YouTube Permanently Bans Right Wing Watch, a Media Watchdog Devoted to Exposing Right-Wing Conspirac

[Person of Interest]

YouTube Permanently Bans Right Wing Watch, a Media Watchdog Devoted to Exposing Right-Wing Conspiracies

https://www.thedailybeast.com/youtube-permanently-bans-right-wing-watch-a-media-watchdog-devoted-to-exposing-right-wing-conspiracies

[uponit7771]

1. Damn, probably was swarmed and couldn't get out of it

[Budi]

2. We need RW Watch!

[lagomorph777]

3. What were the "strikes?" Copyright violation for posting clips of the kooks?

Or was this just YouTube preferring right-wing hate content over reality?

[Person of Interest]

8. The original Reich Wing content remains on YouTube.

That’s what’s so head scratching about YouTube’s policy:
reporting on and flagging inflammatory content can get you banned, but the original inflammatory content can remain posted. Makes no sense!

[soldierant]

56. That's explained in the article.

[lagomorph777]

73. Thanks; I read the article and it's not actually explained.

They say "strikes" without specifying "copyright strikes" or "inflammatory content strikes" or whatever. I asked because I thought somebody might have more context.

[Kid Berwyn]

4. Real shame. RW Watch has done great work.

See for yourselves.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/

A project of People for the American Way.

[JHB]

5. I suspect the Qrazies and other zealots went on "alert" sprees...

...to try to bring it down. And YouTube is hiding behind rules they imposed that didn't have exposee channels in mind.

[Sunsky]

6. Terrible but to be expected

It shows which side youtube aligns itself with.

[thucythucy]

7. Another example of right wing "cancel culture." nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. This is a bad move by youtube

RWW does a good job of keeping track of RWNJs

[EYESORE 9001]

10. YouTube's corporate parent, Google, once had the credo, 'do no evil'

Guess it’s been updated to ‘do nothing that threatens profits.’

[spudspud]

20. It was a typo. Originally it said, "No, do evil."

Damn commas.

[ck4829]

11. Because covering the crazy is worse than the crazy - How RW thought works

[Person of Interest]

12. Bingo!!!

You hit the nail on the head.

[bucolic_frolic]

13. YouTube vids can be reported as misleading

Right wingers want to silence us with those methods.

Two can play the same game.

[Sympthsical]

14. Oh, now people are mad about a deplatforming

Petards and hoisting.

I can't rummage up the sympathy.

Just gonna do this.

[Scrivener7]

15. Whattt??? Right wing watch is a group devoted to exposing right wing nonsense.

So which petard would that be?

[Sympthsical]

17. The idea that we're ok with corporations telling us what is and is not ok speech

When it's speech we don't like, we cheer to see it censored on these platforms.

Well, here is a useful group we like.

Whoopsie! Maybe don't give corporations this kind of power over the public square?

[Scrivener7]

23. Do you think TFG should not have been banned from Twitter?

[Sympthsical]

25. Oh, he should have. He's dangerous and nuts

Like an actual danger. He was inciting, and he had the power and influence to make good on that incitement.

But I've seen people get deplatformed over Lab Leak theory, for example. Of course, now it's "acceptable" to discuss (in most places. Not here. Here is too partisanly dug in about it). But I guess Jon Stewart shouldn't be allowed on social media now?

They have way too much power. We're allowing social media corporations with almost monopolistic powers to tell us what is acceptable public discourse. I can't be the only one who thinks that's absolutely dystopian.

[Scrivener7]

30. You are saying that sometimes it is OK for corporations to decide who they will silence, and

sometimes it is not.

But you are saying it is wrong for the people who are not happy about the RWW decision to say that sometimes it is OK for corporations to decide who they will silence and sometimes it is not.

[Sympthsical]

33. I do think they have a responsibility to platform someone actually dangerous

Last edited Mon Jun 28, 2021, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Trump was verifiably dangerous. We have January 6th to prove it.

But viewpoints we don't like? Even asking questions? I mean Lab Leak Theory is a perfect example. If you discussed it at all, you could be demonetized or deplatformed. Hell, I got two hides here from discussing it.

Having that discussion isn't dangerous. Asking questions about the virus's origin isn't a danger to anyone. It's just something people decided was loony conspiracy theory out of their partisan sensibilities, and we can't talk about it! And the corporations went along and brought the hammer down.

That's a big fucking hammer and should be used very sparingly. It's not. It's used far too often. It should worry everyone. It's corrosive to our democracy.

I don't think RWW should've been deplatformed. That's insane to me. And it illustrates my problem with these companies.

