BuzzFeed Strikes Again

NSFW Warning: All the links in this post contain bad words and politically incorrect statements. I can’t help it; this is an intrinsic part of the story. The easily offended should move along.

BuzzFeed has succeeded in deplatforming yet another YouTuber. Tim Pool, Styx, and Vee (undoubtedly others) have discussed this case. A BuzzFeed blogger* wrote this hit piece about a fourteen-year-old girl with almost 900k subscribers on YouTube. She has a potty mouth and says things that disturb Lefty’s universe. BuzzFeed still has a comment section, and those comments make fun reading:

This article should be retitled “This is how to beat up a 14 year old kid with left wing totalitarianism”

She is awesome…buzzfeed can only dream of this amount of views… at least you people can always learn to code

thanks for highlighting, watched video and subbed, thanks buzzfeed helping to red pill me

As night follows day, YouTube has removed her video in the wake of the BuzzFeed piece because it allegedly contains “hate speech.” Fortunately, we live in an era when nothing can be fully censored on the InterWebs. Her video lives on at BitChute.

Sure, her stuff is edgy and maybe a kid this young shouldn’t be posting such material. That’s up to her parents to regulate. It’s not as if they are likely to be unaware of her doings online. The more significant issues are

  1. How does this deplatforming work? Does the BuzzFeed blogger contact YouTube and threaten to make them look bad if they don’t rid themselves of this meddlesome child? (Vee’s conjecture)
  2. Why are the legacy media so interested in YouTubers like this? Is it ideological or is it simply a business strategy to eliminate competitors? (Vee and Styx).
  3. What is the appropriate and useful response?

The motivations of the Enemy of the People are less important than response. Many YouTubers also have BitChute channels. Serious people like Sharyl Attkisson have Gab accounts. Minds.com is an open-source Twitter/Facebook- like social media site, minus the censorship. SubscribeStar is an alternative to Patreon without the added extra deplatforming feature. DuckDuckGo is a search engine without creepy tracking; so is Startpage. ProtonMail is the alternative to Gmail minus the privacy invasion. Brave is a browser that’s less creepy than most. For even more anonymity, use Tor.

Go forth and support these alternatives by using them and maybe even throwing them a few shekels. Censorship will only get worse in the run-up to the 2020 election. Lefty’s running scared. Cornered animals bite. Be careful out there.

*The author of the BuzzFeed piece once tweeted “KILL a straight white man on your way to work tomorrow.” Talk about hate speech!

11+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Author: drlorentz

photon whisperer & quantum mechanic

62 thoughts on “BuzzFeed Strikes Again”

  1. drlorentz:
    Maybe. Is Susan Wojcicki really afraid of a 14-year-old girl all the way across the continent? Credible threats are ban-worthy. A kid making an edgy joke? Not so much. This looks more like a good excuse for hassling a kid who’s politically incorrect.

    Here’s what she said: “Susan, I’ve known your address since last summer.  I’ve got a Luger and a mitochondrial disease. I don’t care if I live. Why should I care if you live or your children? I just called an Uber. You’ve got about seven minutes to draft up a will. … I’m coming for you, and it ain’t gonna be pretty.”

    Seeing as Youtube just had a disgruntled youtuber come to their campus and shoot three people (none fatally, thank God!), I can certainly understand not allowing this kind of talk.  This is different than the typical “somebody said FOAD, it’s a DEATH THREAT” rheeeee.

    0

  2. Damocles:

    drlorentz:
    Maybe. Is Susan Wojcicki really afraid of a 14-year-old girl all the way across the continent? Credible threats are ban-worthy. A kid making an edgy joke? Not so much. This looks more like a good excuse for hassling a kid who’s politically incorrect.

    Here’s what she said: “Susan, I’ve known your address since last summer.  I’ve got a Luger and a mitochondrial disease. I don’t care if I live. Why should I care if you live or your children? I just called an Uber. You’ve got about seven minutes to draft up a will. … I’m coming for you, and it ain’t gonna be pretty.”

    Seeing as Youtube just had a disgruntled youtuber come to their campus and shoot three people (none fatally, thank God!), I can certainly understand not allowing this kind of talk.  This is different than the typical “somebody said FOAD, it’s a DEATH THREAT” rheeeee.

