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

    You’re not taking into account my incredibly low standards of taste and amusement!

    And you could still learn from Judge Judy, you’re just going through so much cognitive dissonance (the smarter the person the higher the level, so your cognitive dissonance could be violating international agreements regarding this!) that you haven’t even noticed that wasn’t a joke.

    0

  2. DMCA is poorly written (or fiendishly corruptly written). The companies claim it applies on a publication-by-publication basis. Thus they can chose to exercise editorial control over some publications while retaining immunity for publications they chose not to edit.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  3. Damocles:

    10 Cents:
    I noticed you are not even in the same field, Damocles.

    I was, until I was airbrushed out by the nefarious Ratburg moderation team!

    Show some humility. You in no way have come up to the level of being airbrushed out.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  4. Damocles:
    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.

    YouTube was doing just fine before they started to enforce content restrictions based on political opinions. They undoubtedly protected themselves from trolls, much as Ratburger also has to do. They are certainly entitled to protect themselves from disruption and no one would call that censorship. This is a straw-man argument. Case 2 worked just fine until Trump. This is when the legacy media discovered that alternative media

    1.  could be competitive and more influential than they are
    2. helped defeat Hillary

    The problem, which some folks are reluctant to acknowledge, is that there is a serious attempt to undermine free expression by ideologically-driven entities that enjoy a de facto monopoly on public discourse in this space. This argument has been well developed by many commentators. I’ve given some links. If you are interested in having an exchange of ideas, great. Instead, you have ignored most of the points I’ve made above. As I mentioned in a previous comment, there legitimate arguments on both sides. Yelling about cognitive dissonance and Judge Judy doesn’t really advance the discussion.

    And, dude, are you really that scared of a 14-year-old girl? Do you think Susan W. was and that’s why Soph got strikes? Finally, do you think these terms of service are applied without political bias?

    0

  5. Switching up the order a bit…

    First, let’s note that cognitive dissonance has transformed

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

    into

    They undoubtedly protected themselves from trolls, much as Ratburger also has to do. They are certainly entitled to protect themselves from disruption and no one would call that censorship.

    So we’ve established that they are within their rights to have some degree of content management, perhaps within a stated guideline such as a Term of Service.

    You claim that YT was doing just fine…

    YouTube was doing just fine before they started to enforce content restrictions based on political opinions.

    But I think, given the numerous other content-related difficulties they’ve had, it’s more correct to say “this is the first issue regarding YT content management that is affecting me.”

    We’re in complete agreement on the main point:

    The problem, which some folks are reluctant to acknowledge, is that there is a serious attempt to undermine free expression by ideologically-driven entities that enjoy a de facto monopoly on public discourse in this space.

    Yelling about cognitive dissonance and Judge Judy doesn’t really advance the discussion.

    I WASNT YELLING THAT WAS YOUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE KICKING IN!

    Finally, we get back to this point:

    And, dude, are you really that scared of a 14-year-old girl?

    I’m scared of a 14-year-old girl with a Luger.

    BTW I searched and can’t find anybody of any political stripe that seems to have joking death threats by name against any YT employees.  And I note that she did remove that joke when she put the video up again.

    Finally, I’m happy to provide further mentorship and emotional support as you attempt to work through the onerous task of arguing with someone who is in 99% agreement with you!

    0

  6. Damocles:
    Switching up the order a bit…

    First, let’s note that cognitive dissonance has transformed

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

    into

    They undoubtedly protected themselves from trolls, much as Ratburger also has to do. They are certainly entitled to protect themselves from disruption and no one would call that censorship.

    So we’ve established that they are within their rights to have some degree of content management, perhaps within a stated guideline such as a Term of Service.

    You claim that YT was doing just fine…

    YouTube was doing just fine before they started to enforce content restrictions based on political opinions.

    But I think, given the numerous other content-related difficulties they’ve had, it’s more correct to say “this is the first issue regarding YT content management that is affecting me.”

    We’re in complete agreement on the main point:

    The problem, which some folks are reluctant to acknowledge, is that there is a serious attempt to undermine free expression by ideologically-driven entities that enjoy a de facto monopoly on public discourse in this space.

    Yelling about cognitive dissonance and Judge Judy doesn’t really advance the discussion.

    I WASNT YELLING THAT WAS YOUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE KICKING IN!

    Finally, we get back to this point:

    And, dude, are you really that scared of a 14-year-old girl?

    I’m scared of a 14-year-old girl with a Luger.

    BTW I searched and can’t find anybody of any political stripe that seems to have joking death threats by name against any YT employees.  And I note that she did remove that joke when she put the video up again.

    Finally, I’m happy to provide further mentorship and emotional support as you attempt to work through the onerous task of arguing with someone who is in 99% agreement with you!

    Do you have a price list on mentorship and emotional support? Shirley, that can’t be for free. I thought arguing with you was a pleasure. Has it become onerous now?

    BTW, my favorite was Officer Judy.

    0

  7. 10 Cents:
    Do you have a price list on mentorship and emotional support? Shirley, that can’t be for free. I thought arguing with you was a pleasure. Has it become onerous now?

    Certain lessons in logic, rhetoric, diction and humor are additional-cost items, but the basics are free. It’s fulfilling to me, knowing that by correcting one person’s unfocused ranting and inchoate feelings of dread I’m literally improving the lives of all those who interact with my wards.

    Consider it my service to humanity!

    And Officer Judy is Super Dave!!!???

    0

  8. Damocles:
    First, let’s note that cognitive dissonance has transformed

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

    into

    “They undoubtedly protected themselves from trolls, much as Ratburger also has to do. They are certainly entitled to protect themselves from disruption and no one would call that censorship.”

    So we’ve established that they are within their rights to have some degree of content management, perhaps within a stated guideline such as a Term of Service.

    There is no change, as you can readily verify by reference to a much earlier comment in which I made the clear distinction between Ratburger and YouTube. Thus, the standards and practices that are OK for one are not necessarily OK for the other. I think the usual term for this is “false equivalence.” But that’s OK, I’ve given up on expecting you to read what I write. Carry on.

    Damocles:
    Finally, I’m happy to provide further mentorship and emotional support as you attempt to work through the onerous task of arguing with someone who is in 99% agreement with you!

    Obviously we are in general agreement on most points here but a discussion along these lines would not be very interesting:

    Damocles: I agree with your post.
    drlorentz: I agree with your agreement.
    Damocles: I’m so glad we agree.
    drlorentz: Me too. That’s great.

    So of course we’re going to talk about the points of disagreement. There I go again, connecting those dots for you. Hey, anytime you need help with that, my (virtual) door is always open. I’m here to help.

    0

  9. Yelling about cognitive dissonance and Judge Judy doesn’t really advance the discussion.

    I WASNT YELLING THAT WAS YOUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE KICKING IN!

    ALL CAPS is only yelling in a metaphorical sense, which means there are other ways to yell metaphorically without using all caps.

    Man, you really love seeing cognitive dissonance on your screen. Let me help:

    cognitive dissonance
    cognitive dissonance
    cognitive dissonance
    cognitive dissonance

    Hope you got some satisfaction from that, but not in a creepy Joe Biden kind of way.

    0

Leave a Reply