YouTube vs free speech

Pro-homosexual voices have almost a monopoly on public comment so it is bordering on the totalitarian to shut down one of the few voices on the other side, which is what we see below.

And Crowder, the censored voice, actually said nothing about homosexuality in general at all.  He just referred to one person as "queer", which is only marginally "incorrect" these days. So the censorship has risen to a point of hysteria.

The fact that homosexuality was illegal until a few decades ago tells us that there is a large and diverse body of opinion out there on the subject. There are undoubtedly many people out there who still find it distasteful.

I personally think that homosexuality has been glorified in recent years and that glorifying it is just as obnoxious as making it illegal

What I would like to see is tolerance of different opinions on the subject -- but homosexuals and their allies hardly seem to know the meaning of tolerance.  They preach it on occasions but it is only their own view that they in fact tolerate, which is no tolerance at all

I would be happiest of all if I never heard about homosexuality  again but that is not allowed it seems


As it is, homosexuals have become the royalty of social media, whom none dare criticize.  It's a situation just waiting for President Trump to exploit to his advantage.  He's pretty critical of social media already


A spat between two rival YouTubers on opposing sides of the Culture Wars is not normally news. But the clash between right-wing commentator Steven Crowder and Vox video journalist Carlos Maza has hit the headlines, because it has led to a tightening of YouTube’s content policies, adding further restrictions to what can and cannot be posted on that platform.

Last week, Maza edited together some of Crowder’s videos in which he makes fun of Maza’s ethnicity, sexuality and voice. Crowder refers to Maza as a ‘lispy queer from Vox’, a ‘gay Mexican’ and ‘Mr Gay Vox’. There’s no doubt that Crowder is obnoxious, bigoted and infantile. However, being insulted by your political opponents is par for the course in public life and should not be grounds for having them censored. Initially, YouTube appeared to recognise this.

When Maza tweeted the video as part of a Twitter thread, it went viral. YouTube responded by saying it had reviewed the videos in question and determined that ‘individually, the flagged videos did not violate our Community Guidelines’. In a tweet, it stated: ‘Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.’

With this refusal to censor Crowder’s videos, YouTube found itself accused of inaction and of enabling hatred towards gay people and ethnic minorities. Maza tweeted to his followers: ‘You have to raise hell. Use their platform against them. Hold them accountable for their neglect.’ And raise hell they did.

The next day, under considerable pressure from Twitter and the liberal press, YouTube reversed its stance. It demonetised Crowder’s channel – preventing the raising of money through advertising – and removed some of his older videos. But despite his successful scalp, Maza, a long-time proponent of censorship and de-platforming, was not satisfied. ‘Crowder’s revenue stream isn’t from YouTube ads. It’s from selling merch and “Socialism Is For Fags” shirts to millions of loyal customers, that YouTube continues to drive to his channel’, he tweeted. Only Crowder’s total expulsion from the internet or the removal of his means of making money would be enough to satisfy the new self-appointed censors.

In order to justify its volte face, YouTube pushed out a new hate-speech policy. Given the speed of its u-turn, the policy was presumably cobbled together on the hoof. In a blog post announcing the changes, YouTube vowed to tackle ‘extremist content’ and to remove any video which promotes or seeks to justify ‘discrimination, segregation or exclusion’.

As is to be expected with such a wide-ranging definition of ‘hate’, obnoxious shock jocks like Crowder were not the only ones caught up in it. For instance, Ford Fischer who runs the news channel News2Share, received an email from YouTube telling him that his channel had been demonetised under the new rules. He started his channel in 2014, uploading raw footage of the Black Lives Matter movement. But his channel was demonetised and his revenue was cut for hosting footage of the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. Fischer told Newsweek that he had no intention of promoting the alt-right: ‘The work is meant as raw footage, so people can critique and analyse the tactics and things being said.’

Another account to be terminated was that of the award-winning history teacher, Scott Allsopp. Allsopp’s channel violated the new rules because his GCSE tutorials on the Second World War featured clips of Adolf Hitler’s speeches and other Nazi propaganda. YouTube has since reinstated Allsopp’s channel, but its initial action shows that in future it is likely to censor first and ask questions later.

YouTube’s response to the spat between Crowder and Maza illustrates how chaotic and opaque internet censorship has become. New, wide-ranging content rules are being devised and implemented at the behest of journalists and the Twittermob. The consequences can be far-reaching, with many innocent users being silenced. If Silicon Valley continues down this censorious path, the free, open internet will soon be a distant memory.

SOURCE



2 comments:

  1. Nowadays, if you work in education or welfare you can get the sack for being homophobic… well, not if you are a woman. Women can voice opinions that men get sacked for voicing. If you are a man and homophobic you can soon find yourself being declared unfit for your position in education or welfare.

    And to be declared homophobic by your colleagues you do not have to be against homosexuality, you only have to be indifferent to it. You only have to not want to celebrate it.

    I do feel sad seeing prepubescent children walking home from school waving little rainbow flags given to them by their pro-homosexuality teachers. I feel said when every girl on the entire school girl’s under thirteen football team and nearly all the other girls say they are lesbian. That schools encourage that seems unhealthy.

    Personally, the thought of anal sex makes me feel sick. I can’t help it; it just does. But I don’t mind others celebrating it. If they like it and want to celebrate it, that is fine by me. Just leave me out of it. I am not against homosexuality. I have just had enough of being expected to celebrate it.

    I think homosexuality should be allowed but it should not be encouraged i.e. by making it sacrosanct - beyond criticism.

    Nothing should be sacrosanct, that is, beyond critical thought and beyond debate. But homosexuality now has sacrosanct status. It is in effect, something now exalted and worshipped.

    It is a historical fact that civilisations that exalted homosexuality soon collapsed. Most homosexuals, particularly lesbians, are radical lefties who are quick to say they want western society with its capitalism, Christianity, and white male patriarchy to collapse. Homosexuality does seem to desire and even obtain the destruction of civilisations.

    Logically, homosexuality cannot be right because if something is right, then if everyone does it, everyone will be alright. But if everyone were homosexual then everyone would soon die out. The human race would disappear. What else could do that except a deadly plague?

    The first law of nature is that the species survive. Homosexuality defies that first law of nature. And what are the laws of nature but the laws of God? Surely, God and nature do not disagree.

    If western society wants to destroy itself, wash itself down the drain, then so be it. But I do not want to contribute to it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is an old saying in my part of the world, let the dogs fuck, they are not mine.

    ReplyDelete

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them