I guess they could, but their power is in mainstreaming themselves, not being stuck in their own echo chamber. If they were smarter, they’d just play by the platform’s rules to keep the audience they want. Don’t know Rubin.
-
-
Replying to @mikeczyk @TeamYouTube
It sounds like you see “mainstream” and “echo chamber” as mutually exclusive categories? Wouldn’t you consider cable news a class of echo chamber? Do we legit have pundits from any one of them routinely engaging one another, or any well-rep. counter argument in good faith?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
On some level, we all construct our own echo chambers with voices that affirm our own views. But the way markets and algorithms have segmented us has exacerbated this problem. And I see
#VoxAdpocolypse as an extension of this dangerous trend.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jakeclayson @TeamYouTube
Yeah cool but I see people that think they can openly be racist, homophobic and sexist in public discourse as a more dangerous trend. Just to be straight - you’re arguing for them to stay platformed spewing hate speech, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeczyk @TeamYouTube
I’d rather have hate speech out in the open for the same reason I want transparency in government; I want dangerous hate and lies exposed where it can be addressed, not hidden in the shadows where it can grow and conspire.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jakeclayson @TeamYouTube
When I hear “out in the open” I just hear you wanting it legitimized on the same level as rational thought. It can still be found. These people write articles and books, but we don’t need to have a debate about why they think certain people are lesser.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeczyk @TeamYouTube
How does “out in the open” equate to legitimized? Does being on YT really legitimize a viewpoint? I’ll buy that inviting them onto a national TV show for debate can do that, but not a democratized platform that hosts all sorts of crap indiscriminately.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jakeclayson @TeamYouTube
I guess could you point me to someone that was deplatformed or that has had their content censored that wasn't breaking TOS? I'm having a real hard time finding your angle.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mikeczyk @TeamYouTube
Not sure. Again, any company is free to deplatform for TOS breaches. Maybe this is one - haven’t looked into it, only watched a few Crowder vids long ago. No 1st Amndt. has been violated, but the CULTURE of free speech and debate is stifled when we rush to deplatform.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jakeclayson @TeamYouTube
He’s only been not allowed to monetize the videos where he’s hocking the “socialism is for fags” shirts. He’s still able to post. On the flip, isn’t the other side just as guilty of violating free speech when you try to tell YouTube they have to do something w/ their platform?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I haven’t been tracking their statements, and I’d agree (as I did with xdck) that legally compelling YT would be a 1st A (and 5A) violation, not a 1A defense. But the 1A “doesn’t shield you[tube] from criticism or consequences.” Users have a right to complain about features.
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.