What caused them to reinstate this guy anyway? Was there some kind of statement? Why is he allowed to continue making offensive videos?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Motherboard: RDR2 Players Are Excited to Attack and Kill Feminists in the Game [update: re-instated]
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
It could be an interesting examination of the games NPC AI.
But that's probably not why it was made.
OP
OP
Because Keemstar contacted YouTube's head of gaming to bring the guy back.
Yeah, but when you bring a white guy to the KKK, nobody makes a big deal about it, double standards, something something ANTIFA, [insert other dumb bullshit here]What the actual fuck is this shit
Youtube was already in talks with Shirrako to bring his channel back.
The same reason Keemstar is banned from YouTube but they allow him to post content on a new channel because he supposedly has nothing to do with ownership of the channel
We should also stop jailing thieves and murderers, and instead fight crime by letting people know how wrong and dangerous thief and murder is. I see absolutely no way in which this approach could fail.
The ugly truth is that if you're not willing to advocate for something being actually done to curb hate speech, you probably don't give many fucks about hate speech at all.
Is there really nothing we can do? Is there anyone with some pull we can get to contact Youtube to get this guy banned?
Youtube is forcing people to censor cuss words yet they keep letting hateful content stay? Hell, they even punish LGBT content. Youtube seems to be well on its way to becoming an alt-right platform.
Youtube is forcing people to censor cuss words yet they keep letting hateful content stay? Hell, they even punish LGBT content. Youtube seems to be well on its way to becoming an alt-right platform.
but getting banned from a platform like YouTube - or any social media platform for that matter - isn't a form censorship. people banned from the platform are free to talk their shit elsewhere online. if a private company doesn't want to give hate speech a platform on their service, removing it isn't censoring it altogether - it just no longer has that specific platform to spread shit on. it shouldn't be equated to government censorship.
I was recommended his feminist punching video by YouTube before this whole thing blew up. I know many other people here were too.
That is not the type of shit I watch. There's no reason it should have been suggested to me.
Yeah i was suggested this guys videos constantly because I watched a video about Red Dead 2 Easter eggs.
And they kept showing up even though I was saying "Not interested" and hiding them from my feed. YouTube was pushing them on me
And they kept showing up even though I was saying "Not interested" and hiding them from my feed. YouTube was pushing them on me
The content aside, a source like youtube just saying "fuck this" and pulling things down from their site based on their own criteria for any reason in particular they feel necessary would be very concerning considering the amount of people who use youtube
For it to be valid, they would have to argue in effect that the content was breaking the rules and terms of service they themselves put down that the content uploader was breaking, which if you'll recall, i did actually make an argument for these videos in particular being able to be removed(as it shows violence against a particular minority class intentionally used for baiting in those anti feminist videos)
As i said earlier, regarding hate, i would advocate for there to be tons of response in calling it out, explaining clearly why such a thing is wrong, why the content creator in this case Shirrako, is in the wrong for attempting to exploit people's animosity for clicks. I am not a unilateral disarmament person, so as i said in my response to you before, if the situation becomes dangerous enough(through the indirect advocation or glorification of violence, like the feminist content might be grounds for) that is grounds for removal or restriction. But if the only option or grounds for speech is limiting it, i am against it in general.
Speech and non violent rhetoric, however extreme, is not something that should be lumped in with those other examples you mentioned, as that is a direct crime and violence.
I don't think you have any grounds to assume that about someone without knowing them.
That's not correct. Because flip it. Someone is speaking out on the grounds of say, israel, and in support of BDS. They get banned for antisemetic content.So your going to say that that isnt a form of censorship, because the platform youtube, doesnt like that kind of talk?
In general, many content creators are already targeted by significant demonetization and other schemes because of any controversial talk in general which has put many people, a lot of those not promoting hate under a lot of pressure to continue holding a platform. I don't think that's right, which is why i feel that these outlets, now which have a significant share of the population using said services should be treated like public utilities instead of being at the whim of a corporate office somewhere.
As another example, i brought it up before, but a private company like the NFL are free to ban people from the league because they are not legally bound against it? Kaepernick should have just gotten a job somewhere else, he's free to protest at a place he would not be attacked for it? And i don't feel right bringing up that kind of issue in the same space, but i feel its important to notice the similarities there.
I think people are under the impression i am defending hate speech in particular. More like, i am defending speech, hate included.
