Cancel Culture

YouTube Punishes Steven Crowder for Homophobic Speech, a Confused Approach to an Unsolvable Problem

The video platform temporarily demonetized a conservative comedian's channel, satisfying no one.

|

In the last 24 hours, YouTube declined to punish conservative content creator Steven Crowder for homophobic speech directed at a gay Vox journalist, then debuted a far-reaching ban on extremist videos, and then changed its mind about Crowder and temporarily de-monetized his channel.

It was a series of actions that satisfied exactly no one—least of all Carlos Maza, a producer for Vox's Strikethrough video series who contends that YouTube has refused to stop Crowder from harassing him. But the video platform is in a tough position: If it bans Crowder, conservatives will complain that YouTube is out to silence them, but if it leaves his channel intact, liberals will complain that YouTube is turning a blind eye toward abuse. And its broader policy change—a ban on "videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion"—is bound to run into problems, since reviewing the nearly 500 new hours of video content that appear on YouTube every single minute is an impossible task.

Indeed, the ban has already ensnared one undeserving account: Ford Fischer, an independent journalist and co-founder of News2Share.com. Fischer covers fringe political events, but he is not himself engaged in the kind of behavior YouTube has declared verboten. Those who support YouTube taking stronger measures to purge fake news and abuse like to imagine that mere algorithmic tweaks can perfectly eliminate the bad actors. But innocent users like Fischer are bound to wind up inadvertently included.

The Crowder case is a bit more complicated. Crowder creates videos in the vein of a conservative provocateur, and uses offensive and profane humor. Maza is one of his favorite targets: Crowder has mocked his race, sexual orientation, and mannerisms so frequently that it borders on obsession.

Crowder has 4 million subscribers, and some of them have harassed Maza—including by texting him over and over again demanding that he debate Crowder. A few days ago, Maza had finally had enough, and called on YouTube to de-platform Crowder. On Tuesday, YouTube declined to do so, reasoning that "while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don't violate our policies."

By Wednesday, YouTube had sort of changed its mind, and it announced that Crowder's channel would be demonetized—meaning it could no longer make money off advertisements—until he deleted a link to a merchandise page allowing fans to buy his "Socialism Is For F*gs" T-shirt. These declarations all came through YouTube's Twitter account: The video giant's decision-making process in this matter was fairly opaque.

Maza was furiously dissatisfied with the outcome, and he tweeted that demonetization isn't a suitable punishment for content creators like Crowder, who make most of their money via other methods.

"Abusers use [demonetization] as proof they're being 'discriminated' against," he wrote on Twitter. "Then they make millions off of selling merch, doing speaking gigs, and getting their followers to support them on Patreon. The ad revenue isn't the problem. It's the platform."

Neither Crowder nor Maza immediately responded to a request for comment. (Maza blocked me on Twitter shortly after I followed him.)

Crowder's comments about Maza were mean-spirited and cruel. But are they actually prohibited? Certain kinds of speech—threats, doxing, imploring followers to mob someone—are rightly prohibited on the platform. Crowder did not dox Maza, and he did not call on his followers to harass him. He didn't threaten him, either.

YouTube's harassment policy, however, also prohibits "Content that is deliberately posted in order to humiliate someone," "content that makes hurtful and negative personal comments/videos about another person," and "maliciously ridiculing or mocking an individual based on their personal characteristics. This includes saying something like 'Look at this creature's teeth, they're so disgusting!'" Calling someone a "lispy queer," as Crowder did, strikes me as something that might be covered under the above, although whether it was "malicious" or "deliberate" is debatable. Crowder has maintained that his remarks were jokes.

The Stranger's Katie Herzog, one of the saner chroniclers of internet culture, writes that while she sympathizes with Maza, "Crowder is a comic, doing exactly what comics do: Mocking a public figure….[If YouTube bans] everyone who mocks people for their sexuality or race, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of queer people of color who enjoy making fun of straight white dudes next. That's not a precedent I'd like to see set." Indeed, basically any video that includes offensive comedy—if directed at a specific person—would theoretically be imperiled.

YouTube, presumably, would never take broad action against all offensive comedy videos—and as long as some remain watchable, it will be possible to accuse the platform of viewpoint discrimination. If Crowder were to lose his channel while any liberal comedian's profanity-laced anti-Trump tirade survived, conservatives would call it hypocrisy. As a private company, YouTube isn't bound by the First Amendment and is well within its rights to apply its rules selectively and arbitrarily—but doing so will only play into the hands of people like Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), who see all evidence of anti-conservative bias in Big Tech as justification for government involvement.

It's important for libertarians to strongly oppose such calls for regulation, whether or not they spring from legitimate grievances about various tech platforms' policies. As for policing harassment, the plain truth is that it's frustratingly difficult to do so in a manner that seems fair to most everyone. As platforms consider prohibiting broader categories of speech—unlike, say, doxing, which is quite specific and rightly disallowed—they will undoubtedly struggle.

NEXT: Perils of "Democratic Socialism"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Socialism is for Figs? I don’t give a fig for socialism!

    1. That’s actually the joke his t-shirt is. It has a picture of a fig leaf censoring the missing vowel. It’s a joke t-shirt that borders on offensive because it’s almost saying a derogatory word for homosexual.

      1. derogatory word for homosexual
        I thought that word was used for picking up sissies and traps.
        Now I realize why things turned out the way they did.

        1. Its also a word for cigarette in England and Ireland.

          Don’t chose fags. They cause lung cancer.

          1. A former coworker of mine who had worked a lot overseas used to like to say about another coworker taking his cigarette break: “He’s sucking a fag in the car park.”

          2. Actually, the word for a burning log in Olde England was faggot & since they burned homos on them, they started calling Sodomites faggots…Thus, a cigarette is kind of a small burning log, thus the term fag for a cig!

            Personally, I prefer the term, Flying Fruitcake!

      2. It’s a joke on 3 levels – its a Che shirt
        a) almost a bad word/slur
        b) Socialism is a fig leaf for Communism, the radical genocidal kind
        c) lefty trendhero Che Guevara actually killed homosexuals for being homosexuals

      3. So I can’t eat Fig Newtons anymore? Because if you change one letter they’re Fag Newtons and that makes them homophobic even if they don’t do that?

        1. But, you can still shove the Fag Newtons up yer arse!

    2. Fuck off, Reason. ‘Homophobic Speech’, what utter horseshit. You progs are going to be so surprised when the mob comes for you too.

      1. Quit whining, esteve.

      2. I noticed that, too. “homophobic” would, I assume, mean irrational fear of homosexuals. Crowder doesn’t act like somebody who is cowering in fear.

        1. Stephen Colbert can gaybait all he wants, and Soave says nothing.

          Fuck off Rico.

          1. And Colbert’s ‘Catholic’ perspective is never questioned like Sohrabi’s.

          2. That was one of Crowder’s points. Colbert has done MEASURES worse than he did — on national TV AND on YouTube — and has never been punished once for doing so.

            Double standards exist solely so YouTube would have SOME standards.

        2. “Homophobic” has come to mean any kind of anti-gay bigotry. Kind of silly, but it is what it is.
          But saying a bad word still isn’t bigotry or homophobia all by itself. It’s just saying a word. Probably deliberately to annoy or goad people, but that’s not the same thing as being “homophobic”.

          1. “Homophobic” has come to mean any kind of anti-gay bigotry.

            ‘Homophobic’ is a made up word and is absolutely without meaning. Which is exactly why it is used.

            Freaking out while getting on an airplane or upon seeing a daddy-long-legs is phobic. The idea that unprotected anal sex in public places is a vector for venereal diseases and particularly for the transfer of the AIDS virus is neither fearful nor is it irrational. Yet this term came to be common coin in the late 80’s exactly when public policy was demanding the closing of the bathhouses in San Francisco due to the epidemic among the homosexual community.

            1. Don’t be silly. It has meaning. Just not the meaning you think it should have.

              1. I really don’t want to get into a thing with you again. Go read Politics and the English Language by Orwell and then come back and tell me what the word ‘homophobic’ means.

                When a word means whatever the user wants it to mean, it is meaningless for anything other than virtue signaling.

                1. See racism.

        3. “homophobic” would, I assume, mean irrational fear of homosexuals.

          You would assume wrong.

          Sometimes words don’t mean what their root-words would imply. Homophobic hasn’t meant fear ever.

          1. How orwellian of you. Unsurprising.

            1. In George Orwell’s 1984 there was a ministry (can’t remember which one) that regularly revised the dictionary. They removed words, added very few new ones (normally to replace a group of words with a single new word), and changed definitions.

              Everyone was expected to comply immediately.

              This sort of “the word means what I say it means, and you must comply” is what is typically meant as “Orwellian” in the manner you are using it.

              With the caveat that you may be using the phrase in a different meaning then the norm, which is more “Orwellian”

              (A) Using a word as it has commonly been used in the meaning which is widely accepted…
              or
              (B) Refuting the common usage of a word, insist it means something different, and then pretending the people who were obviously using the common meaning were actually using your invented meaning…

              1. (B) Refuting the common usage of a word, insist it means something different, and then pretending the people who were obviously using the common meaning were actually using your invented meaning…

                Which is precisely what you are doing. I know the truth is inconvenient.

              2. Newspeak in 1984 was a language deliberately constructed to make thoughts outside of the Party dogma unthinkable. Constructing Newspeak was the task of the Ministry of Truth.

                Which is the point of all political applications of “-phobia”.

          2. You don’t get to unilaterally change what words mean.

            Sorry, son.

            1. You don’t get to unilaterally change what words mean.

              Which is why I’m mocking all y’all triggered snowflakes for trying to do so.

              1. And we’re mocking y’all triggered SJW’s for your typical New Speak.

          3. No, but it has been meant to imply fear from the start.

          4. Homophobic hasn’t meant fear ever.

            I wouldn’t say that. One of the original uses of ‘homophobic’ was to imply an irrational fear of one’s own repressed homosexual attraction, used in the same manner as ‘the lady doth protest too much’. The younger crowd may not be so familiar with this usage.

          5. Phobic is from phobia

            Phobia – an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

            just sayin.

    3. Sorry for the flag. This new layout sucks.

  2. Youtube is the new public square, and last time I checked you weren’t allowed in the public square to call someone a “lispy queer” or the “Cheeto-in-Chief” and get away with it. Although I’ve been told I’m not the best at checking things.

    1. Fair enough. Will they enforce this both ways and take down videos of Colbert saying generally nasty things about Trump?

      1. Never

    2. Can’t tell if sarcasm:
      YouTube isn’t a public square, it’s a private company and private space.
      I’m pretty sure you can call someone either of those things in the actual public square and be just fine. In fact, I’m pretty sure you can call someone much worse than that.

      1. “YouTube isn’t a public square, it’s a private company and private space.”

