Support NeoGAF

[ILLtown]

if the video aims to incite violence then it can be banned by the TOS.

Not one of you has demonstrated how the video incites violence yet. Repeating the same claim repeatedly doesn't make it true.

How is this video inciting real world violence?

What is the evidence that links watching a clip of video game violence to an increase in real life violence?

sure seems like a lot of people here have no problem with trying to censor feminists.

Who here has called for feminists to be censored? As you claim that there are "a lot of people" doing that in this thread, you should have no problem quoting them all.

 

[Tripolygon]

But his previous "killing cops" videos were fine, it seems.....

Different things carry certain connotations and draws different reactions from different people.

 

[Zewp]

I don't think he got banned for just one video:

Yep, it's probably just bad timing too, coming so shortly after someone tried to assassinate liberal leaders.

That said, the videos were typical edgy trash but a channel ban is a bit heavy handed. They could have at most removed the videos and issued a warning.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

That's fucked up. I liked his OST uploads..

 

[Blam]

Yep, it's probably just bad timing too, coming so shortly after someone tried to assassinate liberal leaders.

That said, the videos were typical edgy trash but a channel ban is a bit heavy handed. They could have at most removed the videos and issued a warning.

I can almost guarentee that is what they did. Which would have thrown his account over the threshold to be permabanned. Because no doubt 1 strike for this video, then another 3 for those.

There he is permabanned, it's no consipracy and there's nobody to blame, but himself for this.

 

[nkarafo]

he titled his videos killing feminists, killing feminists and feeding them to animals and whatever variation to that effect he used to draw attention to his channel.

This again.

This has been refuted several times in this thread.

The "killing a feminist NPC" videos weren't even the 1% of his total RDR2 videos. Did you even take a look at his channel before his ban?

Different things carry certain connotations and draws different reactions from different people.

More like different rules apply to different people.

 

[Lort]

You do know hitler, wasn't making comedy or clickbait. Those were meant to represent real people and advocate real violence against actual people.
Context my friend.

Is this guy advocating or inciting violence against feminists?

IF I put a video saying look how I dispose of this annoying bartender in RDR2. AM I INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST REAL WORLD BARTENDERS?

He is not inciting violence, and it seems there are enough regulatory barriers against payment mechanisms, hosting, domain registration, etc. blocking alternatives from emerging easily.

Youtube alternative Bitchute is being demonetized from what I hear. These companies take competition seriously and it appears they collude to cut competitors when they're starting to take root.


This is a republic not a democracy, and we have a constitutional right of free speech. Right now the problem is we have excess regulations, apparently, impeding new competitors from arising naturally to provide pro free speech alternatives, competitors.

Cut the BS. ISIS advocates actual harm against actual americans and terrorist acts.

There is a difference between a video of shooting up a police station as T800 terminator or a gangster or saying how you killed X annoying person, versus advocating for the death of actual people.

You know incitement to violence is very different from depictions of fictional violence.

Punch a nazi, when you mean everyone you disagree with is a nazi, that is incitement to violence. Calling for white genocide, that is incitement to violence.

BTW enemy soldiers, russians, germans, etc. Rival gangsters, etc. These people are also actual humans deserving of rights. But fictional violence is not incitement to violence against them.

Which is the path to fascism, check. The founding fathers knew the importance of free speech.

At one time, women's right to vote was offensive, abolitionist speech regards ending slavery was offensive, limited free speech, is no free speech at all and leads to stagnation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mocracy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6a5d4e39f681

America is a democracy.. that is until it stops allowing its citizens to vote. As it says above “there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.”

Your saying that the only reason youtube is the number 1 video site is there isnt enough anti competativd corporate laws to protect opposition .. but that we have too many laws .. im going to let you think about that for a few moments and come up with a better argument.

Hint youtube was the first big video site .. thats why its still the biggest.

As for payments did you know that because American interests controlling the SWIFT banking protocol, Russia has now invented their own to conduct payments outside of USA political sanctions. Also USA dollar is now no longer being used as the primary form of currency exchange.. .. bitcoins popularity is also strong so people can make payments outside of American interests.
In short there are growing offerings for companies to use to accept payment no longer restricted by USA interventionist foreign policy.

