That's up to you. Do you want to support YouTube, the creators, both, or neither? I only want to support the creators. I've been adblocking YouTube for a long time now, long before Premium (or...
That's up to you. Do you want to support YouTube, the creators, both, or neither? I only want to support the creators.
I've been adblocking YouTube for a long time now, long before Premium (or Red) was available in Canada because a) I don't like their business policies, and b) I feel they are amoral and a net negative to society. I stopped bothering with whitelisting only for my favourite content creators as soon as YouTube decided that I had to watch all 30 seconds of an ad—I don't have TV, and I don't want TV.
There's a lot of excellent content on YT, but I'd rather support those people rather than the platform. I don't use Twitter or Facebook because I feel similarly about them—they all would watch the world burn because it makes them money now.
Patreon has luckily been a great solution to that dilemma. I can support the people I want to support, and not the platform I don't want to. YT can die next week, and all the people I watch could pick up and move to, say, Vimeo and I'll follow them there. Maybe if Vimeo shows that they're trying to do good societally, I'll reconsider my monetary support.
Reddit comments at this point can be assumed to be just as bad as comments anywhere, there are sufficient wannabe trolls that any comment that wouldn't be overtly removed due to a site or sub rule...
(I’ve actually seen that last bit on a handful of reddit comments. Like the fuck?)
Reddit comments at this point can be assumed to be just as bad as comments anywhere, there are sufficient wannabe trolls that any comment that wouldn't be overtly removed due to a site or sub rule (and even those being ones which would be too conspicuous to fly under the radar) can be assumed to be made.
I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a reversal in quality. It's well past critical mass and the site owners are too busy worrying about profits to care.
Youtube may not like what you have to say but it will die fighting for your right to call Carlos Maza a "lispy queer." ....But it does mean we will continue to host it on our servers to drive up...
As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone–from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions (YT twitter)
Youtube may not like what you have to say but it will die fighting for your right to call Carlos Maza a "lispy queer."
Even if a video remains on our site, it doesn’t mean we endorse/support that viewpoint (More YT twitter)
....But it does mean we will continue to host it on our servers to drive up engagement metrics and use it to sell ads.
This is such a bummer. Carlos is one of my favorite creators on youtube at the moment - even if it's for Vox. Seeing him come up against shit this and then getting no support in such a public way fuckin sucks.
In unrelated news, does anyone know of a way to watch youtube which deprives them of ad revenue?
Yes. On desktop or in a browser, it'll block every single ad from any source transparently and seamlessly. It eats all of youtube's ads, despite there being several delivery mechanisms for ads in...
Yes. On desktop or in a browser, it'll block every single ad from any source transparently and seamlessly. It eats all of youtube's ads, despite there being several delivery mechanisms for ads in play already.
If you're watching with the youtube app (say, on a set top box/htpc/smart tv) there's no way to completely block the advertisements without switching to a different 3rd party youtube app that is designed to block the ads. It may be necessary to root the device and unlock it to install some of the better ones.
A pi-hole can block some of the ads, but not all of them. As time goes on, I expect youtube will find a way to directly insert the ads into the video stream, which is the only way to make them truly unblockable. Even then, a clever client could buffer ahead, and delete the ad from the buffer before it ever gets played.
Youtube isn't interested in making sure everyone always sees every ad. They just want the ads to be hard enough to avoid that most people most of the time can't find away around them.
To add to this. A good way to get around youtube ads on mobile is to watch the videos through a browser that has adblocking. Kiwi Browser (my personal favorite) and firefox mobile both can have ad...
To add to this. A good way to get around youtube ads on mobile is to watch the videos through a browser that has adblocking. Kiwi Browser (my personal favorite) and firefox mobile both can have ad blocking capabilities (and kiwi browser can even play videos in the background if you install an old version).
Firefox on Android has uBlock. I have no idea if that works on YouTube videos though, since I don't have an Android phone. But on iOS, there is no way to block YouTube ads that I am aware of...
Firefox on Android has uBlock. I have no idea if that works on YouTube videos though, since I don't have an Android phone. But on iOS, there is no way to block YouTube ads that I am aware of (other than being behind Pi-hole?). :(
edit: iCab Mobile on iOS does have some measure of ad-blocking capabilities using its "Filter" feature, though sadly it doesn't block YouTube ads.