        Fist would appear to be riffing on arguments recently made by Facebook lawyers asserting that their platform is a “virtual public square” and therefore anyone who posts there on is not entitled to any legal claims of privacy.

      2. Social media, according to lawsuits, is becoming more and more of a public space. One can take the decision barring Trump from barring people on Twitter and apply it to social media at large and do some damage.

        1. This. If they cannot let Trump block people on Twitter then they can hardly allow Twitter to block anyone, since that cuts off their access to addressing Trump.

      3. Youtube needs to decide whether they are a platform — a public square, essentially — where they can’t be held responsible for comments and videos put online, or whether they are a publisher — and thus be held responsible for all the videos that slander or libel people.

        If they decide the former, they have to stop going after people with certain viewpoints (because the vast majority of these enforcements go one direction), because otherwise, legally they are a publisher.

      4. These platforms have legal immunity based on the idea that they are equivalent to the “public square”.
        Hiding from liability while claiming to be a “private company and a private space” is an incongruous position.

  3. “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion”

    So – – – – –
    No more posts from Trump hating democrats?

    Didn’t think so.

    1. Marxism proclaims the superiority of the proletariat to justify discrimination, segregation and exclusion of the bourgeoisie. Will Marxists be banned from YouTube?

      I didn’t think so either

      1. +100

  4. Maza calls himself gaywonk on Twitter. He calls himself queer on his own videos. Crowder used the same language. He isnt homophobic. one of his recurring guests is a transgender from his change my mind series. He isnt a homophobe Robby, he is a comedian. Bill Maher called himself a house negro, Colbert called trump Putin’s cock holster, samantha bee called Ivanka a cunt… where are your disparaging remarks and calls to demonotize them? Maza called for assaults on conservatives, crowder has never done that.

    Yes you agree with crowder demonitization when you claim undeserving people were caught up. This means you believe crowder deserved it. Go fuck yourself and your anti free speech stances robbie.

    1. Oh… and join mug club. Support crowder.

    2. Agree.

      Also, I was on Disqus just now and posted the shirt Crowder was selling: a pic of Che,a limp wrist and the words Socialism is for fags.

      I am now temp or completely banned on Disqus.

      1. Your mistake for using a shit service like Disqus.

      2. Disqus doesn’t ban accounts across all of Disqus.
        The site moderator has banned you from commenting.

    3. See there, Robby? If you aren’t defending everything that Crowder does 100%, then that means you must agree with Maza and want Crowder kicked off of Youtube!

      1. Jeff, stop being a dumbass. We know you’re too ignorant to understand. At least you’re giving away the pretense of being a libertarian.

        1. You don’t understand freedom. People are free to dislike you. Breitbart and Fox are free to lie, distort and censor. They do it all day but you never noticed because you like it.

          1. Now do Media Matters and MSNBC.

            1. They are more factual by a longshot.

              It’s always fun when you tacitly acknowledge the streaming bullshit coming from your preferred media outlets, the best you can do being “both sides!”

              And here I thought academic relativism was going out of style.

              1. Do you honestly believe Media Matters and MSNBC “are more factual by a longshot” than Breitbart and Fox News? I mean, I heard of cognitive dissonance, but this takes the cake!

                1. Yes. And it’s not a matter of belief.

                  1. Um, yeah, yeah it is. It’s almost baffling that you could believe such a thing. Talk about a divorce from reality in order to be a tribalist. I will never be able to understand that mindset.

              2. They are more factual by a longshot.

                Nope.

                It’s always fun when you tacitly acknowledge the streaming bullshit coming from your preferred media outlets, the best you can do being “both sides!”

                I don’t read nor watch either, so I’m not sure what you’re going on about here.

          2. How does that have to do with my comment? I dont agree with displatforming at all.

            How fucking stupid are some of you?

            1. I dont agree with displatforming at all.

              Of course you do. You just don’t agree with it when it happens to members of your tribe.

              1. Like anyone on Team Blue has been displatformed, fucko.

              2. God you are fucking stupid Jeff. Gindone time I’ve called for censorship. I dont even call for reason to ban your stupid ass.

                1. Give one*

                  You cant make a rational argument if you tried dumbfuck Jeff.

                  1. Dealing with psychotics is a bitch if you try to do so seriously

              3. You have stated outright that people should not do business with anyone they disagree with. It’s quite rich that you’re momentarily not in favor of deplatforming (but not really because you’re accusing those who do object of being on “team crowder.”)

                1. Umm what the fuck are you talking about? I think business owners should have wide latitude to do business with whomever the fuck they want.

                  What this has to do with deplatformkng is quite idiotic.

                  You seem ignorant to my arguments here. Even though they are in this comment thread.

                  YouTube established itself as a platform that anyone could monetize and make videos from producing videos. Crowder was one of the early customers of this, joining up early and signing onto revenue share agreements. He has followed all policies as listed for over a decade. YouTube is retroactively changing the terms of agreement after 10 years of shared agreements. This is a contract violation shithead. I felt this way no matter who YouTube is fucking over.

                  Do you understand now shit for brains? Stop trying to make Jeffook like the smart one.

                  1. See, here’s the weird thing. Freedom of Association.

                    In a standard example of a business, it would mean they have every right to refuse service to any customer regardless of reason. That’s them freely making their own decisions.

                    But cases like this aren’t about Youtube making this decision (they’ve been happy with Crowder and his videos for years), it’s other people telling Youtube to run their business the way THEY want or else Youtube will suffer the consequences. That’s not freedom of association, that’s angry mobs making threats.

                    Yes, Youtube is going to cave to the mob for fear of the consequences, but they shouldn’t. And it’s right to point out that the mob is wrong and evil for telling other people what they can and can’t do with their business.

      2. PedoJeff doesn’t understand double standards or rank hypocrisy.

        Wow, this is my not shocked face.

        1. “PedoJeff” lol
          Talk about furthering insults and pushing fake narratives.

          1. Did you or did you not say we should screen illegal immigrants for crimes against children? You believe in no screening at all. Just like you were okay with the convicted sex crime workers reading to kids in a library. You seem consistent on defending pedos.

          2. I am not pushing a fake narrative.

            People here really do call you that.

            Or have you not noticed?

      3. Technically, YouTube wants to remove all extreme conspiracy theories and the useless fuckwit from Vox has a video that is ONLY a ridiculous conspiracy theory about how FNC runs all of network news.

        Shouldn’t they ban “it” for that…oh wait, Vox is widely connected and will be helped by their recent actions. So, of course not. Don’t be silly.

        1. Let’s not forget the many news networks which pushed the conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians for the past 3 years, and some like Maddow are still pushing this lie. When is Youtube going to ban these news outlets for their lies.
          The fact that de-platforming is discriminately aimed at a particular viewpoint is beyond contestation.
          According to Youtube themselves, Crowther did not break any or their rules or TOS. I strongly believe he has a liable case against them and should pursue this in court.
          A test case needs to be argued that these platforms cannot continue to change the rules indiscriminately and decide who they want to apply the rules to and who they just leave alone.

          1. Yeah, he got penalized for coming CLOSE to the guidelines…which, last I checked, is called following the rules.

            As Tim Pool said, if the speed limit is 55, the cops cannot pull you for going 54 and deciding you’re coming awfully close to the speed limit.

    4. Where did Robby call for demonetizing Crowder? He seemed to do the opposite. Did you actually read the article?

      1. My post is clear. Robby says “ban has already ensnared one undeserving account.” If he didnt believe crowder was not deserving, that sentence wouldnt be used. Reading is fundamental.

        1. I made that mistake at first, but Robby is talking about two things: Crowder being demonetized but NOT banned, and a bunch of other channels being banned.

          It could have been a bit clearer, but Crowder wasn’t “ensnared” by the ban.

          1. Crowder only gets like 10% of his revenue from YouTube, so join mugclub. That’s why maza is still pissed off.

            Also if you watch the upload from last night from crowder, the violations YouTube listed are laughable. One of the few examples YouTube gave was crowder using trans in a video title in which he interviews a trans. Another was saying Muslim rapists in an interview about a British activist who was raped by Muslim rapists. The examples YouTube gave were literally interviews and not even the derogatory jokes maza attacked crowder for

        2. To be fair to Soave, he often does not understand the broader implications of the phrasings he chooses to use.

          1. Its all about THAT hair!

        3. Yeah, you are reading way too much into that.

        4. Crowder wasn’t banned, dumbass

          1. Where did I say he was dumbfuck? Stop backtracking.

      2. He did not.

        Rather, I think, it’s his tiresome ‘to be sure’ shtick that perplexes.

        For example:

        “Crowder’s comments about Maza were mean-spirited and cruel.”

        So what? So fucken what? Does that mean Vox gets to use its muscle now that they have fake news organizations like NBC in their corner and bash people for ‘wrong think’ or ‘hate speech’? Maza can go suck a bag of dicks if he can’t hack it. Evil little shit.

        1. I should add….

          I consider this something he can outgrow because it doesn’t (or shouldn’t anyway), to me, detract from his overall work which is indeed solid and necessary. Not too many people or publications (like FIRE, Campusreform etc.) dedicate themselves to covering such stories and issues.

          It’s just that it, philosophically speaking, it can undermine (or confuse or cloud) the overall point. Specifically, freedom of speech has no ‘yeh buts’ on any grounds.

        2. And yet Maza gets a free pass while he spouts his hatred of all things Trump and literally encourages his supporters to commit acts of violence to Trumps supporters. I can absolutely see this escalating. Sooner or later, Trump supporters will start fighting back and someone will get seriously hurt or even killed.

        3. Agreed except for telling Maza to go suck a bag of dicks. He’s gay so he would enjoy that. He should suck a bag of pussies. That would punish him enough.

        4. His new description of him, mind you, is genius. “Latino intellectual from Vox who happens to be attracted to guys and that is both beautiful AND brave”

    5. I don’t see anywhere where Robby said he agrees with the demonetization…

    6. It says something about Maza’s actual media reach, the depth of Crowder’s “harassment,” and the overall influence of both, that I’d never heard of the former before today, and only had heard of the latter in occasion passing reference.

      I suspect nearly 98 percent of normies have no clue this little lolcow bitchfest is actually going on.

      1. Vox is a billion dollar company. Crowder has 5 million subscribers. This isnt some small scrape between nobodies.

        1. Indeed. If anything, it demonstrates that no matter how big something is, there’s always someone that isn’t within reach of that big thing.

          Just the other day, I saw a comment from someone who never saw a Star Wars movie. Imagine that!

    7. “Maza calls himself gaywonk on Twitter. He calls himself queer on his own videos.”

      Remove his sexuality and Carlitos has no job at all. The ONLY thing in his frisbee-level of depth is that he likes to bang dudes.

  5. I’m reading Raymond Chandler’s novel The Big Sleep and the main character, Philip Marlowe, uses many slurs against homosexuals, which I won’t repeat.