[Lucky Luciano]

46. I think the communication lines above are a bit busted.

You’re both in agreement about the deplatforming of RWW.

[Sympthsical]

70. I do *not* agree with RWW being deplatformed.

I'm just saying, live by the sword, die by the sword.

They've been unbanned anyway. But they were staunchly in support of deplatforming everyone else. When it happened to them, well, they didn't like that one bit.

Just pointing that aspect out.

Hypocrisy will never not be fun to watch.

[summer_in_TX]

63. Your position on this topic is a libertarian one.

There's plenty of evidence that unchallenged spewing of hatred can lead to violence, even genocide.

Rwanda showed the impact of hate radio.

The ADL Pyramid of Hate chart (see #59 below) shows how unchecked hatred changes from acts of bias, then acts of prejudice to acts of discrimination, to acts of bias-motivated violence towards both people and property, and sometimes to genocide.

[Sympthsical]

69. I'm not dogmatically liberal/progressive in all things

I'm pretty close to absolutist on free speech. You say libertarian. No. Freedom of speech is a pretty run of the mill liberal position. 1960s, Berkeley, and all that.

It's the authoritarian streak we've been seeing that now wants speech shut down. I don't care for our authoritarian wing. I don't think they're liberal. They're . . . something else. These assholes rioting around campuses because the speakers have different opinions. Obnoxious and dangerous and illiberal, IMO. It's corrosive to democracy.

I had to edit my post title, though. I meant to say, "I *do* think people should be deplatformed if dangerous."

[summer_in_TX]

72. For the most part, I'd advocate for more diverse speech being heard/considered

in one arena,
with a right to defend oneself against attack, in the same program hour.

I'd have penalties for news media slipping into lies even under the guise of "infotainment."

BUT defamation and libel laws would be strengthened, bullying on broadcast or social media would be illegal (both from a single poster or a mob they've stirred up),

and hate speech (referring to human beings as vermin, carrying disease, generalizing to call a people murderers, rapists, cockroaches, etc.) would not be permitted on broadcast media or online video / social media.

That speech would be permitted in public in person, as is in accord with the First Amendment, but has no right to a platform that can propagandize (by repeating hate speech over and over and broadcasting it widely).

Speech is not innately harmless. Genocide has been the result of particular messaging campaigns. Radio Rwanda is one example, and Facebook has been widely implicated with genocidal persecution in Myanmar. Concentration camps and the extermination of Jews, gypsies, those mentally handicapped in German concentration camps. The Uighurs in China.

Speech can be healing, neutral, or very destructive. American law does not currently provide enough protections for the speech that would destroy. As the ADL pyramid of hate talks about, it takes challenging hate speech to disrupt it and prevent it from moving up the pyramid.

Over the last five years we have seen an increase in violence against people for who they are. We need tools to deal with that.

I agree the treatment of speakers on campus is irrational and vicious. I'm appalled at the lack of manners, and also teaching of intellectual tools to deal with the ideas of the Richard Spencers and Milo Y.

I'm not comfortable with the speech of neo-Nazis, but I don't think it should be unable to be heard. Just not on TV, radio, or video. Audio recordings as well. The repetition is part of what empowers propagandists.

Demagogues like Donald Trump are able to mesmerize an audience in person, to give them a jolt of adrenaline when he starts his repetitive phrases mixed with calls for violence. There's still danger there. But it is limited to the particular audience in front of him at a given time rather than potentially millions present with him.

[ShazzieB]

51. Well...

I think the providers of a platform do have the right, and even the responsibility, to control how their platform is used.

I also think whoever at YouTube decided to ban RWW is out of their damned mind. I think it is a BIG mistake, and I hope they come to their senses asap. But they do have that right, even though they may make some dumb decisions from time to time.

Voltaire famously said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." While I agree with Voltaire, I would add: "I am not, however, obligated to provide you with a platform from which to promulgate those views."

[Scrivener7]

57. Yes, I agree with all of that.

[qazplm135]

48. How is your point any different

You think Trump was an "actual danger" and should be deplatformed, they should "have that power."
Others, disagree.

So really, you are ok with them having power if you agree with their actions, same as you are accusing others on here.

The reality is that they pay for the hosting and platform, so they get to control what happens on it.
If they do a bad job of it, folks will go to some other platform eventually that does a better job.

[blm]

26. Yeah, hate speech is dangerous speech. You want to see

targeted peoples continue to be killed because of that type of poison? We’re the mass murders in black churches and synagogues not enough for you?

You want to explain how sources of hate speech against minorities, Jews, and women are no different than the sources who investigate expose the hate speech?