A variety. NewPipe lets you watch YouTube videos without comments or ads, you can get the uBlock Origin extension on Firefox for Android, or you can block ads system-wide with something like...
A variety. NewPipe lets you watch YouTube videos without comments or ads, you can get the uBlock Origin extension on Firefox for Android, or you can block ads system-wide with something like Blokada and keep using the first party client.
update on this: crowder just got demonetized presumably because the media picked up on this story, which is a step i guess. it's not that useful i'm pretty sure since crowder is probably not...
update on this: crowder just got demonetized presumably because the media picked up on this story, which is a step i guess. it's not that useful i'm pretty sure since crowder is probably not reliant on youtube for money and he'd be stupid to have it be his main source of income, but at least they did something.
Another update: YouTube has made an official blog post about it now, saying that they... might consider updating their policies in the next few months, I guess?...
i don't know how it's possible to fuck up what should be a PR slam dunk in pride month as unbelievably badly as youtube has in the span of three days, but what irritates me the most is that...
i don't know how it's possible to fuck up what should be a PR slam dunk in pride month as unbelievably badly as youtube has in the span of three days, but what irritates me the most is that youtube is obviously not going to pay socially or financially for this PR fuckup since, even if they lose money over it (which is not likely in meaningful ways), google can still just subsidize it with all their other services that do make money.
oh, oops, although that is a cute friend and far better than the shit youtube is pulling so i'll keep it up. here is the correct, more infuriating link: To clarify, in order to reinstate...
oh, oops, although that is a cute friend and far better than the shit youtube is pulling so i'll keep it up.
Apparently neither did using your YouTube career to groom minors until A) YouTube faced a media backlash and B) Austin Jones actually landed himself a 10 year jail sentence for it.
It's far from fixed. Several months ago, a YouTuber exposed that you could enter a wormhole of innocent kid videos by either browsing YouTube whilst logged out or by logging in to a brand new...
It's far from fixed.
Several months ago, a YouTuber exposed that you could enter a wormhole of innocent kid videos by either browsing YouTube whilst logged out or by logging in to a brand new account. The pedophilic comments on these videos are downright disgusting. It actually caused yet another adpocalypse and led to YouTube pledging to disable and remove comments from such videos.
Four months later, the New York Times picked up on a more recent story, where a Brazilian mother had uploaded an innocent video of her ten year old daughter playing in the backyard pool. It quickly garnered hundreds of thousands of views, and hundreds of predatory comments towards her daughter. YouTube's recommendation algorithm is simply too good at recommending similar content, so if you're a pedo that's been watching videos of prepubescent kids in bathing suits, it's gonna recommend those kinds of videos to you.
In my eyes YouTube's recommendation algorithm has done far more harm than good to the site. It's killed animation channels, it's turned into an easily gamed system and now it's being used to fuel pedophilia.
It's kind of like a Reddit Rollout, where White Supremacists™ are what's in the news right now, so YouTube doesn't support that, but anti-quiltbag+ bigotry isn't getting mainstream attention, and...
It's kind of like a Reddit Rollout, where White Supremacists™ are what's in the news right now, so YouTube doesn't support that, but anti-quiltbag+ bigotry isn't getting mainstream attention, and nets good ads and eyeballs, so they can plausibly say they're keeping an eye out for it.
Youtube can change their guidelines all they want, but until they actually apply these policies in practice, it doesn't mean a thing. They've had rules against harassment for a while, but that...
Youtube can change their guidelines all they want, but until they actually apply these policies in practice, it doesn't mean a thing. They've had rules against harassment for a while, but that clearly hasn't done anything here.
It's homophobic, but is it actually harassment? Carlos Maza is a very public figure. Crowder mentioning him, even in a mean spirited and bigoted way doesn't constitute harassment. He's not...
It's homophobic, but is it actually harassment? Carlos Maza is a very public figure. Crowder mentioning him, even in a mean spirited and bigoted way doesn't constitute harassment. He's not directing people to his home address, he's not calling his phone over and over, he's not even communicating directly with the guy. He's just making fun of him publicly. I fail to see how that constitutes harassment.
being a public figure really does not figure into whether or not something is harassment. if you're repeatedly being a shithead to someone else over an extended period of time in a way that is...
It's homophobic, but is it actually harassment? Carlos Maza is a very public figure.
being a public figure really does not figure into whether or not something is harassment. if you're repeatedly being a shithead to someone else over an extended period of time in a way that is socially unacceptable regardless of how small or not small that person is, that can constitute harassment, and that's what crowder's doing.