    1. Please do. I refuse to go along with a bunch of shrill progtards who think they can tell me I can’t say ‘queer’, ‘fag’, or ‘faggot’. As I certainly can.

      In fact, I like to call PB a faggot now and then. Since he apparently wants to fuck young boys.

      1. Since he apparently wants to fuck young boys
        How young are we talking about? Because there’s nothing wrong with asking a qt 17 y/o surfer to ride the waves of ecstasy.
        His name was Kyle.

        1. I don’t think PB would carry the 1 in that equation. Being a chickenhawk is one thing. PB was posting kiddie porn links.

      2. Fag, pansy, and queen.

  6. Another victory for whiners!

    1. Bunch of swishbucklers, the whole lot of them.

    2. Quit whining, Allutz.

      1. King pissy whiner tells someone else to stop whining.

        Go die in a fire, fucko.

  7. Isn’t a lisp kind of the gay patois? I know every gay man doesn’t speak that way, but it seems the affectation purposely chosen by a certain kind of gay man- and if this guy speaks like that (and I have no idea if he does), then what’s the problem?

    1. I’ve never understood the lisp. The community claims it is biological being gay, not environmental… then they all gain the same mannerisms and lisps no matter where in the country. I dont think biology develops mannerisms to that point.

      1. No, its all affectation. Johnny Weir e.g. speaks and acts the way he does purely voluntarily.

        1. and doesn’t jump on Tara Lipinski voluntarily either wtf

    2. I don’t get why so many homosexual men behave in very effeminate ways. If they want effeminate, women are out there. You’d think they’d want masculine. Oh well. Nobody claimed they were logical.

      1. I don’t get why so many homosexual men behave in very effeminate ways.

        Since the beginning this has overwhelmingly been my problem with homosexuality. The celebration, adoration of, and even identification with the whimsical, flippant, and hedonistic. It’s not at all clear that Rip Taylor was gay* but it’s abundantly clear to me that he needed punched in the face. My understanding is that neither Tom Green nor Sacha Baron Cohen are the same way and I think they both need similar treatments for their conditions.

        *Using his own analogy; any more than it was clear he was/wasn’t a heroin user.

  8. “Crowder has mocked his race, sexual orientation, and manner-isms so frequently that it borders on obsession.”

    From what’s included in the article, it would appear, by continuing to engage Mr. Crowder, Mr. Maza is no less obsessed.

    Just sayin’.

    1. The author’s statement about the frequency of his mocking needs to be substantiated. I can tell you it is no where near frequent that it borders on obsession.
      Crowder has thousands of videos. He has mocked all things VOX a whopping 2%.

      It looks to me that this Reason author needs to examine his biases. He did not do fair research. It sounds like he is parroting VOX or he just made it up.
      What has happened to alot of Reason’s writers? I am very dissappointed. This is not the same Reason I grew to love and respect years ago.

      1. If Reason isn’t wingnutty enough for you these days, you would be much happier at RedState, FreeRepublic, Instapundit, Stormfront, and Breitbart.

        1. Says the biggest left-wing jerk off, asshat, bigoted ignoramus around here.

          No surprise you side with actual fascistic behaviour.

        2. You’d be better off with the fucknuts at democraticunderground.com.

        3. @Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland Go drink a bottle of Draino, leftard, snowflake, safe space running, control freak scumbag.

      2. Robby is wrong about that.

      3. It’s also VITAL to remember that one of the most prominent faces of Vox is the VICTIM of mean bullying from a self-financed Canadian comic.

        Victimhood — now for the well-connected.

        1. Michigan born, Montreal raised.

          1. Man, fucked coming and going. The worst of all worlds.

            Montreal: So French even the French fucking hate them.

  9. Pretty brave of somebody who has an irrational fear of homosexuals to mock and disparage and taunt a homosexual. Or maybe he is not in fact a homophobe, maybe it’s just that – like “Islamaphobia” and “xenophobia” and “racist” and “Nazi” and “climate denier” – “homophobia” is a perversion of the language to indicate that any speech critical of certain protected groups and thoughts is a mental disorder. It’s difficult to swallow the idea that these people are “victims” when they’re the ones with all the power to destroy your life if you dare talk shit about them. They’re not victims, they’re victimizers. Stop using their perverted language.

    1. You said swallow. You know who else swallows?

      1. The all-talk right-wingers who spend their obsequious lives complying with the preferences of their liberal-libertarian betters in America because they are losers in the culture war?

        1. The world needs more Heather Heyers.

        2. Fuck off, slaver.

      2. Kirkland is a swallower.

        He has swallowed Socialism hook, line, and semen.

    2. Exactly. They got this stupid idea in their heads that, if they could convince straight guys that disliking homosexuals was an expression of fear, straight guys would be horrified at the thought they were acting afraid, turn to the next guy, yell, “I’m not a coward!”, and give him a big smooch. Presumably with some tongue to underscore the point.

    3. If it’s a perversion of language, then (A) blame straight folks, you use it far more then we ever can, and (B) it’s been such a “perversion” the entire time it’s been in public usage.

      Pretending confusion over this is obviously disingenuous.

      1. “(A) blame straight folks, you use it far more then we ever can”

        Because you requested it and your side tends to whine and cry when you do not get your way.

        “(B) it’s been such a “perversion” the entire time it’s been in public usage.”

        Incorrect things becomes correct with sufficient usage. Intriguing.

        So, if everybody decides that 2 + 2 REALLY equals 5, it means that it actually does? Man, 1984 was a book with some deep insight on the left.

        1. @damikesc

          Incorrect things becomes correct with sufficient usage. Intriguing.

          That is literally how language works, yes. It’s one of the major contributors to language drift over time.

  10. I recommend reading Youtube’s Official Blog to point out the slippery slope:

    https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/06/our-ongoing-work-to-tackle-hate.html

    Of note:
    “Reducing borderline content and raising up authoritative voices

    In addition to removing videos that violate our policies, we also want to reduce the spread of content that comes right up to the line. In January, we piloted an update of our systems in the U.S. to limit recommendations of borderline content and harmful misinformation, such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, or claiming the earth is flat.”

    They’re basically saying they want to crack down on behavior that DOES NOT violate their terms of service but is borderline. That’s just begging for a slippery slope. “Borderline” content is as vague and nebulous as you possibly can be when it comes to punishing a channel or channel creator.

    Now, to counter the inevitable “private platform” response, the issue is that content creators for Youtube are essentially contractors. Youtube is making money by hosting their content and getting ad revenue from the videos and traffic, and the way to lure more content creators onto their platform is to pay back a chunk of that ad revenue. In that sense the terms of service are a contract. Youtube is now demonetizing channels that aren’t violating its terms of service which puts it in breach of contract.

    It’s also doing things like adding ex-post facto rules and demonetizing channels for videos made years ago when they just changed their terms of service, instead of simply sending a warning about the nature of the problematic content. Yes, they should be allowed to do what they want with their platform but not when it comes to screwing people out of money in violation of contract.

    1. “They’re basically saying they want to crack down on behavior that DOES NOT violate their terms of service but is borderline.”

      Double-secret probation.

      1. And their new crack-down requires them instituting new policies to punish Crowder, which puts a host of other, much smaller channels in jeopardy. For instance, one of the channels that got hit in this latest wave was an educational WW2 channel that posts some some footage of actual Nazis in Germany for educational purposes.

        I’m not sure if that is a case of “unintended consequences” or “not a bug, it’s a feature.”

        1. If they cut footage of nazis and nazi sympathizers, it may lead to people having a certain calming feeling of the holocaust.

      2. If I make three monthly deposits of $9999.00 in a row, I haven’t broken the law … or have I?

        1. Why should I care about that?

        2. Yes, yes you have. See, the law is written to make ‘structuring’ illegal. Structuring is when you consciously choose to make deposits in such a way that it evades reporting requirements.

          You don’t even have to be trying to evade reporting requirements either – just having the opportunity to make a deposit that would trigger a reporting requirement and then making the deposits in a way that doesn’t trigger them – for whatever reason – is illegal.

          KILLER FACT: If you know that an otherwise legal plant can be used to produce illegal narcotics, it is now illegal for you to own that plant.

      3. You say double secret probation, I say RICO violation.

    2. Even worse loom at the date to the change of rules. Well after the videos they punished were created and uploaded. Some would say this is a blatant contract violation.

    3. Now, to counter the inevitable “private platform” response, the issue is that content creators for Youtube are essentially contractors. Youtube is making money by hosting their content and getting ad revenue from the videos and traffic, and the way to lure more content creators onto their platform is to pay back a chunk of that ad revenue. In that sense the terms of service are a contract. Youtube is now demonetizing channels that aren’t violating its terms of service which puts it in breach of contract.

      It’s also doing things like adding ex-post facto rules and demonetizing channels for videos made years ago when they just changed their terms of service, instead of simply sending a warning about the nature of the problematic content. Yes, they should be allowed to do what they want with their platform but not when it comes to screwing people out of money in violation of contract.

      Well said. Lawsuit when?

      1. Honestly I expect it will come soon.

        Youtube is honestly in deep shit. On one side you’ve got some SJWs whipping up a mob in a frenzy ready to march with torches and pitchforks if they don’t get their way. On the other side you’ve got a conservative controlled white-house and a divided Congress worried about Youtube’s censorship practices.

        This latest kerfluffle should draw the attention of some lawfirm thinking “Class Action.” Youtube is gonna get pinched between competing political interests both trying to weaponize it, only adding more ammunition to pending civil litigation. I would not be surprised if Youtube becomes as irrelevant as Facebook within the next 3-4 years.

        1. Soon as in they’re already being sued by Prager U.

          But nothing is going to stop this right now, lawsuits take a while, and we have an important election coming up.

          The social media platforms are all ramping up their levels of censorship in preparation for the 2020 election. If they can put a heavy enough thumb on the scale, the Democrats take control, and they’re safe.

          Kind of like the way the FBI was reasoning in spying on Trump, actually…

          1. But nothing is going to stop this right now, lawsuits take a while, and we have an important election coming up.

            Even then, it’s going to go to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will either strike down Sec. 230 and/or tell Congress to rewrite it.

          2. The social media platforms are all ramping up their levels of censorship in preparation for the 2020 election. If they can put a heavy enough thumb on the scale, the Democrats take control, and they’re safe.

            This is what they believe. They thought they had done it last time–hence their open bragging about Hillary being a 90%+ certainty.

            Instead, we got Trump.

            Why?

            Because their censorship doesn’t do what they think it does anymore. It used to put their hands over our mouths.

            Now, it puts their fingers deeper in their ears.

            WE are still talking. In places they refuse to look at.

        2. “Youtube is honestly in deep shit.”

          Every social media and content platform that is not subscriber driven (and even some that are) are all in deep shit.

          1. And as far as I’m concerned, they can find sympathy in the dictionary between shit and syphilis, because they dug themselves a damn hole in the middle of a horse barn.