To force youtube to host and provide information aligned to interests outside their own is facisim.

In short by telling youtube they have to promote ideas they dont agree with you are creating the state controlled media you seem to be arguing against.

 

[ILLtown]

Different things carry certain connotations and draws different reactions from different people.

Sorry, but you're scraping the very bottom of the barrel with this shit.

If these videos are inciting violence, as you claim, then explain the difference between inciting violence against police officers and inciting violence against feminists. Your previous argument was that advertisers would be put off, so are you arguing that both YouTube and advertisers are OK with people inciting violence against the police, but not against feminists?

 

[bilderberg]

Its got nothing to do with videogames.. if the video aims to incite violence then it can be banned by the TOS.

So inciting violence against feminsts isnt trying to intimidate them to censor them.. sure seems like a lot of people here have no problem with trying to censor feminists.

Maybe people actually dont like to have free speech hating violence insighting sellout videos on their video platform and so youtube is doing it for the money? Does thay make it ok then?

Would you rather a government sponsored video site so everyone could upload any video they wanted ?. or would u rather the free market as it is now that has allowed penty of other video sites like liveleak and vimeo to exist.. in short what u want is what we have right now. A free market were corporations can host only the content they feel is appropriate.

Welcome to the real world.

You can't just keep repeating the video's aim is to incite violence. I disagree with that. Decades of research on video game violence disagrees with that. You haven't said anything to outline how video game violence correlates to real world action. And who the hell here is trying to censor feminists? Oh wait...no you can't possibly. You can't actually believe that killing a fictional character is analogous to censorship? And can you step away from referencing the TOS for just two seconds? It's so purposefully vague as to allow youtube to selectively remove anyone they want, that bringing it up as some youtube bible isn't going to address anything. I wan't to know what you think without referencing, essentially, a make belief TOS.

 

[ILLtown]

Can one of the offendatrons please take up my "2 question challenge"?.....

How is this video inciting real world violence?

What is the evidence that links watching a clip of video game violence to an increase in real life violence?

Repeatedly dodging these questions only tells me you have no real arguments and have just had your feelings hurt, which is fine, but just don't pretend that it's anything other than that.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

In short by telling youtube they have to promote ideas they dont agree with you are creating the state controlled media you seem to be arguing against.

Enforcing your own laws and ToS unilaterally is fascism now?

 

[Dada55000]

The thing is people think mob rule is a good idea. We have representatives to enact policies, act as intermediaries and stop the majority from acting as a mob and oppressing the rights of the minority.

It is this advocacy for oppression of minorities, speech that may perhaps be viewed as offensive, by mob rule that is fought against. A minority of thought or opinion is quite different from the left's identity politics, and needs to be protected.

Here's the thing, right? People advocating for getting rid of the electoral college and whatnot, it always boils down to the same misunderstanding you showed. "US is not a democracy". Stop proliferating this falsity. Fucking ignorant people's thought process is this 'democracy=good' but 'US=/=democracy' therefore "FUCK THE SYSTEM, EVUL". This is being actively fed by every half baked smartalec going "Durr, it's not a democracy it's a republic, bro". This is misinformation that is damaging to everyone.

The US is a representative democracy, aka a run of the mill implementation of democracy. That should be the number 1 thing you say to a fuckstick on twitter whinging about the US not being a democracy.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Different things carry certain connotations and draws different reactions from different people.

Except the argument is: why is the same behaviour perpetrated against one arbitrary collection of 0 and 1s treated differently than against another arbitrary collection of 0 and 1s

And the answer is: Double standards.

 

[Tripolygon]

This again.

This has been refuted several times in this thread.

The "killing a feminist NPC" videos weren't even the 1% of his total RDR2 videos. Did you even take a look at his channel before his ban?


More like different rules apply to different people.

Okay? Cool, i don't see how that changes what i think is what happened to him. I don't enjoy nor watch those types of videos. He drew attention with his titles which lead to people reporting his video which lead to news websites picking it up which shines the spotlight on youtube and he got banned or whatever.