[Sympthsical]

35. And who's determining what is hate speech?

Because that seems to shift an awful lot. And too much of the time "hate speech" is really just, "I don't think people should be allowed to say something I dislike."

I'm a gay man. I've seen and received my fair share over time. Threatened violence or advocation of violence? No, that's not acceptable. Someone just being religiously homophobic? I honestly do not care. Nor do I think those people should be erased from the public square.

[blm]

37. The type that Dylan Roof acted on.

The type that triggered the Pulse shootings.

Etcetera.

[Hekate]

38. +1

[Sympthsical]

40. You're using the most extreme examples possible

When we both know the "hate speech" that people often want acted upon doesn't rise anywhere near those kinds of levels.

There's an example going on right now in the LGBT community. I've mentioned it in the past. Basically there is a segment of trans activism that says lesbians should be willing to date transwomen with male genitalia. If they are not open to that, they are being transphobic. What happened was, a lot of lesbian spaces were being taken over by transwomen who insisted lesbians had to accept people with male genitalia in a dating context (think your Tinder, etc). Well, lesbians started hitting back. They felt their orientation was under attack. They started feeling unsafe.

Guess who started getting banned for "hate"?

This is a huge issue right now, and it's a really nasty intra-community fight. I love my trans friends. I love my lesbian friends. But it's getting ugly. Lesbians are being called TERFs because they have "genital preference" (which is a term I find offensive. My orientation is not a fucking preference. Jesus. We have to revisit this shit?!)

But guess who's guilty of hate speech?

Those hateful lesbians. Because they want to date cis woman, because they feel cis sex organs are part of their orientation.

But that's all hate speech to say now. It's ridiculous and unhelpful. I honestly feel it's an attack on my orientation.

[reACTIONary]

41. Yah, and I've heard....

... video games trigger violence also.

Problem is, someone has to decide what it is that "triggers violence". And if it's the government, it's probably not you who decides... and eventually it will be someone like trump.

Rather than controlling speech, let's control guns.

[reACTIONary]

43. Exactly! It isn't going to be the denizens of DU...

... it's going to be some wanna be trump. Or even trump his self.

[Hekate]

36. It's about truth versus lies and propaganda. If you can't tell the difference, that's on you...

“Alternate facts” aren’t facts — they are lies. If I tell you that the Zionists took down the Twin Towers and that Jewish Space Lasers set California on fire, that is not a matter of opinion: that is a flat-out lie and antisemitic to boot.

Right Wing Watch has always been a reliable source since they were founded. They don’t peddle lies — they expose them.

Do a little research before peddling your false equivalencies, Sympthsical.

[Sympthsical]

39. I think you should research

I've used this example already, but damn, it's a good one.

Lab Leak Theory got demonetized and deplatformed. Partisans cheered. Now it is "acceptable" to discuss.

When a corporation tells you that you can't even discuss or ask questions about something, that doesn't bother you?

"Truth vs lies!" Yeah, but what if your self-held truth is actually untrue? What if you've fucked up, and now you've got all these banned people for your fuck up? Of course, you'd have to admit you were wrong, and in these days of partisan digging in, it's a fairly uncommon thing.

I don't like authoritarians. Some people like authoritarianism as long as it's the "right kind" that reflects their beliefs.

Gross. I'm not that kind of liberal.

[Hekate]

44. Have you ever visited the Right Wing Watch site? Do you have any idea what their purpose is?

Do you have any idea what they do? Or are you just one of those folks who throws up their hands and says, metaphorically speaking, “Kill them all and let God sort them out” ?

One of the things I always liked about RWW is how research from their site would lead the reader to original sources. An original source is an important thing in the research world because it lets you see what that source says about itself, about its own goals and methods. When it comes to the far-right in this country, they are dangerous. Their words are action words, not idle chatter, as we saw on 1/6. If we don’t keep an eye on them, who will?

[reACTIONary]

45. I'm much more worried about...

... the govenment than corporations. Corporations can only kick you out - governments can lock you up.

[marble falls]

52. Governments and Crporations work hand in hand, you know, interchangably bad guy/worse guy.

[reACTIONary]

64. Being kicked off of you tube is ...

... not comparable to being locked up in jail.

BTW, People for the American Way, which runs Right Wing Watch, is a corporation.

[marble falls]

65. Corporations run jails. They have financial reasons for lobbying against prison reform ...

... let alone that prisoners have been killed and ignored to death in privately run local and state owned prisons. Corrections Corporation of America make hundreds of millions a year just for their portion.

They've taken enough heat over that name they rebranded ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic

And this is just one corporation herding people.