    4. Remember when the left didn’t trust “authoritative voices” and even explicitly warned against them? I do. I do.

      1. Remember when the left didn’t trust “authoritative voices” that were warning everyone that they were actually leftists hell-bent on destroying every freedom and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution?

        Yeah.

      2. What’s that saying about ‘live long enough and everything comes full circle’ or something like that.

  11. As usual, Reason is way off base when it comes to the right and specifically the youtube right. Watch the actual content rather than just repeating Vox’s characterization of an ideological opponent. Maza is an idiot whose content is cringeworthy and horribly devoid of reason. Crowder mostly makes fun of his ideas but does also offer personal jabs. I’ve actually watched the videos that spawned Vox and Maza attempting to demonitize and deplatform Crowder. I’ve also seen flagging campaigns repeatedly launched by leftists on youtube to remove content they disagree with.

    1. Vox Media is spreading the narrative that Crowder is some kind of hateful bigot who is encouraging violence. Crowder, from what I’ve heard (I don’t watch his videos) repeatedly condemns violence, condemns personal attacks.

      Maybe the little jabs at Maza’s mannerisms are a bit borderline, but it’s not like he’s picking on some poor schmuck. Maza has a massive media company behind him and produces content for a channel that has like 10 million subscribers or something like that. Maza has a lot of clout, and he’s attempting to wield his clout to silence someone he doesn’t like while also playing the victim because a few people tweeted harassing things at him (not Crowder).

      1. His jabs would only be considered borderline by the sort of people who spend their lives going out looking for offense and are looking for a reason to silence an ideological opponent.

        People like Carlos Maza.

        For mentally healthy people they’re about as borderline as a Def Comedy Jam comedian making a joke about White people.

      2. Maybe he should stop condemning violence.
        If the Left has taught us anything over the last 50-60 years, it’s that terrorism works – and justifiable

      3. Crowder, from what I’ve heard (I don’t watch his videos) repeatedly condemns violence, condemns personal attacks.

        He does. Maza explicitly condones it. Or at minimum, condones assault.

    2. Maza advocated for actual assault when he called for people to throw milkshakes at people.

      In one tweet he’s done far more potential harm to people than Crowder.

      He’s a piece of shit. Call it for what it is. A zero.

      Of course, morons believe ‘no one ever got hurt by a milkshake’.

      Ok tough guys. Let’s see how YOU react when it happens to YOU or a loved one.

      1. I guess technically throwing a milkshake at someone is “assault” but I doubt any jurisdiction anywhere would actually prosecute it as an assault.

        Calling it “assault” is magnifying the offense to too large a degree IMO. It’s like calling a glitterbomb “assault”. Well sure technically, but it’s not what most people think of when they use the term “assault”.

        And YES it is wrong to throw milkshakes at people or to glitterbomb people. I just wish more people would calm down and stop emoting about this entire thing.

        Too many people are so determined to defend “their tribe” and attack “the other tribe” that they throw away reason and minimize the offenses committed by “their tribe” and exaggerate the offenses committed by “the other tribe”. Let’s just put everything into perspective a little bit.

        1. Until it hits the person, how can you tell the difference between someone throwing a milkshake and someone throwing a cupful of acid?

          The people doing the former will soon escalate to the latter, if this shit isn’t stopped soon.

          1. Until it hits the person, how can you tell the difference between someone throwing a milkshake and someone throwing a cupful of acid?

            That reasonable ignorance and fear would be a sound defense if you shot someone charging you with a cup.

            But after it has already been dumped on you, and is obviously not acid, it is no longer reasonable to treat it as if it might be.

            1. Fuck off.
              Hit me with anything and I’ll decide what response is reasonable, not you.

              1. To the contrary, it would be the police and/or the jury who would be deciding.

                We already have institutions in place for resolving this kind of dispute.

                1. EE for tattling and state supremacy.

            2. But mean words, now that’s beyond the pale. And who gets to decide that? Why the same group that gets to move the goalposts on violence of course. Welcome to the new reality-fluid universe.

            3. In this thread, escher out ignorant Jeff and doesnt know about acid attacks in London.

        2. “I guess technically throwing a milkshake at someone is “assault” but I doubt any jurisdiction anywhere would actually prosecute it as an assault.”

          All Crowder did was say mean words. Maza is STILL worse.

          “Calling it “assault” is magnifying the offense to too large a degree IMO. It’s like calling a glitterbomb “assault”. Well sure technically, but it’s not what most people think of when they use the term “assault”.”

          If somebody did that to Carlitos…how would IT describe the incident?

          “Too many people are so determined to defend “their tribe” and attack “the other tribe” that they throw away reason and minimize the offenses committed by “their tribe” and exaggerate the offenses committed by “the other tribe”. Let’s just put everything into perspective a little bit.”

          The right wingers who shut down debate are…?
          The right wingers who lead campaigns to purge disagreeing voices from social media are…”
          The right wingers who publicly assault left-wingers are…?

          Stop trying to generate a false equivalency.

        3. Too many people are so determined to defend “their tribe” and attack “the other tribe”

          You are a piece of shit liar. People who despise socialism and Progressives are not a fucking tribe. Hating socialism is properly known as ‘sanity’.

          200 million people were killed in the last century by their own government. Every one of those governments was socialist.
          Every one of those governments claimed victory for ‘the good of the people’. Every one of those governments deplatformed wrong-thinkers, encouraged reporting wrong-think to authorities, and eventually changed public education to make wrong-think impossible.

          Anyone who advocates for socialism is an enemy to free speech. Your ‘perspective’ is the inside of your ass.

        4. Ok. Chem and others.

          Poor milkshake on me.

          See what happens next.

          Hint: You don’t get to cry like a bitch.

          1. And that’s been the point of conservatives and centrists.

            Where the fuck do you think milkshaking is going to go? Are you going to whine “Hey, dude, it was just a joke” when somebody you did that to decides to just pummel the fuck out of you?

            People who do that are requesting a savage beating.

        5. In Britain the milkshakes already turned to bricks, shit head.

  12. Just remember, there are only two possible sides to this story.

    Either you are on the side that says that Crowder did absolutely nothing wrong, or you are on the side that says that Crowder should be completely deplatformed off Youtube.

    There is no gray area in between!

    1. You’re on the side of too fucking intellectually lazy to watch the videos and come to an informed decision. Fuck off Jeff.

      1. I think we both know which side you’re on.

        1. The correct one? Goddamn you’re dull little twat Pedo Jeffy.

    2. Whatever dude.

      I would like to point out, however, that Crowder actually hasn’t done anything wrong.

      He’s made some videos fisking the videos put out by one of Vox’ major frontmen. In them he pokes some light fun at Maza – using the very words Maza uses to describe himself. He repeatedly tells his viewers to not give Maza shit, that he’s just busting his balls.

      Maza, however, is the one advocating directly assaulting people.

      https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1130862813713502210

      1. Crowder actually hasn’t done anything wrong.

        Do you think it’s wrong to insult people?

        1. Do you think it’s wrong to insult people?

          Why is it wrong to insult people?

          1. I’m asking you. Do you think it’s wrong to insult people?

            1. It is certainly not wrong to call out an ignorant pieces of shit when refuse to accede historical facts. It is actually a solemn duty. If you have to mock them relentlessly to highlight their ignorance, then that is what you have to do.

            2. Nope.

        2. Of course not, you fucking idiot.

          1. So it wouldn’t be wrong for me to insult your mother?

            1. Do you think censorship is bad?

            2. You’re a fucken retard for its own sake, Chem.

            3. So it wouldn’t be wrong for me to insult your mother?

              Have at it, Jeff. They’re just words.

              Why, when I point out that your mom uses sewer rats as anal plugs before she has you and your dad lick them off, it’s JUST WORDS.

              Unless….unless– that’s your real life and I’ve just struck a nerve.

        3. Don Rickles on line 2 … says lighten up

        4. YouTube doesn’t. I mean, Colbert does it a lot and he has had no problems with his YouTube channel…

    3. How dull your world must be if you only see in black and white.

      1. I know, right? But take a look around you. Too many people have been radicalized to such a degree that they see only white hats and black hats.

        1. Everything Jeff says is a product of psychotic impotence.

          1. The only psychosis around here is the origin of the narrative that you all try to create about me. I’m psychotic, I’m a pedophile, I’m a child molester, I’m a progressive SJW, I’m an idiot, it’s mostly amusing at this stage. It’s just so obvious that you cannot rebut my argument so all you are left with is calling me names. Because, as I pointed out earlier, the Rules for 21st Century Argumentation are:

            1. Only arguments that emanate from one’s own tribe have merit. Arguments that emanate from outside the tribe are by definition based in deception and ill will, no matter the content of the argument itself.

            2. Arguments that emanate from within the tribe do not have to obey any sort of burden of proof. They are simply accepted as fact, because the source is considered trustworthy. Any criticism of such an argument from within the tribe (no criticism from outside the tribe can be considered meritorious, see rule #1) can be successfully rebutted by accusing the critic of insufficient loyalty to the tribe.

            That’s the model you and a lot of the New Right people around here are following. Nothing I will ever say will convince you of anything even if I’m right because I am outside of your tribe. Therefore all you can do is follow your playbook and call me names and insult me and concoct these bizarre narratives about me in order to try to destroy my reputation.

            1. Nah. You’re just a sophist.

            2. It’s just so obvious that you cannot rebut my argument so all you are left with is calling me names.

              You have become tedious. Everything you post is fallacious. You post no arguments that deserve rebuttal because they contain no facts. Point to a single fact in your pathetic tirade above.

              You proposed a ridiculous thought experiment the other day that had zero merit and ignored the actual history of the relationship between the US and Mexico. When I commented, you responded with this tribal bullshit and then tried to support your own argument with a sock-puppet.

              Therefore all you can do is follow your playbook and call me names and insult me and concoct these bizarre narratives about me in order to try to destroy my reputation.

              Seriously, Jeff, you need some counseling. If you think anonymous posts to a message board establish a reputation, you have some serious issues.

              1. What are you even talking about, I don’t have sock puppets here.

                Do you even know what a thought experiment is? Here is a clue, the Schrodinger’s Cat paradox is the result of a thought experiment, there wasn’t a literal cat placed in a literal box.

                What you did was, you refused to even consider the thought experiment on its own merits, and instead concocted this bullshit objection to it that was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, just so you could virtue signal to your tribe that you weren’t going to let that apostate chemjeff get away with anything resembling polite discourse.

                So you’re following along perfectly with the playbook laid out above:

                “Nothing I will ever say will convince you of anything even if I’m right because I am outside of your tribe. “

                1. What are you even talking about, I don’t have sock puppets here.

                  Both you and JFree (Jeffrey? Chemjeff?) called me a ‘Trump-humper’ in the same thread. Considering that I never mentioned Trump once, this is a tell. JFree exclusively supported your posts. If it’s not you, you have an admirer. Since I can’t imagine why anyone would admire you, I assume it is you.