 

[Tripolygon]

Sorry, but you're scraping the very bottom of the barrel with this shit.

If these videos are inciting violence, as you claim, then explain the difference between inciting violence against police officers and inciting violence against feminists. Your previous argument was that advertisers would be put off, so are you arguing that both YouTube and advertisers are OK with people inciting violence against the police, but not against feminists?

Now quote where i said he was inciting violence. I think you got your wires crossed somewhere.

 

[Panajev2001a]

And its coming from vidja journalists lol Its like the industry needs some crazy arch enemy ala jack thompson or they just do the job themselves.
The one that hurts the most losing to this nonsense is giantbomb have not watched a video from them in years.

Game bloggers now think of themselves as high level art critics, they seem to believe they can be or are trend setters (if they loudly proclaimed single players are dead because that is how they feel, they think they can make their desires come true and change the medium) trying to educate the masses and moving the medium forward holding little beyond contempt for the gamers/customers/stupid buffoons and feeling a lot closer to the industry many would like to work in.

 

[ILLtown]

Now quote where i said he was inciting violence. I think you got your wires crossed somewhere.

If you don't think he was inciting violence, why are you happy that he got banned and why did you say that you think he totally deserved it?

Do you think people should be banned just because something offends you, is that it?

 

[nkarafo]

Okay? Cool, i don't see how that changes what i think is what happened to him. I don't enjoy nor watch those types of videos. He drew attention with his titles which led to people reporting his video which led to new websites picking it up and he got banned or whatever.

I don't argue about what happened. I argue about if that was fair?

So this happened and Youtube had to make a stance. Was their stance fair to him? According to their own rules it seems not.

I don't agree with censorship at all. I hate it's guts. But if you are going to be an authoritarian asshole at least apply your rules to everyone. For me this isn't even about censorship, it's about being treated unfairly and about rules not being applied to everyone equally. Double standards, basically.

 

[Tripolygon]

Except the argument is: why is the same behaviour perpetrated against one arbitrary collection of 0 and 1s treated differently than against another arbitrary collection of 0 and 1s

And the answer is: Double standards.

That's exactly what i said. Different things have different connotations and draw different reactions from different people aka double standards. Are you for real?

 

[Lort]

This is just a storm in a teacup.

If you want to see more censorship join in the campaigning.
If you want to see more people hating on feminists join your local right wing forum.
If you want to see youtube be more consitant argue that with them.

Or like me you could just wave your arms in the air like you just dont care.

 

[Tripolygon]

I don't argue about what happened. I argue about if that was fair?

So this happened and Youtube had to make a stance. Was their stance fair to him? According to their own rules it seems not.

I don't agree to censorship at all. I hate it's guts. But if you are going to be an authoritarian asshole at least apply your rules to everyone. For me this isn't even about censorship, it's about being treated unfairly and about rules not being applied to everyone.

And my post you quoted had nothing to do with whether it was fair. It was about what i think happened to him.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

That's exactly what i said. Different things have different connotations and draw different reactions from different people aka double standards.

Check the words I put in bold in my original comment. You appear to have mistaken one for the other.

Are you for real?

Given the context of this entire discussion, this is a remarkably ill-considered question.

About as ill-considered as the implicit endorsement of double-standards.

 

[5secondrulesucks]

youtube is fucking garbage. i remember watching a joe rogan clip where he said he had dinner with some of the youtube higher ups and they were talking about censoring videos. these people truly believe it their moral goal to do this kind of bullshit. its fucking gross

 

[nkarafo]

That's exactly what i said. Different things have different connotations and draw different reactions from different people aka double standards. Are you for real?

You know double standards are supposed to be bad, mkay? It seems you are fine with them.

And my post you quoted had nothing to do with whether it was fair. It was about what i think happened to him.

So, do you think it was fair?

 

[ILLtown]

Given the context of this entire discussion, this is a remarkably ill-considered question.

About as ill-considered as the implicit endorsement of double-standards.

Indeed.

"YouTube has double-standards, but the victim of those double-standards totally deserved it, lol!"

