|
Post by gyroscope on Mar 13, 2018 12:10:52 GMT
Yo. This is an excerpt from FreeBSD's Code of Conduct, which is based off of GeekFeminism's.
'This code of conduct applies to all spaces used by the FreeBSD Project, including our mailing lists, IRC channels, and social media, both online and off. Anyone who is found to violate this code of conduct may be sanctioned or expelled from FreeBSD Project controlled spaces at the discretion of the FreeBSD Code of Conduct Committee. Participants are responsible for knowing and abiding by these rules. Harassment includes but is not limited to: Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion. Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment. Deliberate misgendering. Deliberate use of "dead" or rejected names. Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour in spaces where they're not appropriate. '
I'd like to point out "Comments that reinforce systemic oppression." That's part of a philosophy that disregards hurtful comments that don't reinforce systemic oppression. A philosophy that had decided that certain sections of the populace have power, others don't, and thus, reverse racism doesn't exist, because it's not 'systemic oppression'.
|
|
|
Post by Joerg Sprave on Mar 13, 2018 12:16:41 GMT
Moved to "Off Topic" as it obviously isn't related to the Union.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 12:18:47 GMT
Ah, so you admit then that there is a left-wing influence, hell bent on bringing about content enforcement on youtube and social media platforms? Ther are left and right wing influences hell bent on bringing about conten enforcement on youtube and social media platforms. This isnt an issue unique to each side, it it not an issue unique to any American political party or political definition. The issues we face in the union effect us all, political offiliations do not matter. I disagree, since I follow many of the right wing influencers (from free market capitalists, to conservatives and all the way to the alt-right) and I haven't seen any of them call for a shut down of left wing contenct creators or ideologues. They almost unanimously support the first amendment and want to see everyones right to free speech to be protected. Their main complaints are that they are being subjected to censorship and shut downs by youtube as well as activists while their left wing counter parts aren't nearly as affected. I also see myself as right wing, but I don't want to shut any of the regressives down. I believe in the free market place of ideas, and I have confidence in my beliefes and ideology that in a free marketplace of ideas, my ideology will win by virtue of having stronger, more compelling arguments than the regressive left does. I welcome opposing views because it gives me opportunity to make mine shine. The regressive left want to silence opposing views, because they fear that they can't win in up front debates. Therein lies the difference.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 13, 2018 13:00:17 GMT
I have seen right wingers suggest that leftists be denied entry or the right to speak on every major discussion forum I have ever participated in. The hypocracy of someone adcocating free speech, but only if you advocate free speech really irritates me. That is before we get into the whole debate about what exacttly defines free speech.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 13, 2018 13:28:14 GMT
Ah, so you admit then that there is a left-wing influence, hell bent on bringing about content enforcement on youtube and social media platforms? I still have no idea of what your chip is dude, obviously you feel like you're under attack from your political opponents... that's a pity for you, but I am not fighting you on your issues. I find your musings about what racism is quite amusing and astonishingly one-sided, but I have no stakes in your nativist vs. multi-culture battles at present moment, especially not on this forum. You might want to check your attitude at the login window as well. As for your point? I'm not making any distinctions - I couldn't care less what the political affiliation is, and they're both. Fact remains that whatever your political problems are, your beef is not with YouTube, but with someone else. Starting a fight with the guy caught in the middle is typical when you're rage driven, but just like in a street fight it won't remove the original fight, only add another damaged party.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 14:57:45 GMT
Ah, so you admit then that there is a left-wing influence, hell bent on bringing about content enforcement on youtube and social media platforms? I still have no idea of what your chip is dude, obviously you feel like you're under attack from your political opponents... that's a pity for you, but I am not fighting you on your issues. I find your musings about what racism is quite amusing and astonishingly one-sided, but I have no stakes in your nativist vs. multi-culture battles at present moment, especially not on this forum. You might want to check your attitude at the login window as well. As for your point? I'm not making any distinctions - I couldn't care less what the political affiliation is, and they're both. Fact remains that whatever your political problems are, your beef is not with YouTube, but with someone else. Starting a fight with the guy caught in the middle is typical when you're rage driven, but just like in a street fight it won't remove the original fight, only add another damaged party. I don't present the arguments that I do merely for myself. I can handle my own battles. I'm doing it because I see conservative youtubers constantly get harassed and get abused not just by online activists, but by youtube themselves. The claim that it's happening "On both sides" is just categorically wrong. There's clear evidence that the left-wing movement is more likely to use tactics like doxxing, false-flagging and whatever means necessaru (in fact, that's even a slogan of theirs "by any means necessary") to shut down dissidents of their political views. This doesn't happen from the right wing side of things.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 13, 2018 16:24:19 GMT
This doesn't happen from the right wing side of things. Where is your basis for this, except that you believe it to be so? I've managed over 5,000 channels on YouTube in my MCNs. To be clear, we had no political restrictions, or conscious choice on what channels we took in. We've handled hundreds of copyright strikes and community strikes. We've spent hundreds of hours analysing this and talking to YouTube. I've spent hundreds of hours talking to YouTubers, who all believe the same thing that you do; that they and theirs are under systematic attack from YouTube. Here reasons that channels that I have managed have been given community strikes: Liberal display of sex, or insinuation to lewd acts without age restriction Fake facts inside factual content Display of Swaztikas outside of a historical content Display of egregious violence without age limit Hate speech (using fighting words) Libel and slander It was always a small number of channels that were repeat offenders in these areas, we had about 30 channels that were in that group. Although we had a few (not many) but a few channels with a conservative agenda, NONE of the channels that were strike fodder were "conservative." The majority were just teen vloggers with an attitude. Three of