                  What you did was, you refused to even consider the thought experiment on its own merits

                  It was a stupid ‘thought experiment’. Mexico treats the majority of its citizens as serfs. They don’t allow immigration by poor people and their message to asylum seekers is ‘Keep Walking’. This goes back to its inception. That they specifically killed immigrants, people they invited to settle that territory, at the Alamo is listed on fucking Wikipedia, which is not exactly a bastion of conservatism. You are clearly ignorant about the history of Mexico, the current politics in Mexico, and the history of the United States for that matter. You are all fallacy and no fact!

                  “Nothing I will ever say will convince you of anything even if I’m right because I am outside of your tribe. “

                  My tribe is ‘sane people who have at least a passing knowledge of history’. Try saying something intelligent instead of trolling for attention. You argue like you are in the 7th grade.

                2. Jeff, you use sophomoric thought experiments because you are too fucking lazy to actually do research or educate yourself.

                  We call you names because you fucking refuse to change your behavior and educate yourself. If you would utilize facts and actual rational arguments we wouldnt have grown tired of child like interactions with you. You’re not worth debating because you have no intellectual though or education backing your child like arguments.

            3. You’re a lazy ignorant motherfucker who after 24 hours of argument probably still hasn’t gone to watch the videos you are criticizing. In other words you’re a fucking dishonest asshole Jeff.

  13. Robby, Steven did not harass Carlos. If you actually watch the rebuttal videos, he presents substantive arguments and citations. You can cherry pick insults he tosses out, but you’re still just cherry picking. This article is legitimately fake news.

    1. Agreed. I wonder where the author got his information from? Obviously not from Crowder who has given a close figure of time devoted to addressing VOX.
      What continues to puzzle me is what they consider harassment. Jokes, even in bad taste, are not harassment. Sigh….

    1. Jeff uses leftist media outlet to defend leftist media outlet attacking conservative independent comedian.

      Fuck off Jeff. Stop being intentionally ignorant and watch the rebuttal videos. Crowder throws on comedic barbs on a well informed rebuttal with actual citations (also on his crowder website with links for each citation). Its no different than bill Maher. So fuck off you ignorant asshole.

        1. Ha your bitch ass rips off my schtick.

          1. The ass of Yellow Tony is not to be underestimated.

      1. Where am I defending what Vox or Maza are doing?

        Oh wait I’m not. But this is where you view everything in terms of tribes.

        Since I’m not on Team Crowder, that must mean I’m on Team Vox! Because there’s only two teams! Nuanced thinking is for cucks! Amirite?

        1. Every single petson who reads your posts is instantly aware that you’re an idiot. You’re a punchline.

        2. Where am I defending what Vox or Maza are doing?

          Oh wait I’m not.

          What you have done is walk into the middle of a conservation and shit yourself in order to provoke a reaction and get people to pay attention to you.

          See there, Robby? If you aren’t defending everything that Crowder does 100%, then that means you must agree with Maza and want Crowder kicked off of Youtube!

          Your comment was asinine. You were called out on it and then responded with your bullshit tirade about tribalism. Here is the thing. There is only one ‘tribe’: the Progressives. They are responsible for all the behaviors you describe. Everyone else is best described as ‘the sane people’. When you defend the progressives, or whatever weird move you made in this case, you evoke a reaction from the sane people.

          Now shut up and go clean your pants.

        3. So you’re pretending you didn’t post the gizmodo link? Or did you not bother to read it because of how intellectually lazy you are?

          Have you even bothered to watch the crowder videos to get a fucking idea of what you’re arguing about? Crowder literally read the “evicdence” YouTube gave him on the voxadpocalypse video last night. Did you bother watching?

          If you are too fucking lazy to educate yourself, why have you been arguing for 24 hours?

      2. So, Jesse, who do you think is responsible for doxxing Maza?

        1. Not crowder. Next stupid question?

        2. wat?

          When was Maza’s identity not known? He’s a public figure. He’s a major face in a major media company. We all knew who he was. We knew his name. We knew he was gay. We knew he was a Marxist. We knew he was a progressive, was Latino.

          If you wanted to ‘dox’ him – what would be the point? He was already accesible on Twitter and Facebook, and through Vox.

          As such ANYONE COULD HAVE ‘DOXXED’ HIM – if you mean ‘looked up the address of an already known person’. He’s not a Federal judge, he’s not a politician or law enforcement officer – the government isn’t working to keep his home address and phone number out of the public records that everyone else’s are in.

          FFS – if I knew your name, age, race, and what city you lived in I could just look up your address online.

          1. Who textbombed Maza?

            1. Do you have any evidence it was Crowder? Even IT won’t claim Crowder did it.

              So…what is the point?

            2. Who is responsible for the attempted assassination of several gop lawmakers? Who is responsible for the multiple assaults on ppl for wearing MAGA hats?

              This isn’t the winning argument you think it is.

            3. A bunch of randos.

              Now, if you’re trying to imply that Crowder – who explicitly points out over and over that those watching his videos should not go fuck with Maza over personal stuff like his being queer, lispy, or Latino – still bears responsibility for those who choose to do that then you’re going to have to say that Maza bears responsibility both for those people mass-reporting Crowder’s videos – which Maza *suggested people do*, he didn’t tell them not to, he asked them to do that – AND for the people throwing things at other people they don’t like.

              The latter wasn’t even a suggestion. It was a straight out exhortation by Maza that Progressives should assault non-Progressives. There was no wishy-washy, ‘maybe he was asking a question’ or anything like that.

            4. Well, we know who some of them are because Maza posted their phone numbers. Hmm, what could be his motivation for that?

              1. Tim Pool mentioned that he had to blur out their numbers because Maza doxxed them when complaining about them.

    2. Fuckin’ LOL at citing one of Gawker’s zombie sites.

  14. My only comment/complaint is with the word “homophobic”. The use of this word is as lazy as it is incorrect.

    The correct term should be “anti-homosexual”, much like “anti-Semitic” or “anti-fascist”.

    1. Semitiphobic. Fasciphobic.

    2. Taken literally, “homophobic” requires a substantial understood omission: “afraid of [thinking about fucking between two people of] the same [sex].” But it’s the word we have. You should see what this language does to verbs.

      1. Most of us aren’t fearful of homos fucking. We just find it extremely aesthetically unpleasant. Most of us also don’t give a fuck if two adult men do that in privacy either.

        Complete indifference then.

        1. I don’t like vanilla, and yet calling me “vanillaphobic” makes one sound retarded.

        2. I don’t think you give much of a fuck about anything but mainlining Sean Hannity and heroin.

        3. It is kinda….gay.

          /tugs on collar gently. Nervous grin.

      2. You’re both right. Tom’s point stands – that’s really not the issue for most people who are anti-homosexual. They’re not afraid of homosexuals, they’re not afraid of thinking about homosexual sex.

        They’re *anti*-homosexual in the same sense as people are anti-Semitic.

        ‘Homophobe’ is a comment meant to directly insult and belittle the person its directed at. Its an insult. We’re told we can’t insult people anymore – specifically by Progressives like you.

        So let’s drop the insults and do this like adults – anti-homosexual it it then.

        1. Calling you anti-homosexual is also an insult. Only retards are anti-homosexual.

          1. There you go Tony – showing your unWokeness. Only the unWoke consider being retarded as a bad thing.

            You know that the Progressives eat their own, right? And that gay men are right on the edge of having all their protections removed – you guys are too successful and, too often, too white. You’re moving down the intersectionality list. Your victim privilege card is being downgraded from Platinum.

            Don’t be surprised if, in a couple years, someone is dredging up these old comments of yours as justification for burning you at the stake.

            1. We can always go back into hiding. It’s what we’re good at. It’s how we recruit children.

          2. One can be anti gay mafia without being anti gay.

      3. It is an ad hominem, as are all casual neologisms using “-phobic”. It is an Orwelliian word designed to make certain lines of thought unthinkable.

    3. My only comment/complaint is with the word “homophobic”. The use of this word is as lazy as it is incorrect.

      1995 called. It want’s it’s talking point back.

      1. 1995 called. It want’s it’s talking point back.

        Ooooooh! Burn!

        1. Meh. I can only see the same strawman argument so many times before I just get snarky.

  15. Youtube is a private company but it enjoys special protections from the government. If it doesn’t maintain its neutrality it should lose those protections.

    1. It receives no special protections from the government. That is a patently false claim.

      1. Cough *section 230* cough

        1. A brave effort, but he’s immune to facts.

  16. THIS WHOLE EPISODE WAS AN EXCUSE TO DEMONETIZE INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST/CONTENT CREATORS.

    They banned hundreds, all of them non-corporate types. They deplatformed a history teacher who teaches history because his WWII video contained Nazi imagery.

    The whole thing is an attempt by Big Lefty Media to get rid of independent thinkers. There are too many Left-liberal journalists who post content that doesn’t fit the dominant narrative. Think Andy Ngo in Portland, who exposes Antifa violence.

    Big Lefty Media wants former DNC execs acting as editors to keep wrongthink stories from getting out. We can’t have the little guys choosing stories on their own that don’t fit The Narrative. It’s the same reason Sharyl Atkisson is no longer at CBS – Ben Rhodes brother shut all her stories down during the Obama era,

    1. It’s battlespace preparation for the 2020 election. They’ll keep ramping it up to the point where, during the actual campaign, half the country will be silenced on online platforms.

      I’m a member of a private FB group. Just some old fuddy duddies who met each other online years ago, and we discuss politics in that private group to avoid annoying anybody, and stick to recipes and pictures of our gardens in our public posts.

      So, we’ve just gotten notice that FB is going to be examining private posts, and deleting them if they find them offensive, even if you’re going out of your way to hide them from anybody who would actually be offended.

      They’re planning on denying use of their platforms to half the political spectrum, and doing it too close to the election for a response to come in time.

      1. There will be no samizdat in our Brave New world.

      2. Seems to me that if they really do try to deplatform half of the political spectrum they will quickly stop being in a position to do that. A huge chunk of Youtube users and content creators are right of center. Why does everyone think that people who aren’t leftists are incapable of creating new media companies to compete with Google once they have alienated half of their users?
        That’s why Google censorship is less bad than government censorship. Google only has the power as long as it is what most people are using. And they could easily fuck that up.

      3. Bitchute
        Minds
        Gab
        Tiktok

  17. Perhaps the most quintessentially American value is protecting the rights of stupid people.

    1. You should be very glad of that Tony. As you are a huge beneficiary of that.

  18. Robbie, It is not a true statement that Crowder has made fun of the Vox guy so much that it borders on obsessive. Unless you have better figures, Crowder has only devoted 2% of time to him. That is out of thousands of videos. Please correct me if Im wrong or please correct your statement to make it reflect reality.