How the fuck do people even get around to thinking like that???

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

It's like we moved ten steps backwards from this....



And that was 1993, and we're almost done 2018.. For fuck sake!

I hate how YouTube, qualifies his videos as being "Shocking" and "Inciting violence" Ugh... I thought we came to a conclusion that video game violence doesn't incite RL violence back in the early nineties... And there is noting shocking about blowing someone's brains out (man or woman) in a video game, if the person playing the game is within legal age of playing said game.


There really needs to be better TOS and rules implemented across the board for entertainment and media online ,and be a bit more clear and logical.

 

[Ascend]

No one fought back in the beginning. Now, although it's not too late, fixing this is going to be a lot harder, because the real oppressors and tyrants were given leeway.

 

[cormack12]

The real reason it's been taken down is just because of the title triggering 'the movement'. Youtube need to do the right thing here

 

[Tripolygon]

If you don't think he was inciting violence, why are you happy that he got banned and why did you say that you think he totally deserved it?

Do you think people should be banned just because something offends you, is that it?

Perhaps i just enjoy watching the world burn. I laughed because when i saw the other thread i knew it was a matter of time before he got banned and like i said i don't enjoy those types of video that go out of their way to incite outrage.

 

[Ogbert]

But you can murder everyone.

Either it all incites violence, or none of it does.

 

[JordanN]

So what's a viable alternative to YouTube?

Before youtube was popular, I remember Gametrailers.com was the place for video game uploads.

But they're dead.

 

[Xenon]

Yeah they just made this 100X worse...

 

[hivsteak]

Youtube can do whatever they want. Users and uploaders alike have to migrate somewhere else if they don’t like it. Youtubers have plenty of cash and community to unite and produce a new platform. Its too bad nobody would actually do that because its easier to complain about Youtube and get half the internet to also complain for you until the problem is resolved.

 

[Skyn3t]

Before youtube was popular, I remember Gametrailers.com was the place for video game uploads.

But they're dead.

Yep, loved them as well. But I was asking in terms of a less fascist video platform for all sorts of creators. Vimeo? Maybe, but it's a niche in comparison to YouTube. Like all the other video sites. Monopoly is a bitch.

 

[KonradLaw]

Shit like this is making me not care anymore when all those big techs are whining about net neutrality. It's always "bu..bu..it's their platform, they can do whatever they want", but somehow net providers aren't supposed to enjoy the same freedom.
At least EU will make Youtube bleed money with the copyright reform.

 

[Tripolygon]

Check the words I put in bold in my original comment. You appear to have mistaken one for the other.


Given the context of this entire discussion, this is a remarkably ill-considered question.

About as ill-considered as the implicit endorsement of double-standards.

You took exception to the answer i gave which is similar answer you gave (double standards) but worded differently.

What is ill-considered is thinking we are consistent beings and everything deserves the same scrutiny and reaction. If i see a child get shot in a game, it will certainly get a stronger reaction out of me than seeing a adult get the same treatment even though they are the same action. Chief example being what most consider a powerful opening in the last of us. I'm not for double standards, i'm for treating certain subjects and situations different depending on context.

 

[Mattyp]

This is absolutely nuts. We're now comparing the killing of a virtual character in a video game the same as suppression of the Jews by Hitler.

People realise this is a video game right? An R18 video game for adults only right? Right? Why haven't you been campaigning for hookers rights after GTA3 was born?

Full force it seems of Neo Members. Here I made a meme.

 

[Helios]

Makes it seem like they issued a strike immediately followed by the suspension. I'd consider that capricious if so; if he was good citizen in the past he ought to have a chance to correct course.

Edit: yeah, that is indeed what the user is claiming happened. C'mon YouTube.

It's not the first time this happened either. I remember back when Sega was striking Shining Force let's plays on Youtube people would have their accounts terminated immediately without a notice or the option to delete them. This was like 5 years ago, too and the still haven't fixed their awful system.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Except the argument is: why is the same behaviour perpetrated against one arbitrary collection of 0 and 1s treated differently than against another arbitrary collection of 0 and 1s

And the answer is: Double standards.