Does that mean that Donald Trump is the most harassed person in the US? No, obviously not. If you're a public figure, being talked about, negatively or otherwise, is part of your existence....
Does that mean that Donald Trump is the most harassed person in the US?
No, obviously not. If you're a public figure, being talked about, negatively or otherwise, is part of your existence. Obviously bigotry is bad, and if Youtube decides flat out that bigotry of any kind, constitutes a ban, that makes sense, but expecting to be in the public eye but not be judged negatively by anyone otherwise it's harassment is ridiculous. Someone being a shithead to you is not the definition of harassment, and even if it was, Crowder wasn't being a shithead to Maza. He's never even talked to him as far as I know. He said shitty things about him, which definitely doesn't constitute harassment.
yes, people like donald trump can be harassed. do you think people don't get arrested for harassing the president or other politicians? death threats are a form of harassment, and people get...
Does that mean that Donald Trump is the most harassed person in the US?
yes, people like donald trump can be harassed. do you think people don't get arrested for harassing the president or other politicians? death threats are a form of harassment, and people get arrested for sending them to politicians not infrequently, dude. we're not talking some revolutionary new paradigm i'm putting forward, here.
but expecting to be in the public eye but not be judged negatively by anyone otherwise it's harassment is ridiculous
it's a good thing we're talking about someone being repeatedly being insulted about their sexuality over a prolonged period of time, and not someone having legitimate gripes with another person.
Someone being a shithead to you is not the definition of harassment, and even if it was, Crowder wasn't being a shithead to Maza.
it is literally the definition of harassment. it is the definition of harassment as given by google, which is "aggressive pressure or intimidation"; it is the one given by wikipedia, which is "a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness"; it is the one given by merriam webster, which is " creat[ing] an unpleasant or hostile situation for[,] especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct"
He's never even talked to him as far as I know. He said shitty things about him, which definitely doesn't constitute harassment.
are you trying to argue here that if i do something like say "everybody, go call @papasquat a nigger on tildes", or in some way signal to people to harass you without directly saying so that's not being a shithead because i didn't directly talk to you?
If you said that, it would be encouraging other people to harass me. Crowder didn't say that though. He called him slurs, and made fun of him on his own show. If I constantly called Donald Trump...
are you trying to argue here that if i do something like say "everybody, go call @papasquat a nigger on tildes
If you said that, it would be encouraging other people to harass me. Crowder didn't say that though. He called him slurs, and made fun of him on his own show.
If I constantly called Donald Trump and said "You're a shithead" over and over, that would be harassment. If I had a public TV show, and every night I said "Donald Trump is a shithead", that's not harassment, because I'm not talking to Donald Trump. I'm telling other people that he's a shithead.
If Donald Trump was a random private citizen minding his own business, then you could make a case that calling him a shithead on a public TV show to a bunch of people would be harassment, but he's a public figure, and people calling him a shithead is something that comes with the role. Same goes for well known journalists writing publicly available articles. Making fun of a public figure is never harassment, it doesn't matter which specific words you use to express that.
so... harassment then? that hits the bill of "a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is...
Crowder didn't say that though. He called him slurs, and made fun of him on his own show.
so... harassment then? that hits the bill of "a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness" and "creat[ing] an unpleasant or hostile situation for[,] especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct"
If I constantly called Donald Trump and said "You're a shithead" over and over, that would be harassment. If I had a public TV show, and every night I said "Donald Trump is a shithead", that's not harassment, because I'm not talking to Donald Trump. I'm telling other people that he's a shithead.
good thing crowder isn't a TV show host or anything comparable, he's a dipshit on youtube who's mildly popular going up against a reporter who is probably less popular than he is. i also like how you backed off of the point of merely being a public figure making you essentially unable to be harassed and retreated to "making fun of a public figure". i'm going to guess that you realized that the the former is an actually absurd argument to make given that things like stalking exist and given that you can be arrested for threatening public figures?
but he's a public figure, and people calling him a shithead is something that comes with the role. Same goes for well known journalists writing publicly available articles. Making fun of a public figure is never harassment, it doesn't matter which specific words you use to express that.