  19. YouTube Punishes Steven Crowder for Homophobic Speech, a Confused Approach to an Unsolvable Problem

    Oh

    My

    Fucking

    God.

    Crowder called Carlos Maza a ‘lispy queerLlatino’ as part of a commentary on Maza’s videos.

    MAZA CALLS HIMSELF QUEER. He’s also Latino – and has a pronounced lisp.

    His fucking Twitter handle is ‘gaywonk’. He calls himself a ‘Marxist pig’. He calls Tucker Carlson a white supremacist.

    Also, I’d like to remind you Soave about all the ‘punch up’ crap SJW’s keep pushing out when it comes to comedy. Maza is the frontman for a multi-million dollar media company. Crowder is a small YT channel. *Maza* is using the power of his position to silence . . . not even a critic. Maza’s been intimating pretty directly that people should go to Crowder’s videos and mass-report them. Maza is the bully here.

    Crowder’s ‘harrassment’ begins and end with him fisking Maza’s videos. That’s it. Oh, and he pokes some light fun at Maza’s lisp and kind of effeminate mannerisms.

    Have you watched any of Crowder’s work Soave? Have you seen the videos in question? If you did you’d understand why YT dropped their ban.

    If doing so doesn’t ‘satisfy’ Progressives its because those guys just want any dissenting voice silenced and will resort to lies and crocodile tears to do so.

    1. Maza directly encourages people to assault others.

      https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1130862813713502210

      Carlos Maza
      ‏Verified account @gaywonk

      Milkshake them all. Humiliate them at every turn. Make them dread public organizing.

      But yeah, Crowder’s the bully.

      1. Maybe they’re both bullies, maybe neither one have acquitted themselves particularly well, and maybe reasonable discerning people can make distinctions beyond “my team good their team bad”.

        1. BOTH SIDES!!!!

          Except, you know, not.

        2. Call me when YouTube demonitizes Carlos Maza.

        3. Reasonable and principled ppl, yes. And then there’s you.

        4. Crowder is not a bully idiot. No different than morons like Colbert et al.

          Honestly, this ‘both sides’ crap without proof is evil.

        5. I think it’s just comedy. Most good comedy is offensive to someone.

        6. Call me when the Left stops using ‘punch up’ as an excuse to attack media personalities they don’t like.

          Maza does not punch up.

          1. Also, let me know when ‘I made a series of videos and someone else saw those videos and talked about them’ actually means ‘bullying’.

            Maza is upset because Crowder calls out the bullshit assertions with no backing Maza makes in his videos. Maza is crying because someone is not only not accepting what he says as ‘it is known’ but brings facts to the table.

    2. Honestly, I’d never seen a full Steven Crowder video before this. I’d seen little snippets of him, and even from those little snippets it’s clear that he’s not harassing or attacking, he’s just taking little jabs in much the way a Late Night Talk Show host makes little jabs at people.

      So today I finally watched one of his full videos…and it’s non-PC but pretty tame. And also freaking hilarious-it reminds me of the The Daily Show way back when Jon Stewart was first starting there, and Colbert was also brand new. Obviously left-leaning but they were genuinely funny, and concerned about being funny moreso than whether they were “on point.”

      1. YouTube is creating a Streisand effect.

        I never have heard of most of these non-Lefties that they ban or de-monetize and it make the propaganda outlet rounds. Now these banned people have more viewers.

        1. YouTube Google…

      2. He’s not ‘clean’ by any means, but he’s not ‘profane’ as Soave describes him. You’re right in that his show would have been about as tame as The Daily Show 20 years ago. Its certainly not bluer than Trevor Noah, Colbert, or Oliver. Hell, he’s cleaner than Bee.

    3. Progressive throw the first punch and then scream like bitches when their target hits back.

      Simple as that.

      1. This is what Shikha was saying about the left vs. right movement. The left is a bunch of weak punks with weak ideas that take it too far, and the rights response is always more unified and powerful and therefore more dangerous.

        1. Ah, the ‘proportional response’ theory.

          When one party (e.g. the left – Antifa, BLM, Occupy etc.)begins to organize a protest and then steps up the frequency of those protests to go and attack other people’s right to congregate or protest, then you can expect some push back. Especially when the original party escalates by using force, violence and destruction of property (again, I’ve yet to see ‘far right’ extremists beat old men down in the streets, cowards like that guy in Toronto kicking women, professors smashing people’s head in with bike locks, punks sucker punching people on campus, misguided snowflakes stealing signs etc.; you know the drill. Campusreform does a good job cataloging this as Soave has).

          People have pride and they won’t stand for it. So if the ‘right’ mobilizes and are better at it two things. Then the left are losers and they shouldn’t play.

          Reminds me about Israel. The Arabs scream and yell and then impotently attack and get their asses handed to them but Israel has to play by the rules and even give back territory they won fair and square. How about, you know, DON’T ATTACK ISRAEL?

          You don’t get to dictate the terms of the engagement.

        2. Yeah, well, if she reversed the sides she’d be correct.

  20. “YouTube, presumably, would never take broad action against all offensive comedy videos—and as long as some remain watchable, it will be possible to accuse the platform of viewpoint discrimination. If Crowder were to lose his channel while any liberal comedian’s profanity-laced anti-Trump tirade survived, conservatives would call it hypocrisy.”

    And they would be correct.

    Juxtapose this with Gillespie’s piece an Allen Ginsburg. In that case at any point is it conceded that the censors have a defensible point?

  21. Jesus, these conservatives are such snowflakes.

  22. Oye, you call that news? This is news:

    https://youtu.be/mMZOQZz4-qc

  23. It’s always narrative Uber Alles at Reason

    ENB: David French is the One True Voice of conservatism

    Soave: Crowder is a homophobe

    1. Lol. ENB said that? Meh. She’s a progressive in libertarian drag at this point I reckon.

      I’m expecting a ‘conservatives are such snowflakes’ from her this morning.

      1. I listened to that podcast and caught that line. It made me hate the editors even more. Every word Welch speaks drips with elitist condescension. None of them shows any familiarity with the right despite unanimously despising them

      2. “…Conservative writer David Marcus suggested the story was emblematic of the divide between newly popular Catholic theocrats and more traditional conservatives like David French…”

        https://reason.com/2019/06/05/everyone-got-the-dutch-teen-euthanasia-story-wrong/

        1. When Pope Francis argues for open borders that is never called theocracy…

  24. Do you think sensitive snowflakes, immoral, unprincipled, faux-righteous, left-wing nags, scolds, cowards and bullies like Carlos Maza and his ilk (pick) give a shit about innocent people like Fischer?

    They have a target and if you’re in their way too bad.

    If there’s one thing we’ve learned from this degenerate bunch of assholes like Vox is the ends justify the means.

    Horrible stance here by YouTube.

    Also. Those asking if they’d apply this rule (incoherent mess as it is) equally to people like Colbert, Sykes, Meyers – and whomever else engages in constant ‘hate speech’ rhetoric – heh. Don’t make me laugh.

    Everyone knows they’re safe. They ‘right-think’.

  25. I fail to see what is “homophobic” about Crowder’s speech. He didn’t express fear of Maza. He didn’t even express hatred of Maza. He mocked Maza, and for good reason: Maza is a self-righteous, self-important little twit, on top of his reprehensible political views. And I say that as a gay man myself.

  26. It’s important for libertarians to strongly oppose such calls for regulation, whether or not they spring from legitimate grievances about various tech platforms’ policies.

    The author states this at the end of the article, but doesn’t back it up with an actual argument. I am wary of the government coming in and regulating the way social media companies censor their content, but I think an actual argument is necessary to make this comment… especially after the entire article seems to indicate that these companies are out of control censoring speech that is on the right.

    1. Where would Soave be on whether Jerry Falwell had a legitimate grievance against Larry Flynt? Would he describe Flynt as a Christophobe?

      Nuance on these issues apparently comes in when you do not despise what the person complaining is.

  27. We shouldn’t ignore the 600 lb. gorilla in the middle of the room–Google is being investigated for antitrust by the Department of Justice, which means that even if actions like these were being taken at the behest of advertisers before, facing scrutiny by both parties on antitrust grounds–in an election year–means that politics are more important now than they were last week.

    As it stands right now, what incentive do House, Senate, or presidential candidates have to stick up for Google? Google is a bunch of fucking super villains to everybody from cultural conservatives who’ve been the victims of their deplatforming to people on the left like Liz Warren, who have been vocally calling for the breakup of Google for weeks.

    Along with Facebook, they may be among the rarest of birds in an election year, who are less popular with both parties than either party is by itself. It makes sense that Google would pick a side to at least try to assuage the concerns of one side over the other. Oh, and if there’s any doubt about which side YouTube is trying to curry favor with, that should have been dispelled by the announcement of their policy yesterday:

    “YouTube said on Wednesday that it is prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.”

    —-WSJ, yesterday

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-bans-supremacist-videos-11559754035

    That’s the new policy. It’s a social justice warrior’s dream come true. We really shouldn’t ignore the new policy (per Google’s own announcement) or the fact that Google is being subjected to an antitrust investigation in an election year.

    1. That veteran status policy is just begging for trouble.

      “There is no question, I think, to any reasonable observer that the president found a way to falsify a disabled status, taking advantage of his privileged status in order to avoid serving. You have somebody who thinks it’s all right to let somebody go in his place into a deadly war and is willing to pretend to be disabled in order to do it. That is an assault on the honor of this country.”

      —-Pete Buttigieg, Afghanistan War veteran.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/28/is-it-time-talk-about-donald-trumps-draft-dodging/?

      What do you think is likely to be more controversial–going after content creators on the right for claiming that veteran status makes someone superior, or YouTube refusing to go after content creators on the left who claim that Donald Trump is inferior because he’s not a veteran?

      1. Mayor Butt did not say people who aren’t veterans are inferior, he said Trump is inferior because he cheated and let someone die in his place.

        I say Trump is inferior because of his DNA. Is that racist?

        1. 1. Clinton? He dodged the draft too.

          2. Draft dodging is not cowardice. Avoiding being enslaved is not the act of a coward. The draft is enslavement, conscription is slavery, conscripts are slaves. Period. And you’re certainly not going to be able to use Vietnam as an example of a ‘war of national defense’ where you can muster some sliver of a moral justification requiring people to take up arms in defense of their nation.

          3. Yes. If you think someone is inferior because of their DNA that is that actual definition of racism. Like for as long as the concept of racism has existed its been ‘your DNA is inferior’.

          1. Yet draft dodging only seems to matter to Republicans when Democrats do it. And Trump didn’t go to Oxford, exactly.

            I said one person’s DNA was inadequate to the task of the presidency. Not his entire race. Not all orange people.

            1. 1. No, it doesn’t matter to Republicans even then.