[reACTIONary]

66. Yes, and corporations also run...

... Right Wing Watch, the ACLU, the southern poverty law center, Democratic Underground, and, I suspect, Ben and Jerrys. Oh, and hospitals! And campgrounds for kids!

What does any of that have to do with free speech? What does that have to do with regulating hate speech as a crime?

[UnderThisLaw]

42. For someone who's

only going to eat popcorn, you sure have a lot more to say.

[uponit7771]

61. Yeah you're right hate speech is same as pointing out hate speech speech :rolleyes:

[LetMyPeopleVote]

16. These videos do a good job on exposing RWNJs

Link to tweet

[Midnight Writer]

18. Their videos are often presented without comment.

[zaj]

21. Is that the problem?

They need to contextualize the content?

[zaj]

19. This seems like a giant mistake.

They seemed to be trying to do the right thing? Strange

[BlueLucy]

68. By the looks of the comments here...

Almost no one reads the article.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

22. These RWNJs are scary

Link to tweet

[FakeNoose]

24. Was it because of this report?

(link) https://www.rightwingwatch.org/report/white-supremacy-figured-out-how-to-become-youtube-famous/

Right Wing Watch: White Supremacy Figures Out How to Become Youtube Famous
(posted in October 2017)

YouTube is home to a seemingly endless variety of videos that reach all kinds of viewers and is creeping up on TV as the most watched video platform in the United States. But as John Herrman documented in The New York Times Magazine last month, political punditry on YouTube is vastly dominated by right-wing talkers. Some of the site’s notable right-wing political stars include the always-camera-ready men and women at the Infowars studio, frequently-shirtless 4chan muse StyxHexxenHammer666, and elaborate cosplay cartoon character “Mr. Dapperton.” Although these figures differ vastly in format and tone, their messages are aligned exclusively toward the hard, uncompromising Right, and have been increasingly influenced by their even more extremist counterparts on YouTube.

Shorenstein Center on Media fellow Zach Elexy noted in a case study of YouTube commentator Black Pigeon Speaks that in the same way that “liberals, scholars and pundits have failed to give talk radio—which is almost wholly conservative—its due,” those same observers “stand to miss a new platform that, so far, is also dominated by the right wing.” Far-right YouTube personalities are largely aware that they are at the epicenter of political talk on the platform, and openly gloat about their dominance.

As a platform, YouTube has served as an alternative media ecosystem apart from the mainstream where any person can contribute to national conversation and reach thousands of people overnight. But the Right’s overt domination of the platform, in addition to political forums on Reddit and 4chan, has created an environment where white nationalists and right-wing extremists can easily inject hateful rhetoric and conspiracy theories into national political discourse by positioning themselves alongside less overtly hateful rising right-wing media personalities.

These extremists roleplay as modern-day shock-jock radio hosts as they insert their sexist, racist, bigoted rhetoric—which they excuse by saying they are trying to “trigger” liberals and fight for “free speech”—into the existing stream of right-wing commentary on YouTube. By successfully identifying how right-wing e-celebrities operate and collaborate in the YouTube ecosystem, white nationalists and white supremacists have cracked the code to achieving YouTube success and getting their ideas validated by more popular internet figures, and therefore have emboldened the political base they represent and recruited new audiences.

- more at link -

I don't know that it is the reason, but the video that accompanies this report is already down because Youtube has yanked everything of theirs.

[Person of Interest]

53. I built an extensive playlist of Reich Wing videos

that heavily featured videos from RWW. My playlist is now pockmarked with missing content because RWW's account has been disabled.

[SunSeeker]

27. WTF? But Youtube continues to allow the conspiracy nut videos!

[Evolve Dammit]

28. All the hate speech is OK but calling it out isn't?? WTF

[JI7]

29. For those with Twitter they should object to this

to YouTube's Twitter account.

[Initech]

31. Booooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

[bringthePaine]

32. so time to flip the script - bar all politico-religious BS, and enjoy the deafening silence...

[TheBlackAdder]

34. YouTube has been on a purge spree for the past year, and 'bad words' or images get a flag.

.

Three strikes and you're out. And this is even happening to 1M+ viewer channels.

If you put up new videos, you have to mark them as Adult, so kids supposedly don't see them. Most of the time, when you do that, they demonetize the videos, or some jackass will flag it or their AI will flag it and demonetize the video. By the time the channel protests the demonetization and it is reviewed and monetized again, most of the regulars have watched the clip and the channel loses out on a fuck ton of money. Words deemed 'bad' or hurtful have to be bleeped out and words on images fuzzed out. Many of those are subjective so it's up to the reviewer's interpretation or own sensitivities. This also goes for anything that appears to injure a life form, any life form. The crazy ting is a channel can put up a 5-second clip of a video that is on YouTube 20 places, and the original is out there, but they'll still strike your video if they want--regardless if is is actively posted elsewhere.

