Soon to be found on Telegram I guess. Seem to be the only growing platform that does not ban opinions. Probably because they do not need to make advertisers happy.
Conclusion: Ads still ruin the internet.
Conclusion: Ads still ruin the internet.
They aren't interested in discourse, they only want to spread their garbage while cowordly hiding behind a dated concept of free (hate) speech. Molyneux especially dodges every debate where his oposition is somewhat knowledgeable.
Explain further how free speech is a dated concept we don't need anymore.
This type of content does not use the platform in good faith. It's only objective is to trap listeners in a spiral of extremist content, basically brainwashing them. In some cases this even leads to violent acts. E.g. there have been multiple terrorist acts where it was determined that this extremist content played a crucial role in the enabling of the perpetrators.
We typically do not allow direct incentives of violence or concrete threats. I don't think we should should we allow content where we know that it indirectly leads to more violence.
Having free speech but only for people who say mainstream things is equivalent to saying "I like the world as it exists today". That is conservatism by definition.
White-nationalism was tried and didn't work to say the least. Content creators, like the ones banned, advocate for a world of 50-200 years ago. They are conservatives. Limiting their reach is anything BUT conservatism by definition.
Also, there are plenty of conservatives content creators who user lies and deception to spread their dated believes. The ban only targeted the worst of the worst, the ones that actually advocate for (white)ethnostates.
What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.
> What is more dangerous to society than white nationalists, are social media websites that want to be our public spaces for discussion while also policing which ideas are acceptable to talk about.
White nationalists kill and social media websites share some part of the blame. To say that the more pressing issue is that they police which ideas are acceptable is laughable when you consider the great extend they allow for extreme views. There are literally still holocaust denies still allowed on their platforms.
Also "hate speech" is a made up nonsense term. Telegram only prohibits "call for violence". Which is kinda where free speech ends. It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery.
Also just for clarification I listened/watched none of the people that got banned I don't care what their opinions are. I care about the right to express them. It absolutely doesn't matter whether I agree with what they say or not. I agree with free speech because any alternative is worse.
> It of course can be tricked by clever use of language. Instead of "Go out and destroy statues and the people who protect them!" which would be a call for violence. one could says "I think everyone should go one and destroy statues and the people who protect them." now it would be an opinion. The good thing is, the people who actually call for violence like terrorists usually don't bother with such trickery.
That's literally exactly what Molyneux and others do. Instead of directly advocating for violence they say things like: 'Whites and non-whites would be better of in their own ethnostates'. Now how do we get there? Well the same people also say that the current political system is corrupt to the core, where ((them)) (a jewish conspiracy) will hold the 'white man' down. Consequently some of their viewers take the matter in their own hands and express violence towards immigrants, most often any kind of brown poeple. Examples include the Canada mosque or the Christchurch perpetrator. Real world examples there hate speech led to vile acts.
As I stated above I never listened to anything what this Molyneux said, I do not share or defend his opinions I defend everyone right to express their opinions. Also your quote is prime example of flawed logic. There is zero call for violence in 'Whites and non-whites would be better of in their own ethnostates'. It's not even close to my example about how a call for violence can be formulated as opinion. >"how do we get there?" Peacefully maybe? Maybe not? Maybe its just a really stupid idea and there is no reason to find a way to get there? But anyway there is no call for violence anywhere in the expressed opinion. We could "solve" the wolds poverty problem through mass murdering, that doesn't mean, when I express my opinion to fight poverty, its now a call for violence right? Even if you don't see a peaceful way its still not a call for violence.
>Well the same people also say that the current political system is corrupt to the core[...] That is expressing an opinion.
>Consequently some of their viewers take the matter in their own hands and express violence[...] Consequently? Really? Sneaky false cause logical fallacy you got there. If there is no "call for action" you can not claim the action to be a result of it. People who did something happened to read something many other read too, not people who read something did something because of what they read. Some people are just sh*t to other people and they may justify that with whatever they read and interpret that however they want and even truly believe they do the right thing but is not a cause of what they found to justify it. If millions of people read the Quran and a tiny percentage of them feel the need to kill people because the Quran told them to, don't you think the people are probably the problem and if there would be no Quran they would use whatever there is to justify their killings anyway. And BTW the Quran does in fact contain calls for action but is not banned on the platforms that ban simple expressions of opinions.
In many countries it IS defined in such a way.
>"how do we get there?" Peacefully maybe? Maybe not? Maybe its just a really stupid idea and there is no reason to find a way to get there? But anyway there is no call for violence anywhere in the expressed opinion.
If you argue against every option but violence, you indicate your support indirectly.
> Consequently? Really?
Yes. The radicalization patterns are well documented and it starts with self proclaimed intellectuals who use lies to lead viewers down a certain path that leads to even more extreme views.
Same holds for Muslim extremists. And while we don't ban the Quran, we DO ban or investigate some religious groups. Now, this is in some ways more easy because they often meet in real life.
Absolutely not. See my example above about solving the worlds poverty problem. I've never heard of a peaceful solution that I think would work. Therefore I would argue against all ideas and uncover their flaws. That doesn't mean I would support a violent solution at all. Also the "implied support" you seem to talk about is not an action or a call to action it's an opinion. Opinions again go under free speech and it still doesn't matter if the opinions is somehow flawed/wrong/offensive to you or someone else.
For example I could express the opinion that earth would be a better place without humans. That's not a call for action/violence even if is almost certainly impossible to find a non-violent way to achieve this.
>[...]who use lies to lead viewers down a certain path[...]
Lies are protected by free speech if they are expressed to voluntary listeners with no relationship between the parties. There is really no difference between expressing a objectively wrong opinion and intentionally expressing something you know is wrong. See flatearther/hollow earther, Alien abduction believers, homeopaths etc. etc. Whether they believe the crap they teach or intentionally lie never mattered. Homeopaths probably causes thousands of death per year and its a billion dollar fraudulent but legal industry that causes real damage to people who practice it but also to tax payers. Ever heard of homeopaths getting banned for hate speech? For lying? For leading "viewers down a certain path that leads to even more extreme views" like abandoning real medicine?
>we DO ban or investigate some religious groups.
We do that with right and left-wing extremest groups too based on real investigations the applicable laws and court rulings which should respect free speech.
Now with all the reasons mentioned why we should not banning opinions, how about telling us why we should? Does removing some ethnostates sympathizer from YouTube really solve a problem? And if so which one?
There are people who openly say that division though zero gives infinite. There are people who openly say the earth is flat. There are people who openly say there is a dude in the sky that will burn you for you wrongdoings after you die. There are people who openly say some races are subhumans. There are people who openly say gays can be healed.
Where is the difference in all of them? We probably agree that all of them are wrong so that can't be the factor that makes some of these opinions bannable and others not. I'm not incapable of moral judgement for me, I don't want moral judgements be part of the decision making. Because what is banned and what not should not depend on moral judgement of someone. Moral judgement is biased. My own moral judgement is, so why would I want anyone else's moral to be enforced for all. Id rather have 99 garbage opinions not banned than a single falsely banned opinion. Because I can ignore the 99 garbage opinions but I can't "nu-ignore" what I don't knew was there.
What you seem to be saying is that morality is subjective, and therefore it should be immune from critical scrutiny. Am I off base?
EDIT: just checked their faq and they claim they are non profit for now.