    It is not what I would call an “edgy joke”. If someone has a lot of followers, one has to have some sense of responsibility because you might encourage unbalanced people to do something stupid. I believe in reciprocity. That is would it be okay for the CEO to say, “I know where you live and since you don’t care whether you like or die I will make the decision for you.” Can the “joke” go both ways?

    0

  3. Damocles:

    drlorentz:
    Maybe. Is Susan Wojcicki really afraid of a 14-year-old girl all the way across the continent? Credible threats are ban-worthy. A kid making an edgy joke? Not so much. This looks more like a good excuse for hassling a kid who’s politically incorrect.

    Here’s what she said: “Susan, I’ve known your address since last summer.  I’ve got a Luger and a mitochondrial disease. I don’t care if I live. Why should I care if you live or your children? I just called an Uber. You’ve got about seven minutes to draft up a will. … I’m coming for you, and it ain’t gonna be pretty.”

    Right off the bat the threat is not credible. I think Soph is in New York and Susan is in California. Unless the Uber is a hypersonic aircraft, it’s not getting there in seven minutes or seventy minutes.

    This is an edge case. Kathy Griffin got in some trouble for her Trump head stunt. To me, that was political speech. If CNN or whoever want to fire her to avoid the association with their brand, that’s one thing. Unlike CNN, YouTube is allegedly an intermediary, not a publisher. At least that’s their story vis a vis the DMCA. On the other hand, Trump as Julius Caesar is totally fine because it’s art. No serious person suggested the performance should be banned because it was a threat even though Caesar gets killed in the end. I prefer to err on the side of freedom.

    Damocles:
    Seeing as Youtube just had a disgruntled youtuber come to their campus and shoot three people (none fatally, thank God!), I can certainly understand not allowing this kind of talk.

    I understand the concern and maybe that explains the response. Color me skeptical. Has YouTube removed similar content made by SJWs? I doubt there has been any consistency. The YouTube shooter was disgruntled but did not post death threats; she just showed up. The real question is, do any social media threats from random strangers (versus people who have a relationship IRL) ever result in violence? I have yet to see an example.

    0

  4. 10 Cents:
    It is not what I would call an “edgy joke”. If someone has a lot of followers, one has to have some sense of responsibility because you might encourage unbalanced people to do something stupid. I believe in reciprocity. That is would it be okay for the CEO to say, “I know where you live and since you don’t care whether you like or die I will make the decision for you.” Can the “joke” go both ways?

    CNN threatened to dox some kid for making a meme. Kathy Griffin showed Trump’s severed head. Madonna contemplated blowing up the White House. So no, the joke doesn’t go both ways. The guys with the megaphones get away with all kinds of stuff that the “little people” can’t do.

    Susan W. was no more threatened by 14-year-old Soph than Jess Phillips thought Sargon (Carl Benjamin) was going to rape her. But it was totally OK for Phillips to find male suicide funny. It’s always punching down.

    Edit: And I forgot to mention “KILL a straight white man on your way to work tomorrow.” No incitement to violence there, right?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  5. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    It is not what I would call an “edgy joke”. If someone has a lot of followers, one has to have some sense of responsibility because you might encourage unbalanced people to do something stupid. I believe in reciprocity. That is would it be okay for the CEO to say, “I know where you live and since you don’t care whether you like or die I will make the decision for you.” Can the “joke” go both ways?

    CNN threatened to dox some kid for making a meme. Kathy Griffin showed Trump’s severed head. Madonna contemplated blowing up the White House. So no, the joke doesn’t go both ways. The guys with the megaphones get away with all kinds of stuff that the “little people” can’t do.

    Susan W. was no more threatened by 14-year-old Soph than Jess Phillips thought Sargon (Carl Benjamin) was going to rape her. But it was totally OK for Phillips to find male suicide funny. It’s always punching down.

    Edit: And I forgot to mention “KILL a straight white man on your way to work tomorrow.” No incitement to violence there, right?

    I am for consistency. I think you are too. For the record if it was credible threat would that have changed your mind?

