White supremacist Stefan Molyneux banned from YouTube

Is anyone horrified by this?

He isn't Alex Jones, he isn't David Icke, he's not Bill Cooper, he's not Malcolm X.

He's a pretentious philosophy nerd who has been taken off YouTube for mysterious reasons. And it has happened with him being grouped with white supremacists.

To be honest I'm a hypocrite, I'm happy for everyone he has been grouped with to be banned. The only name I recognise is David Duke and for Stefan to be lumped with that kind of scumbag is disgusting.

variety.com...

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I don't know this guy from adam.

People are not making these decisions, AI Algorithms are. He must have used a 'taboo' word or phrase. This is a very real danger of letting algorithms, not well trained people make decisions for us.

Giving AI too much control over our lives (like we've been asked at all) is dangerous in many ways notwithstanding what the 'tech gods' are telling us.

I like Stephan. I am almost positive he got kicked because he discussed the iq problem. You are not allowed to talk about statistics because they maybe racist.

I would rather see YouTube put a content warning on people’s videos than ban them outright. Censorship sucks.

originally posted by: bananashooter
I like Stephan. I am almost positive he got kicked because he discussed the iq problem. You are not allowed to talk about statistics because they maybe racist.

Facts aren’t racist.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

First time ive come across the mans name.

originally posted by: bananashooter
I like Stephan. I am almost positive he got kicked because he discussed the iq problem. You are not allowed to talk about statistics because they maybe racist.

That doesn’t explain the many videos of Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan discussing exactly that. These videos have thousands of views and Rogan certainly doesn’t have a small channel.

In my ideal reality I complete agree, but that’s not the case, the truth hurts. a reply to: Metallicus

What narritive does same Harris push, pretty sure he’s anti trump and anti Christian. You tube loves that. Didn’t joe just lose his show? a reply to: Drucifer

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Not to defend supremacy but are there not supremacist of all colors?

And then there’s something much worse, the moral supremest. a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: bananashooter
What narritive does same Harris push, pretty sure he’s anti trump and anti Christian. You tube loves that. Didn’t joe just lose his show? a reply to: Drucifer

Rogan sold distribution rights to Spotify for $100,000,000. He retains complete control over the show and it’s guests while Spotify hosts it. The only thing he loses is potential threat of being shut down by YouTube due to his guests and topics.

As for Sam Harris, I couldn’t tell you his thoughts on Trump as I haven’t come across any of his content discussing Trump. I do know he’s an atheist, whether that means he is anti-Christian, I couldn’t tell you. From what I gather, he’s not a fan of organized religion as a whole, doesn’t matter which one. Point was, he discusses the race and IQ topic and has not been banned from YouTube, nor has anyone else he’s discussed it with while appearing on their channels. I’ve been through a dozen or more videos with Harris in them and haven’t come across any anti-Trump content and with that being a hot topic, one would assume those videos would get pushed up via the algorithm more than his general content, which discusses humanity as a whole.

It’s not as if every republican/conservative is being pushed off YouTube. Exactly how many has it happened to now? A couple? You can still find PLENTY of right-leaning channels on there. Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and Donut Operator don’t seem to have any issues and their videos are well into millions of views.

He was very very effective in the 2016 election - posting detailed data walkthroughs on key issues.
He will not be allowed to reach as many people this time around - hence his ban.
It's as simple as that. Election interference.

Update - now also suspended from Twitter.
Just as with other cases of high profile (read high number of followers), the social media companies are coordinating to help Biden win in November.

a reply to: FyreByrd

But people are programing the algorithms to produce the results they want.

a reply to: UKTruth

This is quite astute, and I wholeheartedly agree.

He's moved over to bitchute. I keep up with him there.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I don't know this guy from adam.

People are not making these decisions, AI Algorithms are. He must have used a 'taboo' word or phrase. This is a very real danger of letting algorithms, not well trained people make decisions for us.

Giving AI too much control over our lives (like we've been asked at all) is dangerous in many ways notwithstanding what the 'tech gods' are telling us.

People ARE making these decisions.

It's fine if they don't want him.
Banning him with David Duke reeks of disinformation.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Wow, all the times I've seen this guy's name mentioned on ATS in passing, I honestly assumed he was the game designer that created the Fable games... Different Molyneux entirely.

It's Youtube's platform to do with as they wish BUT Youtube is owned by Google and Google benefits greatly from various tax subsidies as well as a number of partnerships with state and federal government in the US... thus, I would argue that Google/Youtube either needs to sever all ties to government or else they exist as an extension of the government and these actions directly run afoul of the First Amendment.

I am consistent on this point, for what it's worth... if a corporation takes tax subsidies or federal/state money beyond a direct sales contract, then they *should* be considered an extension of the government and all rules and Constitutional limitations should directly apply to their actions. Is silencing inconvenient opinions and disagreements with the manufactured narrative worth losing all that sweet tax payer money to Google? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd love to see it in action.

I think he was banned due to his tendancy to false flag anything even remotely against him with his army of sock accounts.

They picked a horrible time to do it though.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
It's Youtube's platform to do with as they wish BUT Youtube is owned by Google and Google benefits greatly from various tax subsidies as well as a number of partnerships with state and federal government in the US... thus, I would argue that Google/Youtube either needs to sever all ties to government or else they exist as an extension of the government and these actions directly run afoul of the First Amendment.

No one should be getting any money, let alone a Fortune 5 company.

This may be a mistake if this guy isn’t a known overt racist.

Just recently, the blind algorithm took down my favorite chess channel because it read the black and white pieces conversation( integral to chess) as racism! We all complained, and they rescinded the ridiculous act.

The algorithm is blind. Apparently Youtube is so big they dont have human eyes on the sites until the complaints come and exposes absurd acts like taking down a great chess channell becasue it has the flagged black and white words.


But as fyrebird said, I don't know this guy from Adam, either