"Gay sprite", "angry little queer", insinuating that his love for chips is equivalent to his supposed appetite for penises, the list goes on. Just cause he self identifies does not give bullies a free pass to use the same terms in clearly hurtful rhetoric.https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136057689585410050 …
-
1:25 -
That is true; you're right, he shouldn't have said those things, however are you aware of the differences between a web platform and a web publisher?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣 Retweeted 𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣
I'm not sure why it's relevant, honestly.
@TeamYouTube themselves said they were hurtful at the very least, which theoretically violates their own terms of service, which is the crux of the whole issue.https://twitter.com/The_CO_Atheist/status/1136741293382672396 …𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣 added,
𝙎𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙀𝙜𝙖𝙣 @The_CO_AtheistReplying to @NoLogiclFallacy @mtraceyExcept their harassment policy literally states hurtful personal comments will be removed, and@TeamYoutube literally stated the comments were hurtful, (https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1136055351885815808 …) pic.twitter.com/8FtkvaRpwG2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
They *have* to act as a public square and give everyone equal treatment unless they want to be considered a publisher, in which they would have to be liable for all content uploaded, and since this is pushing the boundary so far
@gaywonk may have just broke the whole platform1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
I mean, it kinda deserves to be shattered/amended if it's going to tolerate this clearly toxic behavior that accomplishes nothing at best and at worst encourages a near endless mob of harassment towards the identified target.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
But the problem is tens of thousands of people make their livelihood off of YouTube, would you be willing to just kick them to the streets because some dude couldn't handle be criticized in a derogatory way?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
You can criticize an argument without resorting to calling someone a lispy queer, gay sprite, etc. If it was up to me, I'd kick them all out if they really can't stop themselves from engaging in it. I just don't care, it's unacceptable behavior.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
He could've behaved a lot better too, although banning him altright would be angering 3.8+ million people. They should've just demonetized the video for not following the creator guidelines and left it at that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
As far as I'm aware, all that's being asked is that they remove the videos that violate YT's harassment policy, or demonetize them at the very least. Personally, I've concluded that Crowder is a repeat bad faith actor so deplatforming him seems like the best outcome for everyone
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
Carlos Maza has repeatedly demanded that Crowder be deplatformed even after Crowder's whole channel got demonetized, leaving him and the men and women plus person he's currently helping through cancer treatment on their own, off Youtube subscription based site
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
And like I've said, Crowder 100% deserves to be deplatformed for his own consistent behavior of being a toxic bully as well as being intellectually dishonest and/or a bad-faith agent on multiple occasions. Full stop.
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.