That's not the point I'm making. According to you, "telling people it's wrong and dangerous" is enough (optimal, even) to combat hate speech, so why wouldn't it be enough to combat theft and murder as well?
My grounds is the above statement: you don't care about hate speech enough to actually do anything about it.
A meaningless distinction when nobody here is attacking non-hate speech anyway. The only point of contention in this thread is hate speech.
Were you watching RDR2 videos? If so then the algorithm has seen people who watch RDR2 are likely to watch said video and so it continues to recommend to that set.
Because hate speech is speech. It is not direct action by person or persons in which direct intervention is required to stop it. Hate speech can be internalized in any fashion, through outright rejection, or radicalization, and if violence is not the outcome of that, then...
On the contrary, i care about hate speech, i just don't believe automatic banning is the only right way to combat its influence. Thus my defense of it not being banned outright. You seem to think that that is the only way to combat it and anyone who thinks otherwise "doesnt care". That's completely ridiculous. Not ridiculous is your view that deplatforming works, its a reasonable viewpoint. But the fact that you have generalized those who don't follow said view.
I've avoided this thread out of self-care, but I think I'm ready to dive into the fuckery.
I'm surprised it's Shirrako of all people who started this. I usually watched his videos to catch early gameplay of games, though I unsubscribed because he had this annoying habit of posting blatant spoilers. It's crazy how he decided to die on this hill, of all hills. Pathetic.
It's pretty nuts how this shit got over a million views.
I'm surprised it's Shirrako of all people who started this. I usually watched his videos to catch early gameplay of games, though I unsubscribed because he had this annoying habit of posting blatant spoilers. It's crazy how he decided to die on this hill, of all hills. Pathetic.
It's pretty nuts how this shit got over a million views.
So again, you don't care that much about hate speech. "It's not direct action", "no direct intervention is required to stop it", "fi violence is not the outcome..." and so on. All I see from you is justification that "it's not that bad" (as long as it's not directly and explicitly advocating for violence) and "we don't need to actually do anything to stop it.".
Your every single word contradicts your statement that you actually do care about it. You're not fooling anyone but yourself (if that).
You have utterly failed to explain why "saying it's dangerous" is a perfectly valid way to combat it, but not any other equally dangerous behaviour. It is, in fact, demonstrably wrong, because hate speech has been discussed and condemned at large, and yet here we are. You have provided zero proof that hate speech will someday go away magically because we just tell them, very earnestly, to stop. The only one making a ridiculous argument with absolutely no basis is you.
I've made no generalization at all: I'm addressing your specific statements and point of view. You insist no actual action is required to stop hate speech. This is objectively, demonstrably false. The end.
"this is fine" - Youtube
"shouldn't ban him because its not Direct Action™" - era user
Wait, how is this possible? Nobody told Shirrako that this wrong and dangerous and he should stop?
Oh, right, he's not explicitly calling to direct violent action. Nothing to see here, carry on.
YouTube: "This is fine."
Also YouTube: "YOU PUT THE WORD "GAY" IN YOUR TITLE?!? YOU JUST BEEN DEMONETIZE!!!"
I was where you are but deplatforming seems to work to disperse hubs of trash. There is research on this that has gathered data on how users from toxic sub reddits (I think it was a fat shaming one among others) were behaving when those subreddits were closed and if they just take that toxicity with them but the result was just full dispersing and everyone going on about normally. No doubt more research should be done on this because I think that study only observed the reddit ecosystem exclusively but it's still something of value knowing that you can make your own ecosystem healthier by removing toxic elements.
Alex Jones seems to be a pretty decent recent example when you look at his available numbers after deplatforming.
So given the results I'm moving more and more towards that it's just better to pressure towards banning stuff like that given that people actually don't care about being morally preached to but they will care if they have to actually spend effort to engage with this garbage. Basically it just seems infinitely more effective to not allow these things if your goal is to prevent the spread and concentration of garbage like that.
We're just talking past each other.
I say, every action outside of direct banning, and only in certain cases banning should be considered as speech should be protected as a priority. You don't seem to have accepted my answer and have already seemed to mischaracterize my view, so let's just leave it at that.
the problem is that when you don't curb and look into hate speech online, the perpetrators might end up killing people. see some of the terrorist attacks that have recently happened in the US. it's nice to say "oh, that guy who attacked that yoga studio had the right to post his misogynist bullshit online!", but for the women he killed it's already too late.
