Posted September 23, 2018
low rated
Hello, everyone.
Since my reputation decrases automatically anyway, I’ve decided once again to raise people awareness of some pro-censorship shenanigans going on. Namely this report, published a couple of weeks ago: TL;DR
This report is about: assortment of youtube personalities who promote various political views on their channels that are not supporting (and quite often rejecting) “social justice”, “identity politics” and other “left-wing” political ideas. They offer commentaries and suggestions on society and social problems that are alternative to established leftist narrative. And they are also connected with each other, either through links in their content material (like Brittany Pettibone’s videos reference Lauren Southern in the description) or through hosting debates with each other (like online discussion about ethno-states between several youtubers including Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad and Richard Spencer). This way, obviously, a person who watches videos made by one youtuber, eventually exposed to the influence of the other youtubers through those nework of connections. Hence, the report collectively calls them – Alternative Influence Network or AIN.
This report claims: because of such connections and exposure viewers of more neutral channels are influenced by more extreme and radical ideas from more far-right channels. And thus can become more racist, misogynist, etc. Essentially, if you watch some lecture from Jordan Piterson, there are great chances that you start watch Spencer and join alt-right. That’s the gist of what report’s author argues about.
This report methodology: is somewhat lacking. While author clearly shows how a person can move from moderate opposition of the left ot far-right extremism, she is completely silent about the reverse process. And thus of course no quantitative evaluations present – how many people are radicalized, how many deradicalized? And how many people would go to the left, since there are quite a few links from AIN youtubers to the “social justice” youtubers, whom report, obviously, forgets too.
The references in the report, that are supposed to contain some hard data, backing author’s viewpoint, are for the most part works of other left wing ideologues, who write their articles without any hard data to back it up, too.
AIN report author also doesn’t hesitate to manipulate facts (which is ironically one of the things she accuses AIN of). She informs reader that in mentioned ethno-state debate Spencer showed more charisma and confidence than Sargon, and some viewers commented positively on Spencer. But she omits the fact that there were other youtubers in that video, who confronted Spencer ethno-state idea, including one named Styx, who got a lot more favorable comments than Spencer.
This report is really about: AIN youtubers clearly constitute a threat to left-wing monopoly on ideas and news coverage. With them any internet user can get access to full spectrum of views, starting from far-left, up to far-right. And make informed choice to join community to their liking. And that ability to make a choice by having various points of view to judge about the world allows people not to have their opinions molded solely by left-wing narrative.
This report suggests: that the best way to contain AIN threat is to silence ALL of those who oppose “social justice narrative”. Instead of, you know, to confront their ideologies and debunk their fallacies. I mean, their political ideas do have fallacies, right? Otherwise why would you claim them to be wrong?
To moderator: If you considering to delete/lock this thread, think about this – youtube is one of the major channels of game advertising. And if this report’s urge to censor and remove anyone who opposes left-wing politics will come into fruition, it will leave only sanctimonious, self-righteous left-ideology bigots on this platform, and later on others, like facebook and tweeter too. Do you really think that it’s wise to leave coverage of GOG shop and games you sell in the hands of those people? To depend solely on their whim, if they decide you made or said something that offends them?
After all quite recently you already had two incidents with controversial comments on social media. Imagine if to cover and analize them cold only far-left ideologues, who thought that even your apology for mistakes is not enough.
Since my reputation decrases automatically anyway, I’ve decided once again to raise people awareness of some pro-censorship shenanigans going on. Namely this report, published a couple of weeks ago: TL;DR
This report is about: assortment of youtube personalities who promote various political views on their channels that are not supporting (and quite often rejecting) “social justice”, “identity politics” and other “left-wing” political ideas. They offer commentaries and suggestions on society and social problems that are alternative to established leftist narrative. And they are also connected with each other, either through links in their content material (like Brittany Pettibone’s videos reference Lauren Southern in the description) or through hosting debates with each other (like online discussion about ethno-states between several youtubers including Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad and Richard Spencer). This way, obviously, a person who watches videos made by one youtuber, eventually exposed to the influence of the other youtubers through those nework of connections. Hence, the report collectively calls them – Alternative Influence Network or AIN.
This report claims: because of such connections and exposure viewers of more neutral channels are influenced by more extreme and radical ideas from more far-right channels. And thus can become more racist, misogynist, etc. Essentially, if you watch some lecture from Jordan Piterson, there are great chances that you start watch Spencer and join alt-right. That’s the gist of what report’s author argues about.
This report methodology: is somewhat lacking. While author clearly shows how a person can move from moderate opposition of the left ot far-right extremism, she is completely silent about the reverse process. And thus of course no quantitative evaluations present – how many people are radicalized, how many deradicalized? And how many people would go to the left, since there are quite a few links from AIN youtubers to the “social justice” youtubers, whom report, obviously, forgets too.
The references in the report, that are supposed to contain some hard data, backing author’s viewpoint, are for the most part works of other left wing ideologues, who write their articles without any hard data to back it up, too.
AIN report author also doesn’t hesitate to manipulate facts (which is ironically one of the things she accuses AIN of). She informs reader that in mentioned ethno-state debate Spencer showed more charisma and confidence than Sargon, and some viewers commented positively on Spencer. But she omits the fact that there were other youtubers in that video, who confronted Spencer ethno-state idea, including one named Styx, who got a lot more favorable comments than Spencer.
This report is really about: AIN youtubers clearly constitute a threat to left-wing monopoly on ideas and news coverage. With them any internet user can get access to full spectrum of views, starting from far-left, up to far-right. And make informed choice to join community to their liking. And that ability to make a choice by having various points of view to judge about the world allows people not to have their opinions molded solely by left-wing narrative.
This report suggests: that the best way to contain AIN threat is to silence ALL of those who oppose “social justice narrative”. Instead of, you know, to confront their ideologies and debunk their fallacies. I mean, their political ideas do have fallacies, right? Otherwise why would you claim them to be wrong?
To moderator: If you considering to delete/lock this thread, think about this – youtube is one of the major channels of game advertising. And if this report’s urge to censor and remove anyone who opposes left-wing politics will come into fruition, it will leave only sanctimonious, self-righteous left-ideology bigots on this platform, and later on others, like facebook and tweeter too. Do you really think that it’s wise to leave coverage of GOG shop and games you sell in the hands of those people? To depend solely on their whim, if they decide you made or said something that offends them?
After all quite recently you already had two incidents with controversial comments on social media. Imagine if to cover and analize them cold only far-left ideologues, who thought that even your apology for mistakes is not enough.
Post edited September 23, 2018 by LootHunter