There will continue to be double standards and YouTube will continue to try and protect their image as they see fit. It's a private company and they will face the consequences if there are any. It's the same situation with Sony now censoring some Japanese titles. They too can do as they wish to protect their image and will also face the consequences if there are any.

Videogames are an escape. A place where we should be free to enjoy them as we wish as long as they reside within the creators vision (without modding for example or cheating). If the game allows you to hit or shoot women then do be it. I would image the comments should be monitored but I don't know why the video needed that much attention when it's just a videogame.

 

[ILLtown]

I'm not for double standards, i'm for treating certain subjects and situations different depending on context.

But "double-standards" means applying different sets of principles to similar situations, which is entirely what you're advocating in this case.

 

[Tripolygon]

You know double standards are supposed to be bad, mkay? It seems you are fine with them.

So, do you think it was fair?

Yes it was double standards. As for it being fair, probably not because there are tons of similar videos and even worse on youtube but i don't care that he got banned.

 

[jadedm17]

I don't think he got banned for just one video:

Thanks for sharing.

I don't support a permanent ban but it's also insane what a game he made of this one NPC and those titles don't help; Would one video not get the funny across ? Ouch.

 

[Dr. Claus]

The videos were not particularly funny, nor interesting to watch - however the user did not need to get banned for doing such. Those celebrating his ban are worse than the "offending" videos. Grow up.

 

[Tripolygon]

But "double-standards" means applying different sets of principles to similar situations, which is entirely what you're advocating in this case.

You are missing a keyword there, unfairly.

Edit: And what am i advocating?

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

You took exception to the answer i gave which is similar answer you gave (double standards) but worded differently.

I take exception to someone quoting me and stating "that's exactly what I said" and then referring to something I specifically didn't say.

What is ill-considered is thinking we are consistent beings and everything deserves the same scrutiny and reaction.

A corporation or a service or a video hosting site is not a being.
And, on contrary to an inconsistent being, it governs its content by a (supposedly) uniform code of conduct and terms of service.
If it doesn't do this uniformally then people cannot know what the rules are.
If the rules are not known, people cannot comply with them.

So, once we move the goalposts back into their original position, you'll find the specifics of the concerns are not addressed by your casual re-wording and misrepresentation of them.

I'm not for double standards,

Great!

Oh, hang on:

.. i'm for treating certain subjects and situations different depending on context.

Not only are you espousing endorsement for double-standards, you're fooling yourself by treating "same" as "different" and giving sentience to lifeless entities in order to justify it.
This is the path of distortion and misrepresentation that simply leads to more distortion and misrepresentation as the double-standard hole you start to dig for yourself gets deeper and deeper and deeper.

 

[Ascend]

Honestly... As a protest, every gamer that has RDR2 needs to flood YouTube with videos recreating this... And using similar titles.

This has gone too far. And if we don't deal with this now, there is no turning back.

 

[nkarafo]

If i see a child get shot in a game, it will certainly get a stronger reaction out of me than seeing a adult get the same treatment even though they are the same action.

You are supposed to feel differently because it's two different situations. But in the context of videogames the only thing that happens really is that two 3D models and a bunch of pixels are depicting death. Nobody gets hurt really.

 

[Tripolygon]

You are supposed to feel differently because it's two different situations. But in the context of videogames the only thing that happens really is that two 3D models and a bunch of pixels are depicting death. Nobody gets hurt really.

Don't wanna enter any watchlist so i'll rephrase.

As is the supposed similar situations posed in this thread. They are different.

 

[nkarafo]

As is the killing cop and killing feminist? Different situations.

Same thing applies. I don't know what you arguing about here.

 

[ILLtown]

As is the killing cop and killing feminist? Different situations.

Different, but similar situations, hence a double-standard.

We don't need identity politics infecting more codes of conduct. Either inciting violence against innocent people is wrong or it's not. Don't say "it's OK against cops, but it's not OK against feminists!".

It's kinda hilarious that all the white knights think that women need extra protection though. Women should be treated equally! Oh wait, we meant only in terms of the things we get to pick and choose!