And you're ignorant to the results of your own suggestions as well as the alternative you're ignorantly fighting. Deplatforming isn't censorship. It's not a violation anyone's speech. It works.
Such as what? I have yet to see you suggest any other "action outside of direct banning" besides telling them to pretty please stop it.
You'd think almost losing your livelihood would be a wake up call to probably not keep doing that shit, but that dipshit goes and kidnaps a Black NPC to give to the KKK, like WTF? Shame he was given a second chance.
I don't think such a thing is possible. Overestimating them on the other hand...
I think that poster is getting at that normalizing the behavior makes people get desensitized to it. Regardless whether they know it's wrong, they'll do it for the LULs like this shitheel is doing. And then make money from it.
I've said it multiple times. I'm not arguing on the merits of success or failure of my personal viewpoint in regards to shutting down voices. If you want to ban someone from saying something whatever it may be, obviously banning them from saying it or deplatforming them will do the job. I'm arguing for protecting speech first and foremost.
In this scenario, he also posted violent rhetoric multiple times and subscribed to things he would advocate for doing. In that case, he should have been looked into by the authorities. Banning him likely would not have stopped his rampage, but it never needed to get that far.
Yes, and as i said previously, i belive that shirrako may have violated the terms of service by indirectly calling for violence against feminists. Which is why if they had gone through the trouble of banning him, i don't see why they lifted his restriction. It being a game doesn't mean anything in regards to the agenda put on display
No, you're not. Let me show you the difference:
"We should protect all speech because reason X" -> Arguing for protecting all speech.
"We should protect all speech" -> Not an argument.
You seem to believe like protecting all speech including hate speech is a sacred ideal that is virtuous in itself, needs no further explanation, and even somehow makes you "more right" than anyone arguing against it. In reality, in the absence of a justification, it's nothing but dogma.
It's the exact same scenario in both cases, but I guess hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?
So... you now agree he should, in fact, be deplatformed? *confused*
YouTube is not a town square or a public space. It's a Web site owned by a company, and that company is free to set the rules. By extension, that company is free to kick users off its service based on those rules.
If a company that owns a platform is not OK with hate speech, they have the right to ban it from their platform. YouTube is no exception.
I am completely not understanding why YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are doing nothing about this growing problem.
This user has been suspended. What was this Tweet and who posted it?
I could have sworn i have posted reasons why i advocate for free speech multiple times. The view of not banning speech on the grounds of it being something i personally dislike or find reprehensible, subscribing to the idea of not supplanting speech through authoritarian means due to the situations in which that can flip depending on who wants to ban controversial content for whatever arbitrary reason...yes i'm pretty sure i have mentioned a few of my reasons quite a few times in here.
Also, which scenarios are the same? Shirrako and some of the terrorist's online postings? Yes, that's true. That is why i have said in this very thread that youtube reinstating Shirrako's account or at the very least not deleting the videos in question doesn't really make sense, as they could easily tie those feminist videos he did to promoting direct threats of violence against feminists, which would in fact be breaking youtube's terms of service. In this situation, banning is an appropriate measure IMO.
I never disagreed. Have you been listening? As a general rule, i don't agree with silencing speech. however in certain cases, in regards to violence in particular, an argument can be made for that. In which case i would think its a matter of course.
I'm so sad that the industry will probably reward Rockstar for the amount of freedom this game affords. So sad.
Don't remember the name of the account that tweeted it. but it was a screencap of Shirrako's newest video. Was titled "what happens if you take a black man to the KKK". Thumbnail was a tied up black man over his characters shoulder with the KKK in the background.
All the controversy and outrage generated him more attention, clicks and subscribers, its no doubt improving his livelihood. And he clearly knows it.
Edgiest post tonight.
But yeah, fuck this guy, his content is pretty disturbing in all honesty. Clearly some pretty severe hang ups, his whole channel seems to be expressive of that.
The tweet was still open on Twitter on my app cause I forgot to close it so I screencapped it.
Guessing alt-righters reported the tweet and Twitter staff just saw the video and banned the guy, yet the dude who made the video is still on Twitter and infact used Twitter to get his Youtube channel back.
It's not rocket science to see what's going on here. This is nothing new in today's time. Caucasians gamers use FPS games to express how they feel about minorities (especially Blacks) all the time. Being fixated who they shoot are those they hate for their own agenda and pleasure. This is no different and definitely needs to be checked.