the channels were what you would probably call SJW, the worst offender being one of the biggest vloggers in Germany, who has a clear and outspoken left-wing agenda. The two cases of hate speech that we had, were not against minorities, but cases of using fighting words towards political opponents on the right. That doesn't prove anything. But if you look at that, you could discern a pattern: the right is censoring our content by reporting our channels. For instance; there was a clear patterns of community strikes being handed out in certain areas that are especially offensive to the US family values movement, leading to the suspicion that they were systematically screening content for sex and lewd acts. But, I have seen no proof that it was true that there was any systematic oppression going on here. What we did conclude and were able to deduce form the numbers was this: the billion plus YouTube users in the world represent the broad spectrum of sensitivities and sensibilities of the general population. It's enough that only one person reports an infringement and YouTube will look into it, if the video has enough views. Ergo, you don't need a secret cabal out there 'hunting channels' for what they think is offensive content. Have you ever considered that maybe there's a portion of the population that finds birther style messaging offensive? A few people that might be offended by anti-immigration content? A few people that don't like fake facts? You don't need a conspiracy for people to report what they feel is infringements of community guidelines, you just need a few individuals acting all on their lonely. Now... just like my unnamed left wing vlogger client (let's leave him out of this) I'm willing to put my hand in fire that some of your right wing vlogger friends are going to be at best a bit lose and easy about fact checking, prone to using fighting words and what not. These offences are basis for community strikes on YouTube (no matter what the political view expressed is), which once again only needs to get reported once. Apply Occam's Razor; when there's a simple explanation, the more complicated ones are always wrong. There are people out there who disagree with you, if you break the rules they're likely to report you. It's not the message but how you deliver it. Not a conspiracy, just the natural effect of being controversial.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 16:58:44 GMT
This doesn't happen from the right wing side of things. Where is your basis for this, except that you believe it to be so? I've managed over 5,000 channels on YouTube in my MCNs. To be clear, we had no political restrictions, or conscious choice on what channels we took in. We've handled hundreds of copyright strikes and community strikes. We've spent hundreds of hours analysing this and talking to YouTube. I've spent hundreds of hours talking to YouTubers, who all believe the same thing that you do; that they and theirs are under systematic attack from YouTube. So you admit to being employed or formerly employed by youtube? Then you'll excuse me for not believing your sincerity or honesty.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 13, 2018 16:59:41 GMT
I think the whole myth that the right wing is being targeted comes from the recent wave of bans. There seems to be a lot of firearms stuff been banned in the most recent wave. I suspect because of this the most recent wave does have a higher ban rate of right wingers. This does not mean they are being targeted just like the last ban wave effecting left wingers more does not mean they were being targeted. A quick google shows an article in the VICE suggesting Left wingers are almost non existent on Youtube. I don't think the article is great but it does claim Right Wing speakers Dominate Youtube, not sure I agree either side does, www.vice.com/en_uk/article/3dy7vb/why-the-right-is-dominating-youtube
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 17:00:44 GMT
This doesn't happen from the right wing side of things. Have you ever considered that maybe there's a portion of the population that finds birther style messaging offensive? A few people that might be offended by anti-immigration content? A few people that don't like fake facts? You don't need a conspiracy for people to report what they feel is infringements of community guidelines, you just need a few individuals acting all on their lonely. Since when is the taking of offense valid grounds for censoring someone? Anyone can be offended by anything at anytime. So there are no principles or consistency behind it. It's solely arbitrary and biased.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 13, 2018 17:24:19 GMT
No where did you get that idea? I founded an independent MCN back in the day (which I have since sold). You should read more carefully. Go ahead and google me (I'm here under my real name).
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 13, 2018 17:27:39 GMT
Since when is the taking of offense valid grounds for censoring someone? Again read more carefully: it's enough for someone to be offended to report you. If then the video is against policy it will get a strike. And yes, these rules are opaque to some degree - that's why we're here. But we're not here because specifically the alt-right is under attack... it's for transparency for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 13, 2018 17:44:44 GMT
Again read more carefully: it's enough for someone to be offended to report you. If then the video is against policy it will get a strike. And yes, these rules are opaque to some degree - that's why we're here. But we're not here because specifically the alt-right is under attack... it's for transparency for everyone. You're in a clear minority in that regard, seeing as how most people who are here recognize that freedom of expression has been under attack, specifically the content of right wingers and conservatives, while left wing channels and celebrities have been treated in a much less harsh manner. Oh and to further my proof of "racism" having it's definition changed by the left: Here's an official, comprehensive list of "microaggressions" published by the UCLA. According to this list, even claiming that you're not racist as a white person... Is racist. academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 13, 2018 18:09:25 GMT
Freedom of expression has been under attack.... Yes
Specifically the content of right wingers. No
Spartacus is in a minority. I've spent a lot of time here I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 13, 2018 18:17:22 GMT
Here's an official, comprehensive list of "microaggressions" published by the UCLA. [my highlighting] Jesus coffekanon , you need to get that tinfoil hat off and start reading more carefully. This is not an 'official' document from the UCLA, it's an excerpt from a working paper with a summary of microaggressions as defined in a book Derald Wing Sue, which if you look at the URL was created for a workshop on diversity. The amount of crap created at universities for workshops hath no end. Doesn't sound like a workshop that led to much except handwringing. Now, the concept of microaggressions has been widely criticised as being total baloney by a lot of prominent both right and left wing scholars and activists, including none other than Ralph Nader. It's also a concept scorned by independent non-partisan thinkers and free speech advocates such as Greg Lukianoff and Amitai Etzioni.
|
|