"making fun of a public figure" is a pretty disingenuous way to frame this whole ordeal considering the definitions i gave you, and i'm pretty sure if we were talking about steven crowder calling shaun king or some other darker skinned person of dubious public figure nature a nigger or a negro "in jest" instead of some white gay journalist a queer and a faggot to tens millions of people you wouldn't be trying to argue that it's all in good fun, because it's pretty obviously not.
ironically, i didn't say you said that either. but there's really no other way to interpret "No, obviously not. If you're a public figure, being talked about, negatively or otherwise, is part of...
Yeah, I never said that.
ironically, i didn't say you said that either. but there's really no other way to interpret "No, obviously not. If you're a public figure, being talked about, negatively or otherwise, is part of your existence." when how you're being talked about in the context we're talking could and does literally fit the bill for harassment as it is generally defined, as i've said and demonstrated multiple times here. you might not have explicitly said it, but you also don't need to say things for that to be the point you're basically making and arguing.
Never said that either.
this is also something you don't have to explicitly say for it to be basically what you're unintentionally (or otherwise) saying. if your whole argument is that calling someone slurs and making fun of them isn't harassment, i think it's pretty reasonable to then assume it would fit the verbiage of "all in good fun" seeing as you've basically set it up as if it's a riff or a bit crowder was doing on maza and compared it to someone on late night television doing a bit on how donald trump is a shithead every night?
He's the catalyst that drives people to harass. Same exact thing that happened with Beyonce fans sending someone death threats because they thought she was annoyed. The only way to deal with this...
The only way to deal with this issue is to take care of it from the top. They need to be held responsible for the actions of their fanbase. That's what happens when you are an "influencer".
That's up to you. Do you want to support YouTube, the creators, both, or neither? I only want to support the creators.
I've been adblocking YouTube for a long time now, long before Premium (or Red) was available in Canada because a) I don't like their business policies, and b) I feel they are amoral and a net negative to society. I stopped bothering with whitelisting only for my favourite content creators as soon as YouTube decided that I had to watch all 30 seconds of an ad—I don't have TV, and I don't want TV.
There's a lot of excellent content on YT, but I'd rather support those people rather than the platform. I don't use Twitter or Facebook because I feel similarly about them—they all would watch the world burn because it makes them money now.
Patreon has luckily been a great solution to that dilemma. I can support the people I want to support, and not the platform I don't want to. YT can die next week, and all the people I watch could pick up and move to, say, Vimeo and I'll follow them there. Maybe if Vimeo shows that they're trying to do good societally, I'll reconsider my monetary support.
Reddit comments at this point can be assumed to be just as bad as comments anywhere, there are sufficient wannabe trolls that any comment that wouldn't be overtly removed due to a site or sub rule (and even those being ones which would be too conspicuous to fly under the radar) can be assumed to be made.
I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a reversal in quality. It's well past critical mass and the site owners are too busy worrying about profits to care.
Youtube may not like what you have to say but it will die fighting for your right to call Carlos Maza a "lispy queer."
....But it does mean we will continue to host it on our servers to drive up engagement metrics and use it to sell ads.
This is such a bummer. Carlos is one of my favorite creators on youtube at the moment - even if it's for Vox. Seeing him come up against shit this and then getting no support in such a public way fuckin sucks.
In unrelated news, does anyone know of a way to watch youtube which deprives them of ad revenue?
uBlock Origin.
Does that actually get rid of video ads before the video you're trying to watch?
Yes. On desktop or in a browser, it'll block every single ad from any source transparently and seamlessly. It eats all of youtube's ads, despite there being several delivery mechanisms for ads in play already.
If you're watching with the youtube app (say, on a set top box/htpc/smart tv) there's no way to completely block the advertisements without switching to a different 3rd party youtube app that is designed to block the ads. It may be necessary to root the device and unlock it to install some of the better ones.
A pi-hole can block some of the ads, but not all of them. As time goes on, I expect youtube will find a way to directly insert the ads into the video stream, which is the only way to make them truly unblockable. Even then, a clever client could buffer ahead, and delete the ad from the buffer before it ever gets played.
Youtube isn't interested in making sure everyone always sees every ad. They just want the ads to be hard enough to avoid that most people most of the time can't find away around them.
To add to this. A good way to get around youtube ads on mobile is to watch the videos through a browser that has adblocking. Kiwi Browser (my personal favorite) and firefox mobile both can have ad blocking capabilities (and kiwi browser can even play videos in the background if you install an old version).
