They haven't stopped _distributing_ Brand's videos. They just have stopped paying him money from the ads.

Then that speech should remain on YouTube and those concern by the content of the speech should simply produce counterarguments and discredit that speech.

What is the counter argument to speech that calls a particular group of people "sub-human, and a stain on our planet"? What's to debate?

Lets be clear here - we're not talking about difference in opinion of fiscal policy that we can debate the pros and cons of.

I don't know, what about teaching the kids the history of hate they can recognise BS and just don't pay attention to it?

You can't delegate raising your kids to YouTube, right? What about the grown ups you say, well words are not spells - just because someone said that some group of people are sub-human doesn't make others believe that. We are not photocopiers, we are humans.

That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned.

> That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned.

Wait, so youtube shouldn't go after hate speech, because that's legal in the US, but should go after conspiracies and alternative history, despite those also being legal in the US? This doesn't make sense.

Nope, that’s not what I said.

I don't understand then, can you explain where I got it wrong?

madeofpalk said "Hate speech is not illegal in the US. [...]"

to which you responded "Then that speech should remain on YouTube and those concern by the content of the speech should simply produce counterarguments and discredit that speech."

I take this to mean that you think hate speech shouldn't be removed from youtube because it isn't illegal in the US.

Then you said "That hate speech claiming that some group of people are "stain on our planet" will probably claim other stuff like conspiracies and alternative history. Go after those if you are concerned."

I take this to mean that you think people who claim stuff like conspiracies and alternative history are fair game for youtube to "go after". But those things are just as legal as hate speech in America.

Where is my error in understanding?

Or maybe they were saying, “Don’t argue with an Idiot”. Or were referencing the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.

If you do want to argue, and correct the grave injustice of someone being wrong on the internet, something like history might be a better topic as you will have more of a basis for argument - although in my experience people can find a way to be obtuse and redirect discussions about anything…sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

It’s not YouTube that’s supposed to go after those, it’s those who have concerns that should go after those who concern them with their speech. That’s the main point of my whole argument.

Anyway, I really don’t enjoy arguing over semantic. If I say I don’t mean that, it means I don’t mean that but it’s possible that I wasn’t articulate enough.

That's a great policy idea! You should create a competitor to YouTube so that you can enforce it. Nobody's stopping you.

Twitter's community notes works quite well. I don't think that people are incapable of discussion.

IMHO the problem is anonymity combined with some harmful dopamine loop, making people act horribly. Maybe even putting the age of the poster next to the nickname will reduce the heat of the discussion quite a bit.

Have you ever seen the kind of stuff people post on Facebook or on local news sites under their own name, next to their own photographs? These theories about internet civility have been disproven repeatedly over the past decade plus.

Yep. Who was hurt by all that? The problems arise when bunch of incels congregate on some anonymous imageboards or forums.

People saying dumbs stuff with no follow up is never a problem. If anything, they are quite interesting because you can look at those and see what kind of stuff they believe and talk about IRL. There are people analysing those to tackle actual issues because banning it online doesn't stop it from beings discussed in private or small groups.

> Yep. Who was hurt by all that?

The Rohingya for one

They were hurt but I’m not convinced that it was due to online posting. IMHO, Facebook was a reflection of what’s happening in real life. FB banning it would not do a thing, maybe change the timing due to the butterfly effect. What they(those who care about Rohingya people) should have done was to use these posts as intelligence about what’s about to happen and take precautions.