    0

  6. 10 Cents:
    I am for consistency. I think you are too. For the record if it was credible threat would that have changed your mind?

    Of course. And, btw, such threats are illegal. We don’t need YouTube to be the nanny here. If there is illegal activity, the police can get involved. What we have instead is an unaccountable, opaque, vigilante organization. How did we get along before the church ladies were around to police the internet?

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  7. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    I am for consistency. I think you are too. For the record if it was credible threat would that have changed your mind?

    Of course. And, btw, such threats are illegal. We don’t need YouTube to be the nanny here. If there is illegal activity, the police can get involved. What we have instead is an unaccountable, opaque, vigilante organization. How did we get along before the church ladies were around to police the internet?

    I forgot about the illegality. Good call.

    I doubt these people have anything to do with a church.

    0

  8. 10 Cents:

    drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    I am for consistency. I think you are too. For the record if it was credible threat would that have changed your mind?

    Of course. And, btw, such threats are illegal. We don’t need YouTube to be the nanny here. If there is illegal activity, the police can get involved. What we have instead is an unaccountable, opaque, vigilante organization. How did we get along before the church ladies were around to police the internet?

    I forgot about the illegality. Good call.

    I doubt these people have anything to do with a church.

    Sure they do. They belong to the Church of Social Justice. They burn heretics.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  9. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:

    drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    I am for consistency. I think you are too. For the record if it was credible threat would that have changed your mind?

    Of course. And, btw, such threats are illegal. We don’t need YouTube to be the nanny here. If there is illegal activity, the police can get involved. What we have instead is an unaccountable, opaque, vigilante organization. How did we get along before the church ladies were around to police the internet?

    I forgot about the illegality. Good call.

    I doubt these people have anything to do with a church.

    Sure they do. They belong to the Church of Social Justice. They burn heretics.

    You just made that up. How do infidels fair? I am surprised that they don’t do it in a more carbon friendly matter. I thought the state of California had laws against starting heretical fires.

    0

  10. drlorentz:
    Right off the bat the threat is not credible. I think Soph is in New York and Susan is in California. Unless the Uber is a hypersonic aircraft, it’s not getting there in seven minutes or seventy minutes.

    I think she lives in the Bay Area, which does put her within easy Ubering distance.

    0

  11. drlorentz:
    We don’t need YouTube to be the nanny here. If there is illegal activity, the police can get involved. What we have instead is an unaccountable, opaque, vigilante organization. How did we get along before the church ladies were around to police the internet?

    How do you feel about the fact that we can’t swear on Ratburger?

    0

  12. Damocles:
    How do you feel about the fact that we can’t swear on Ratburger?

    I don’t care one way or the other. Ratburger is a private club with a strictly limited membership. It is not open to the public to post here. The proprietors are entitled to enforce any rules they like.

    If you’re trying to claim Ratburger is like YouTube or Twitter, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Please don’t go with the muh private company argument. That’s already been debunked extensively elsewhere.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  13. Damocles:
    I think she lives in the Bay Area, which does put her within easy Ubering distance.

    I thought she made reference to being in New York. This is a material fact, though not dispositive.

    0

  14. drlorentz:

    Damocles:
    I think she lives in the Bay Area, which does put her within easy Ubering distance.

    I thought she made reference to being in New York. This is a material fact, though not dispositive.

    I’m not sure what that means, but she lives in the Bay Area, her family having moved here from New York.

    0

  15. drlorentz:

    Damocles:
    How do you feel about the fact that we can’t swear on Ratburger?

    I don’t care one way or the other. Ratburger is a private club with a strictly limited membership. It is not open to the public to post here. The proprietors are entitled to enforce any rules they like.

    If you’re trying to claim Ratburger is like YouTube or Twitter, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Please don’t go with the muh private company argument. That’s already been debunked extensively elsewhere.

    Hmm, let’s go through the biweekly exercise of pulling a straight answer out of the eminent doctor.  Is it proper or improper for YT to have guidelines about what is acceptable and unacceptable content?

    PS You have the strangest preemptive response to cognitive dissonance.  You should watch more Judge Judy and learn some logic!

