But you see that's part of a much bigger problem, YouTube is a web platform (to not get sued for every piece of copyrighted thing uploaded to the site) and this is pushing the line pretty far since, even though it is hurtful, doesn't break the first amendment
-
-
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
The issue isn't 1A, it's that they're refusing to do anything when presented pretty damning evidence of a large creator violating their own harassment policy, which they themselves admitted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
Yeah, I would think people in YouTube are also arguing a ton as well since they're harassment policy is so vague (in general) and is subject to change over time. For all we know, this could be perfectly acceptable language in 3 years
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
I mean, I guess we can re-evaluate in the future, but in the present, Crowder's actions seems to pretty succinctly fall into the definitions of toxic, demeaning, abusive, harassment, homophobic, insulting, etc. We have to draw a line somewhere, and it should be well before this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
In my opinion, YouTube should have just left the situation alone. Although what he did say was very demeaning, their involvement gives them a political bias due to these channels being so outspokenly left and right. All their actions did was lead to people losing their livelihood
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
Does a guilty man in court argue that he shouldn't be convicted because it will threaten his livelihood? If these people can't refrain from being toxic assholes, then that's on them. They should have the personal responsibility and self-awareness to better themselves as humans.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
Actually yes, a guilty man in court can plead for a lesser sentence, to the jury, if it not only affects his livelihood but also the people around him, like people he takes care of or family. If you researched Crowder you would see he's currently employing 10+
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
Seems like those employees should have the self-agency to recognize just how toxic/tenuous their boss is and calculate the risks from there. I still don't see this as something that should be tolerated whatsoever just because some people are dependent on him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
He's a comedian, it's an act and a gig just like any other late night show host. To tell them to calculate their risks beforehand is heinous, that's like making fun of people who lost their homes in earthquakes for living in a earthquake prone zone
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
Its still inexcusable behavior. If you want to set up an insurance fund for employees who lose their employment because their boss was an idiot who literally couldn't stop himself from pointlessly harassing others, I guess I'd be fine with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But then again, like I said before, what if in the future this language isn't bad at all? Wouldn't that be very hypocritical just to go with how society is *feeling* at the moment? Imagine losing years and years of work only for it to have been lost for, in the end, nothing
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.