The odd thing is that there are channels that test run their videos on two side channels before posting it to their main one. The videos will go through a half-dozen reviews by YouTube staff, and when it hits the main channel, it's flagged or a strike is given against the main channel.

There apparently is NO consistency in the way YouTube reviews videos. And if you protest a video, and it's reinstated and the strike is removed, the review people will flag another video in spite just to fuck with the channel. Just like the saying asses and elbows, everybody has them, 20 reviewers will assess a video 20 different ways, and just because a video survives 2 or 3 reviews does not mean a fourth will not result in a flag or strike.

So, it comes down to who is reviewing these things at YouTube, as I'm sure there's just as many MAGAt reviewers as Non-MAGAt ones.

.

[0rganism]

49. Channels can get locked for violations in previously deleted content

Youtube's TOS enforcement system is very broken

[Mr. Sparkle]

47. Under those standards, surely foxnews youtube channel is next

As they do the same thing, just with commentary endorsing the right wing conspiracies.

[ancianita]

50. It looks like YouTube has bought into a 'both sides do it' approach for yanking. So Google's likely

to be under Republican pressure to go after forces they consider equal to those of the Right, I'm thinking. If they're not under that kind of pressure, it could be that Silicon Valley's a libertarian right wing nerd nest that way and won't take Soros money.

People For the American Way, maybe because major donors include George Soros' Open Society Institute, the Miriam G. and Ira D. Wallach Foundation, the Bauman Family Foundation, and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund.

PFAW has been active in battles over judicial nominations, opposing SCOTUS nominees Robert Bork and Brett Kavanaugh, supporting the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. It's active in federal elections, donating $351,075 to oppose Republican candidates in the 2016 election.

More from Wikipedia

PFAW monitors what it considers right-wing activities by sponsoring a website called Right Wing Watch that showcases video footage of groups and individuals who take conservative stances on social issues.[18]

The web site was founded in 2007, expanding on PFAW's earlier practice of VHS recording controversial clips from conservative television programs, such as Pat Robertson's 700 Club, for distribution to news media.[19] In 2013, evangelist and politician Gordon Klingenschmitt sent DMCA takedown notices for Right Wing Watch's using clips of his program, in which Right Wing Watch was defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[20]

In 2018, Jared Holt, a Right Wing Watch researcher, was credited for getting conservative radio show host Alex Jones's InfoWars program removed from multiple content distribution sites, including Apple, Inc, YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify.[23][24] Afterwards, Holt said he received death threats.[25]

Right Wing Watch has been quoted by NPR, Fortune, The Daily Beast, HuffPost, and a local Fox News affiliate

[uponit7771]

62. +1, ... along with a couple of DU members

[Grins]

54. I never watched RWW on YouTube.

Always on its site; often because of a referral from DU or some other site/blog I read.

So impact to me = 0.

You?

[Person of Interest]

55. Hopefully RWW continues uploading content to Vimeo and add Daily Motion as another video aggregation

site. RWW posts daily to Twitter.

[soldierant]

58. Apparently they have been using Vimeo while suspended.

I found a page for them here

https://vimeo.com/user5657100

Haven't had time to check how new they are.

[summer_in_TX]

59. Have you run across the Anti-Defamation League's Pyramid of Hate?

"The Pyramid of Hate illustrates the prevalence of bias, hate and oppression in our society…in escalating levels of attitudes and behavior that grow in complexity from bottom to top…supported by the lower levels.

Bias at each level negatively impacts individuals, institutions and society and it becomes increasingly difficult to challenge and dismantle as behaviors escalate. When bias goes unchecked, it becomes “normalized” and contributes to a pattern of accepting discrimination, hate and injustice in society.

…each genocide has been built on the acceptance of attitudes and actions described at the lower levels of the pyramid.

When we challenge those biased attitudes and behaviors in ourselves, others and institutions, we can interrupt the escalation of bias and make it more difficult for discrimination and hate to flourish."

Link to tweet

/photo/1



A libertarian approach does nothing to interrupt the escalation.

What level are we at now?

[Iggo]

60. "YouTube Bans and then Unbans..."

That’s the current headline of the article from the link.

[tblue37]

67. The article says they were unbanned today.

[Dr. Strange]

71. Ah yes, permanently.

I do not think that word means what they think it means.