Yes, I've been using it for years. Just make sure you're subscribed to the lists in its settings.
Bless your heart good friend
Firefox on Android has uBlock. I have no idea if that works on YouTube videos though, since I don't have an Android phone. But on iOS, there is no way to block YouTube ads that I am aware of (other than being behind Pi-hole?). :(
edit: iCab Mobile on iOS does have some measure of ad-blocking capabilities using its "Filter" feature, though sadly it doesn't block YouTube ads.
You can try YouTube vanced. No ads and all the default app features are there. You can also play things in the background.
A variety. NewPipe lets you watch YouTube videos without comments or ads, you can get the uBlock Origin extension on Firefox for Android, or you can block ads system-wide with something like Blokada and keep using the first party client.
update on this: crowder just got demonetized presumably because the media picked up on this story, which is a step i guess. it's not that useful i'm pretty sure since crowder is probably not reliant on youtube for money and he'd be stupid to have it be his main source of income, but at least they did something.
Another update: YouTube has made an official blog post about it now, saying that they... might consider updating their policies in the next few months, I guess? https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/06/taking-harder-look-at-harassment.html
@dubteedub
i don't know how it's possible to fuck up what should be a PR slam dunk in pride month as unbelievably badly as youtube has in the span of three days, but what irritates me the most is that youtube is obviously not going to pay socially or financially for this PR fuckup since, even if they lose money over it (which is not likely in meaningful ways), google can still just subsidize it with all their other services that do make money.
That's what they've been doing the entire time. Last I checked, YouTube has been a money pit. It hasn't turned profit yet.
Hopefully at some point they'll realize it's no longer worth protecting.
update 2: team youtube is fucking stupid, lol. why am i not surprised it was something petty like this and not them having any sort of balls
Not sure if you have the right link there... Unless the sheep is a metaphor?
oh, oops, although that is a cute friend and far better than the shit youtube is pulling so i'll keep it up.
here is the correct, more infuriating link: To clarify, in order to reinstate monetization on this channel, he will need to remove the link to his T-shirts.
Apparently neither did using your YouTube career to groom minors until A) YouTube faced a media backlash and B) Austin Jones actually landed himself a 10 year jail sentence for it.
It's far from fixed.
Several months ago, a YouTuber exposed that you could enter a wormhole of innocent kid videos by either browsing YouTube whilst logged out or by logging in to a brand new account. The pedophilic comments on these videos are downright disgusting. It actually caused yet another adpocalypse and led to YouTube pledging to disable and remove comments from such videos.
Four months later, the New York Times picked up on a more recent story, where a Brazilian mother had uploaded an innocent video of her ten year old daughter playing in the backyard pool. It quickly garnered hundreds of thousands of views, and hundreds of predatory comments towards her daughter. YouTube's recommendation algorithm is simply too good at recommending similar content, so if you're a pedo that's been watching videos of prepubescent kids in bathing suits, it's gonna recommend those kinds of videos to you.
In my eyes YouTube's recommendation algorithm has done far more harm than good to the site. It's killed animation channels, it's turned into an easily gamed system and now it's being used to fuel pedophilia.
I can't tell if they are backtracking, but it seems like they are changing their policy regarding "supremisist content".
It's kind of like a Reddit Rollout, where White Supremacists™ are what's in the news right now, so YouTube doesn't support that, but anti-quiltbag+ bigotry isn't getting mainstream attention, and nets good ads and eyeballs, so they can plausibly say they're keeping an eye out for it.
Youtube can change their guidelines all they want, but until they actually apply these policies in practice, it doesn't mean a thing. They've had rules against harassment for a while, but that clearly hasn't done anything here.
thats.... disappointing. I assume this also goes for transphobia.
Horrible thing to hear on pride month.
It's homophobic, but is it actually harassment? Carlos Maza is a very public figure. Crowder mentioning him, even in a mean spirited and bigoted way doesn't constitute harassment. He's not directing people to his home address, he's not calling his phone over and over, he's not even communicating directly with the guy. He's just making fun of him publicly. I fail to see how that constitutes harassment.
being a public figure really does not figure into whether or not something is harassment. if you're repeatedly being a shithead to someone else over an extended period of time in a way that is socially unacceptable regardless of how small or not small that person is, that can constitute harassment, and that's what crowder's doing.
Does that mean that Donald Trump is the most harassed person in the US?