              2. What does going to Oxford have to do with anything? Or is that how you’re going to justify giving Clinton a pass? ‘Oooooh, he went to Oxford!’. Yeah, he went to Oxford – and look how he turned out.

              Nope – you said

              I say Trump is inferior because of his DNA. Is that racist?

              That’s judging everyone who shares his DNA.

        2. When was Trump ever charged for draft dodging? Like, never.

          The speculation is that the doctor who who provided medical info for deferment was friendly to the Trump family. But even his family admit that they have no proof that he falsified anything.

        3. Mayor Butt did not say people who aren’t veterans are inferior, he said Trump is inferior because he cheated and let someone die in his place.

          Good for Trump! The more Americans get out of serving in destructive wars the better.

          The fact that Buttigieg volunteered makes him a war monger and a moron.

        4. Also, even if Trump did dodge the draft, that doesn’t mean *someone else was picked to fill a slot*.

          No one ‘died in his place’.

          1. Why are all you dumb fuckers defending Donald fucking Trump?!? Jesus Christ. Do you even look at yourselves?

            1. We’re not “defending Donald Trump”, we’re defending the principle that war between states is unjust and that people have a right (and arguably a moral obligation) to avoid serving in wars.

              It is you, Tony, who tries to elevate misguided fools who voluntarily turn themselves into cannon fodder in pointless foreign wars into heroes; whether that is a superficial attempt to appeal to what you misperceive as others’ preferences or whether you are simply a war monger remains anybody’s guess; personally, I don’t think you have any moral principles.

              1. IOW, it’s placing principle over principal. Something Tony is incapable of doing.

            2. I’m not defending Trump. I’m pointing out that your attacks don’t have any merit. There is a difference.

              And if I’m defending Trump, its because you’re meritlessly attacking him. I would defend anyone else in such a situation – lest you turn your attention to me and I found myself standing alone.

              Attack Trump on what he’s done wrong and I’ll support that. Attack Trump for a) something that isn’t even proven and b) would, IMO, be completely justified – avoiding being enslaved – and I’ll stand with the man.

  28. Calling out Maza for the subversive Marxist shill he is isn’t hateful. You give that guy enough rope and he hangs himself daily. That’s part of why Crowder (and all the other e-celebs) are boring; they go for the low-hanging fruit.

    If he doesn’t want to be mocked, stop bugging out in these soyboy tier Vox videos where he blames white men and free markets for all of our problems.

    1. So in other words, people like Maza should be “humiliated at every turn” so that they “dread public organizing”?

      1. What a laughably stupid take.

        1. PedoJeff Slayer of Strawmen

          1. He’s NOT crazy!
            YOU’RE crazy!
            90% of the voices in Jeff’s head agree

            1. 90% of the voices in Jeff’s head

              Nobody goes there anymore.

              It’s too crowded.

      2. He should feel fortunate that all he has to dread is being eternally btfod in debate in the public square. How barbaric!

      3. Why do you care? You outright cheer when this is done to consevatives. There is no violation of any libertarian principle in ridicule. But there is a violation of your white knighting for progressives. So much for not being on a team.

      4. So in other words, people like Maza should be “humiliated at every turn” so that they “dread public organizing”?

        That’s what Maza thinks. So why not hold him to his word?

      5. If Maza is being humiliated at every turn then maybe Maza should consider what he’s doing that he constantly humilitates himself.

        I can’t humiliate you. Only you can do that to you. I can certainly make comments on your behavior.

        Or are you saying I should be censored so you can have a safe-space no matter what you do? You walk around naked, smeared with dog excrement and I’m just supposed to let you come up and hump my leg? Because you might humiliate yourself should I recoil in revulsion?

      6. That’s the way a any society (including a libertarian society) imposes social norms: through ostracisim, disapproval, and humiliation, based on free speech and freedom of association. It’s a lot less unpleasant than imposing social norms through government force, which is the only alternative.

    2. You give that guy enough rope and he hangs himself daily.

      Now you’re kink-shaming him. You conservatives are just horrible people. There should be an internet commenting license just so we can get yours taken away.

    3. That’s part of why Crowder (and all the other e-celebs) are boring; they go for the low-hanging fruit.

      Bigot! Homophobe!

  29. “By Wednesday, YouTube had sort of changed its mind, and it announced that Crowder’s channel would be demonetized—meaning it could no longer make money off advertisements—until he deleted a link to a merchandise page allowing fans to buy his “Socialism Is For F*gs” T-shirt”

    Call me a cynic, but I find it shocking that such a petty adjustment is all YouTube is demanding here. I like Crowder, but surely he must have known that his promotion of that shirt on YouTube was a temporary activity.

    1. The thing is that the consequences to Crowder are small because has a big following and lots of other sources of income.

      The need to PUNISH Crowder means they had to change entire policies, and the way those polices are enforced, to put Crowder in violation and therefore causing actual harm to smaller channels that don’t have the same following. The fall-out from this hit dozens or hundreds of channels yesterday, and often for videos that are 3-4 years old.

      Several people were demonetized for posting parodies: there was one group that did a parody of a Sandy Hook Denier to highlight how stupid that conspiracy was, and their whole channel was demonetized because of that one video they made over 4 years ago.

      The reason we should care it not because we like Crowder, but because Crowder’s enemies are intending to cause harm and they don’t care who gets caught in the crossfire.

  30. “Crowder has 4 million subscribers, and some of them have harassed Maza—including by texting him over and over again demanding that he debate Crowder.”

    So if I had fans and I told them explicitly to NOT do something and they do it anyway…it’s MY responsibility?

    Feel the Libertarianism.

    1. I felt the Reason version. It had no pulse.

    2. So if I had fans and I told them explicitly to NOT do something and they do it anyway…it’s MY responsibility?

      Depends on how much of a wink-and-a-nod you give, really.

      “What a nice business you have here. Shame if something were to happen to it.” and all that jazz.

      1. Oh, you’ve never watched Crowder. Good to know.

        He’s quite explicit and repetitive with the constant refrains to not bother this person. Do not dox them. Do not do anything.

        See, if helps if you actually see anything he has ever done so you have a clue what you’re writing about here.

        …meanwhile, Carlitos supports milkshaking public figures he doesn’t like. Seems a bit inconsistent.

        1. Principals > principles

        2. Oh, you’ve never watched Crowder. Good to know.

          Yep.

          I also didn’t say how my answer would apply to Crowder, Carlitos, or anyone else. Your offense is 100% from you assuming facts not in evidence.

          1. I also didn’t say how my answer would apply to Crowder, Carlitos, or anyone else. Your offense is 100% from you assuming facts not in evidence.

            By the usual rules of English discourse, if you mention something in the context of a dialog, it relates to the statements that precede it. So don’t play dumb.

            1. He isnt playing.

      2. And so what do we call Maza’s outright calls for violence? Or do only winks and nods count?

        1. Don’t know, don’t care. In case you didn’t notice, I haven’t actually voiced any opinions on Crowder, Maza, or anyone else.

          1. Depends on how much of a wink-and-a-nod you give, really.

            “What a nice business you have here. Shame if something were to happen to it.” and all that jazz.

            *Wink* *nod*

      3. As our little adventure with Preet shows, telling people on the internet to STAHP doing something tends to actually encourage that behavior.

  31. >>>in the vein of a conservative provocateur

    queue Snidely Whiplash wtf is a conservative provacateur?

    1. Somebody who disagrees with a Progressive on any issue.

      Unlike, say, Reason…he has infiltrated antifa. He confronts people who wish him or his people harm.

      1. Mark Levin’s Army … Burke in the holster?

        never heard of Crowder … the clips posted above were cute.

  32. […] YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet (GOOG), managed to get itself in a bunch of trouble over how it handled a conservative comedian named Steven Crowder who a Vox journalist named Carlos Maza has accused of […]

  33. “Maza was furiously dissatisfied with the outcome, and he tweeted that demonetization isn’t a suitable punishment for content creators like Crowder, who make most of their money via other methods.”

    Sound totally rational there, Carlitos.

    “Not only should he be demonetized, he should be BANNED for…hurting my fee-fees”

    Mind you, he has whined that real life is not like school where a principal can intervene. He seriously said that.

  34. “YouTube isn’t bound by the First Amendment and is well within its rights to apply its rules selectively and arbitrarily”

    I vehemently disagree.

    YouTube makes money off of the product developed by these people. They are free to not share the money, but they do make the money.

    Ergo, they are violating a contract in enforcing rules selectively. If you have rules, you should either enforce them equally or forfeit all Section 230 protections and be driven into insolvency. Then when somebody replaces you, they will see the risks involved with turning into a publisher.

    1. All I can say about this ongoing debate about “private company! private company!” is this. Youtobe et. al. have terms of service. If they violate their own terms of service with selective enforcement, they’re subject to civil suits and FTC complaints. See: YouTuberLaw.

      1. As a layman;

        (2) Civil liability – No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
        (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
        (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

        Clearly violates;

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

        If Trump declared Fox News immune from liability for content they published, whether they generated it or not, Democrats and many Republicans would rightfully impeach him. But, because electrons, YouTube can knowingly curate and publish content it knows is fallacious and even specifically harmful without consequence.

        Congress *cannot* tell a private entity it’s OK to abridge constitutionally protected speech. Not only is it forbidden from doing so by the 1A, doing so a priori is just nonsense.

  35. Come on, Robby–don’t buy into the left’s reframing of language.
    Stephen Crowder’s comments/jokes are not homophobic.
    “Phobic” comes from phobia, which means fear.
    Do you really think for a minute that Stephen Crowder is afraid of homosexuals?

    1. Not merely fear, but irrational fear.

    2. What a fresh take on the issue.

      The term also has no root words dealing with sexuality. It’s a total misnomer! Except it’s the accepted word for what we’re talking about: being a bigoted cunt.

      If you care so much about accuracy in terminology, explain what the fuck “libertarian” is supposed to mean.

      1. It is accepted as an Orwellian ad hominem smear against those it is deployed against. It is low rhetoric that should be considered out bounds in civil discourse.

        1. So you prefer bigoted cunt?

          1. It is just as civil, reasoned fair as the other, that is: not at all.

            1. So tell me what problem you have with gay people in general and I’ll tell you what the appropriate term for your attitude is.

              1. The problem is the homosexual activists intolerance towards infidels to their religion.

                1. Our god is cock, same as yours.

              2. Do you have 200 words for it like Eskimos have for snow?

                1. I was advocating for just the one.

        2. Which is more “Orwellian”…

          Using a word as it’s been used for years under the meaning that is well understood?

          or insisting the word means something else entirely based on the misnomer root words, in a way that is largely disconnected with the way it’s actually being used?

          1. It is being used as an ad hominem attack to shut down debate based on the literal meaning. It is rhetorical garbage, and I don’t think anyone should be required to accept it.