    0

  16. Damocles:

    drlorentz:

    Damocles:
    I think she lives in the Bay Area, which does put her within easy Ubering distance.

    I thought she made reference to being in New York. This is a material fact, though not dispositive.

    I’m not sure what that means, but she lives in the Bay Area, her family having moved here from New York.

    Hmm… let’s go through the biweekly exercise of connecting the dots for Damocles. Whether or not she lives in NY is not dispositive because a threat from a 14-yo girl is not credible even if she lives in Palo Alto, especially when that threat involves several non-credible statements such as

    • I have a mitochondrial disease
    • I don’t care if I live.

    In any case, got a link to the source that proves her residence is within a 7-minute drive from Susan W.’s house? Because that is a material fact, though not dispositive.

    dispositive: relating to or bringing about the settlement of an issue

    material fact: crucial to the interpretation of a phenomenon or a subject matter, or to the determination of an issue at hand this is a specific type of confirmed or validated event, item of information, or state of affairs

    0

  17. Damocles:

    drlorentz:

    Damocles:
    How do you feel about the fact that we can’t swear on Ratburger?

    I don’t care one way or the other. Ratburger is a private club with a strictly limited membership. It is not open to the public to post here. The proprietors are entitled to enforce any rules they like.

    If you’re trying to claim Ratburger is like YouTube or Twitter, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Please don’t go with the muh private company argument. That’s already been debunked extensively elsewhere.

    Hmm, let’s go through the biweekly exercise of pulling a straight answer out of the eminent doctor.  Is it proper or improper for YT to have guidelines about what is acceptable and unacceptable content?

    PS You have the strangest preemptive response to cognitive dissonance.  You should watch more Judge Judy and learn some logic!

    Hmm… let’s go through the daily exercise of connecting the dots for Damocles and explaining the painfully obvious. Your original question, quoted above, was answered in full. I don’t care about swearing on Ratburger. Is that any clearer for  you?

    I inferred a different question, not asked by Damocles, and also answered it. I explained how Ratburger differs from YouTube. Apologies if that’s not the question you had in mind. In future, try asking the question you want answered rather than some other question.

    To your new question, I stepped into my time machine and answered it even before you asked it.

    drlorentz:
    Unlike CNN, YouTube is allegedly an intermediary, not a publisher. At least that’s their story vis a vis the DMCA.

    So, no, YouTube cannot have guidelines about what is acceptable and unacceptable content other than compliance with the law. This was also discussed above. It’s amazing what one can learn by actually reading the comments.

    The muh private company issue has been discussed at length by many people. If you are unaware of the arguments, I urge you to educate yourself. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. I am more persuaded by those who hold the position stated in the previous paragraph.

    Coincidentally, a couple of days ago Dave Rubin and Mike Cernovich took up this topic. Cernovich has his own twist on this. Caution: The video below is for information only. I am not signing up for everything Cernovich or Rubin say about this. Do not attribute their opinions to me.

    P.S.: Snarky word salad about cognitive dissonance, Judge Judy, and logic is not persuasive, or even amusing.

    0

  18. We actually agree in principle on most things, but here is the odd situation that I’m unable to reconcile.

    drlorentz:
    So, no, YouTube cannot have guidelines about what is acceptable and unacceptable content other than compliance with the law.

    We have two options available.

    1. YT is a publisher, and has liability for the content on the site and can make content restrictions, or
    2. YT is an intermediary and has no liability for the content of the site, and cannot make content restrictions (subject to DMCA rules).

    Case 1 seems infeasible.  There are 18,000 hours of video uploaded to YT every hour, and it seems that it will be easy to sue YT into oblivion based on content which is not caught.

    Case 2 seems infeasible.  In addition In addition to the usual cases of horrid but legal porn and gore videos, this would include TB of data backups cleverly embedded in video files and millions of hours of static uploaded by trolls.

    By the excluded middle, it seems that there is no feasible option for YT (and by extension, any other video provider) to exist.

    Since (on this planet) such video services aren’t going away, there must be something you’re overlooking in your statement to account for legal but unacceptable content.

    0

Leave a Reply