No, obviously not. If you're a public figure, being talked about, negatively or otherwise, is part of your existence. Obviously bigotry is bad, and if Youtube decides flat out that bigotry of any kind, constitutes a ban, that makes sense, but expecting to be in the public eye but not be judged negatively by anyone otherwise it's harassment is ridiculous. Someone being a shithead to you is not the definition of harassment, and even if it was, Crowder wasn't being a shithead to Maza. He's never even talked to him as far as I know. He said shitty things about him, which definitely doesn't constitute harassment.
yes, people like donald trump can be harassed. do you think people don't get arrested for harassing the president or other politicians? death threats are a form of harassment, and people get arrested for sending them to politicians not infrequently, dude. we're not talking some revolutionary new paradigm i'm putting forward, here.
it's a good thing we're talking about someone being repeatedly being insulted about their sexuality over a prolonged period of time, and not someone having legitimate gripes with another person.
it is literally the definition of harassment. it is the definition of harassment as given by google, which is "aggressive pressure or intimidation"; it is the one given by wikipedia, which is "a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness"; it is the one given by merriam webster, which is " creat[ing] an unpleasant or hostile situation for[,] especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct"
are you trying to argue here that if i do something like say "everybody, go call @papasquat a nigger on tildes", or in some way signal to people to harass you without directly saying so that's not being a shithead because i didn't directly talk to you?
If you said that, it would be encouraging other people to harass me. Crowder didn't say that though. He called him slurs, and made fun of him on his own show.
If I constantly called Donald Trump and said "You're a shithead" over and over, that would be harassment. If I had a public TV show, and every night I said "Donald Trump is a shithead", that's not harassment, because I'm not talking to Donald Trump. I'm telling other people that he's a shithead.
If Donald Trump was a random private citizen minding his own business, then you could make a case that calling him a shithead on a public TV show to a bunch of people would be harassment, but he's a public figure, and people calling him a shithead is something that comes with the role. Same goes for well known journalists writing publicly available articles. Making fun of a public figure is never harassment, it doesn't matter which specific words you use to express that.
so... harassment then? that hits the bill of "a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates or embarrasses a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness" and "creat[ing] an unpleasant or hostile situation for[,] especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct"
good thing crowder isn't a TV show host or anything comparable, he's a dipshit on youtube who's mildly popular going up against a reporter who is probably less popular than he is. i also like how you backed off of the point of merely being a public figure making you essentially unable to be harassed and retreated to "making fun of a public figure". i'm going to guess that you realized that the the former is an actually absurd argument to make given that things like stalking exist and given that you can be arrested for threatening public figures?
"making fun of a public figure" is a pretty disingenuous way to frame this whole ordeal considering the definitions i gave you, and i'm pretty sure if we were talking about steven crowder calling shaun king or some other darker skinned person of dubious public figure nature a nigger or a negro "in jest" instead of some white gay journalist a queer and a faggot to tens millions of people you wouldn't be trying to argue that it's all in good fun, because it's pretty obviously not.
Yeah, I never said that.
Never said that either.
You're arguing in bad faith at this point. I think I'm done with this one.
ironically, i didn't say you said that either. but there's really no other way to interpret "No, obviously not. If you're a public figure, being talked about, negatively or otherwise, is part of your existence." when how you're being talked about in the context we're talking could and does literally fit the bill for harassment as it is generally defined, as i've said and demonstrated multiple times here. you might not have explicitly said it, but you also don't need to say things for that to be the point you're basically making and arguing.
this is also something you don't have to explicitly say for it to be basically what you're unintentionally (or otherwise) saying. if your whole argument is that calling someone slurs and making fun of them isn't harassment, i think it's pretty reasonable to then assume it would fit the verbiage of "all in good fun" seeing as you've basically set it up as if it's a riff or a bit crowder was doing on maza and compared it to someone on late night television doing a bit on how donald trump is a shithead every night?
He's the catalyst that drives people to harass. Same exact thing that happened with Beyonce fans sending someone death threats because they thought she was annoyed.
The only way to deal with this issue is to take care of it from the top. They need to be held responsible for the actions of their fanbase. That's what happens when you are an "influencer".
That's a shame. If only YouTube had the power to change YouTube's own policies...
If Crowder's "harmless ribbing" isn't targeted harassment and hate speech, then what is?
the same speech, but only when it doesn't make youtube money and doesn't drive them traffic.