            1. If you have to create a strawman so that you don’t “accept” something, you probably aren’t rejecting what you think you are.

              1. What strawman?
                The word was constructed that way for a reason, and the way that it is used still fits that reason.

      2. Yeah, indeed: Maza is a “bigoted cunt”.

  36. Oh, by the way, just for the record, Maza has explicitly called for his supporters to assault people and he’s never even been considered for a ban.

    The fact that some of Crowder’s 4 million followers do stupid shit isn’t even in the ballpark of the same thing.

    People on the internet are dicks.

  37. No one to cheer for here.
    Crowder is a loud-mouthed, obnoxious twerp who is using his platform to even the score for getting Atomic wedgied in high school and being a virgin until he was 22.
    Maza is a fainting leftist whiner who uses the shielf of being part of a victim class to shut down content he doesn’t like.
    Gawd I hate Youtube.

    1. Thanks Nick, now go get the jacket dry cleaned.

      1. Fire is pretty dry.

        1. No, it actually is not. H2O being a byproduct of hydrocarbon-oxygen combustion.

  38. I’ll wait patiently for Youtube to ban all the people who use ‘white’ and ‘male’ as slurs in personal attacks and claims that anyone to the right of Biden is an entrenched racist and fascist.

    1. Those are mainstream and reasonable discourse which belong on the editorialpage of the NYT. At least according to robby.

  39. The number of folks here triggered by “homophobic” would be comical if y’all weren’t so serious.

    1. The number of folks here willing to outright lie would be comical if y’all weren’t so serious.

      1. Nah. Libertarians lie a lot.

  40. Again Reason misses the entire point of not only YouTube’s purge but also property rights. Property rights are contextual and a person does not have the right to construct a nuclear bomb or reactor on their property, which is why in terms of activities that are a danger to the rights of others, the state can intervene to stop it since it holds a monopoly on the use of overwhelming force to obliterate enemies and keep the peace. It doesn’t preclude a person from owning guns or using them to defend themselves.

    In terms of the YouTube purge, tech companies (like Google and Facebook) have become part of the Left’s political machine and what is happening is part of their war against their political enemies. In other words, they are at war to destroy them and not out of any legitimate sense of enforcing terms and conditions of contracts. Consequently, they lose any sense of private property or free speech protections and should not only be investigated but also forced to carry content they disagree with anyway. Arguing it purely using private property rights is a way to enable the Left’s evil.

  41. This article needs to mention his apology video.

    1. I mentioned it yesterday in a thread. I don’t watch a lot of crowder because it’s a lot of doctrinaire conservative stuff, but his insult comedy is on par with Rickles.

      1. I gave up on Crowder awhile ago because I just don’t find a most of what him and his bros say very funny, and his end of episode monologues are painfully self righteous and annoying, and the skits are garbage, and I hate Hopper… Really was only in it for the interviews.

        But yeah, by the end of the apology video, I was thoroughly cracked up.

  42. I’m daily fantasy sports player. I occasionally deposited more money than I wanted to and I contact support to withdraw the money. Most sites will only allow you to withdraw winnings from contests, but every single time they made an exception and let me have my money back. The response time was within 24 hours.

    The problem with social media sites is that its free. They give you a platform to be heard or seen on a global scale for free. But in their business model they have to mostly please advertisers, not the actual content providers. So they can jerk users around and demonetize materials that cost them time and money to create. Or they’ll send their info to advertisers.

    I don’t want the government to regulate speech on any platform. But perhaps they should enforce certain contracts. People make a living on Youtube as much as tenants live their lives in an apartment. Imagine if landlords routinely kicked tenants out because they decided to be creative in interpreting their TOS or adding stuff on the fly.

    If a youtube channel reach a certain threshold in viewership, both sides should come to some kind of an agreement. There should be a special team that deals with these channels and they should be trained to be politically neutral.

  43. It does not seem that Crowder is afraid of Maza.. but it IS pretty certain that Maza is afraid of Crowder.

    So WHO has the phobia here?

    One says up, the other says down, and both want U Tube to decide the other guy is wrong…..

    schoolyard tiff, nothing more. Tell them both to grow up, kiss and make up, and stop their whinge.

    And what bidniss is it of uTube or Maza what Crowder sells on his own dime and time elsewhere?

    1. What’s most hilarious about all of this is crowder goes above and beyond to cite the arguments against what maza states. This is what irks maza the most. If you watch his videos there are big citations. It’s like if you gave Jeff a YouTube channel. Just utterly worthless platitudes without any depth of thought. The fact that crowder goes and cites each one of his arguments most likely irks maza the most.

      1. You nailed it. Proggies are vampires that feed on deceit and false praise and cannot stand in the light of truth. When you give citation or ask for theirs, they either melt down or storm off. They will appeal to ‘experts’, but are unable to defend data other than ‘because they said so!’ They are all fallacy and no facts.

        I love Jeffy’s new tu quoque he came up with this week that everyone disagrees with him because he is not of ‘their tribe’. Like he has ever posted an argument that was not riddled with logical errors.

        I have come to think of Proggies like the boggarts in the Harry Potter stories. They take the form of my worst fear (socialists with the power to vote), but the way to defeat them is to point out their flaws and laugh at them.

  44. There may be another angle to Carlos Maza’s jihad against Crowder, that is less about Mr. Crowder than Mr. Maza and his employer.

    Apparently the Vox Media Union (yeah, that kind of union) is in the middle of labor negotiations with Vox Media right now. Mr. Maza’s campaign against Crowder/YouTube, and YouTube’s typical kneejerk demonetization response is likely to hit Vox’ revenue where it hurts.

    That would also explain why, even in the face of moves by YouTube to “do something”, Mr. Maza only seems more shrill.

    The most frustrating aspect of this (aside from it being yet another anti-free speech campaign these days), is that there is collateral damage – the independent YouTube creators, like the one mentioned in the article.

    It should be noted that Mr. Maza, despite creating videos on YouTube for Vox, probably doesn’t personally feel the pain of these disruptions, because he presumably is drawing a paycheck from Vox (when he’s not on strike or whatever), as opposed to the independent creators who are hoping that some few ad plays will kick a few cents or bucks into their personal wages.

    I don’t know about the veracity of this analysis, but it makes sense, and it also points up the largely unspoken issue of 2019 – the attrition of large media players in the face of independent content creators, the existential threat that implies to their (dying) business models, and their increasingly unhinged attacks on the new new media every time they see some independent with 500K subscribers or 100s of thousands of views on a video.

    I feel like dusting off my dot-com bubble campaign ribbons, hanging out the side of a helicopter, playing Ride of the Valkyries, and going surfing while I watch more “news” websites die. It was fun in 2001, and it will be again. Sorry about your business models, folks.

  45. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. […]

  46. […] has received additional attention from BoingBoing, Reason Magazine/reason.com, ABC News and Fortune Magazine among other outlets regarding YouTube’s action […]

  47. […] has received extra attention from Boing Boing, Reason Magazine/reason.com, ABC news and Fortune Magazine among other things about the action of YouTube against […]

  48. […] has received additional attention from BoingBoing, Reason Magazine/reason.com, ABC News and Fortune Magazine among other outlets regarding YouTube’s action against […]

  49. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  50. Calling Steven Crowder’s comments “homophobic” is complete nonsense. There isn’t a single example anyone has pointed to that demonstrates language or actions based on bias, hatred, or fear of homosexuality or homosexuals. It might not be nice to call someone a lispy queer and a shirt with “f*gs” printed on it might make people uncomfortable, but these are not in and of themselves evidence of bigotry unless you think “lispy” and “queer” are intrinsically offensive words. Absent that, you would need context to decide (as with most things), and there really doesn’t seem to be any example, or even any suggestion from people who support the YouTube decision, of Crowder using sexuality as a basis for any argument or prejudicial determination. Insults aren’t bigotry, and demonstrably accurate insults are definitely not.

  51. […] Robby Soave at Reason notes, this is a solution that pissed off absolutely everyone and satisfied absolutely no one. Though, there is one thing that pretty much everyone agrees: boy YouTube sure pointed a pretty […]

  52. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  53. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  54. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  55. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  56. Keep in mind, Maza gathered up all of the clips of Crowder mocking him.

    Crowder has, literally, thousands of videos.

    Maza’s compilation of insults didn’t last 3 minutes.

  57. This IS A SOLVABLE problem. Strip the immunity from the gov from these sites to be sued from libel. They are supposed to be neutral public platforms. If they, the social media platforms, are going to get involved they cannot have it both ways.

  58. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  59. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  60. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  61. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  62. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  63. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  64. […] “YouTube Punishes Steven Crowder for Homophobic Speech, a Confused Approach to an Unsolvable Problem,” by Robby Soave […]

  65. […] of self-owns, YouTube managed to piss off conservatives—by apparently demonetizing the videos of right-wing comedian Steven Crowder—and to enrage progressives by not actually banning him for jokes directed at a gay Vox […]

  66. […] YouTube managed to piss off conservatives—by apparently demonetizing the videos of right-wing comedian Steven Crowder—and to enrage progressives by not actually banning him for jokes directed at a gay Vox […]

  67. […] and purely educational channel that shared videos about historical events. It also started pulling down videos from Ford Fischer, an objective news journalist who covers white supremacists. Rational […]

  68. YouTube is a private company, they are the sole determiner of what is or isn’t on their platform. Nobody has a RIGHT to be on YouTube. There is no right of free speech that would force a private company to host content they do not wish to host for any or no reason. Only the GOVERNMENT is banned from making laws restricting free speech.

    It would have once been unthinkable that free market conservatives would try and force YouTube or any broadcaster or website or print publication to distribute content — for FREE — that the owners objected to. Here, conservatives are complaining of being SILENCED when their videos are not being removed, but YouTube demonetizes them. So YouTube should be forced not only to host videos violating their policies, but to PAY the creator..

  69. […] is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion.” As Robby Soave noted, among the first batch of people blocked by YouTube was former Reason intern Ford Fischer, whose […]

  70. […] week it was the eminently dislikable but nonetheless popular conservative shock-bro Steven Crowder nominated for YouTube de-platforming. Crowder has long mocked Vox video producer Carlos […]

  71. […] week it was the eminently dislikable but nonetheless popular conservative shock-bro Steven Crowder nominated for YouTube de-platforming. Crowder has long mocked Vox video producer Carlos […]

  72. […] in June. The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox‘s Carlos Maza tweeted “milkshake them all” after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel […]

  73. […] in June. The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox‘s Carlos Maza tweeted “milkshake them all” after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel […]

  74. […] in June. The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox‘s Carlos Maza tweeted “milkshake them all” after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel […]

  75. […] earlier in June. The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox‘s Carlos Maza tweeted “milkshake them all” after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel […]

  76. […] in June. The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox‘s Carlos Maza tweeted “milkshake them all” after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.