Ben Shapiro on the Caleb Cain article: The Media/Democrat Complex Strikes Big Tech By Ben Shapiro This week, The New York Times ran a massive piece detailing the supposed radicalization of one Caleb Cain. Cain moved from political liberalism toward self-ascribed "tradcon" status from watching YouTube videos. The New York Times charted this nefarious move by following those videos. The suggestion by The Times was simple: If you watch typical conservative content hosted by people like me, you will eventually end up watching material hosted by alt-right figures. The only solution, presumably, would be for YouTube to downgrade material The Times dislikes. This attitude isn't only springing from The Times. Axios chief technology correspondent Ina Fried grilled Google CEO Sundar Pichai over the weekend, essentially demanding that YouTube do something to marginalize videos Fried dislikes. Vox ran a full-scale propaganda campaign last week to get conservative comedian Steven Crowder kicked off YouTube for the great sin of making offensive jokes about one of Vox's columnists. Taking their cues from Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, various media outlets have spent years suggesting that Facebook's unwillingness to censor political materials led to Hillary Clinton's unjustifiable 2016 presidential defeat. And it's not just targeting big tech companies. The far-left organization Media Matters for America routinely leads boycott attempts against advertisers who deign to sponsor conservative programs -- even if those advertisers sponsor a wide variety of political programming. Pseudojournalists from organizations like Vox and Huffington Post spend their days calling advertisers for comment on various controversial statements by right-wing hosts from Tucker Carlson to Laura Ingraham to Sean Hannity. Their goal isn't to follow the news but to generate a wave of advertiser-pullout announcements likely to do damage to those conservative hosts. Such censoriousness is rarely, if ever, practiced on the political right. YouTube and Facebook and Twitter are never targeted by conservatives over their unwillingness to shut down opposing points of view; they're criticized for their willingness to kowtow to the political left and its demands for speech suppression. Advertisers on left-wing programming can speak freely, secure in the knowledge that conservatives won't be calling them up to rip them for sponsoring shows like Rachel Maddow's. That's good. That's how it should be. But for members of the political left, it isn't. There are two reasons for that. The first is obvious: Those on the political left long ago abandoned the traditional liberal notion that those who disagree have a right to speak. Instead, they must be deplatformed and their advertisers punished, lest their nefarious ideas spread and metastasize. "Repressive tolerance," in the parlance of Herbert Marcuse, has become a mainstay of left-wing thinking. The other reason is far more cynical: Many in the media want a regeneration of the monopolistic media control of the past. They long for the days when everyone consumed mainstream product to the exclusion of alternative sources. It's no coincidence that YouTube and Facebook have been touting their elevation of "authoritative" news in recent years -- they're looking to appease a ravenous media eager to tear them down. The media and Democrats have picked the right target: The lords of Big Tech are eager to please and frightened of blowback. They're political liberals who can be intimidated into censorship while being simultaneously assured that they're making the world a better place. They aren't. All it would take for this censorious moment to end would be a little backbone: Facebook, YouTube and Twitter announcing that they won't censor people unless those people violate actual First Amendment principles like incitement and libel; advertisers announcing that they won't pull their dollars based on astroturfed pressure tactics. But backbone is in short supply. And the glut of intimidation won't relax anytime soon. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...democrat_complex_strikes_big_tech_140544.html
I did read the article, I'm not sure you did. I've been asking for quotes about where the article makes the claim you say it makes, nothing. Sounds like you've just gone with the narrative that others have given you. Also, LOL @ the bolded. Guess you've never heard the term 'Troll' before, SJW much? Should we ban the word troll? I honestly have no idea what your point here is. Really, the entire article is about youtube recommendations feature. TV isn't really all that dry, one of the biggest shows in recent history was about blood, t***, and dragons...and incest... Well, personally if a guy is talking about how blacks are dumber than whites, more violent than whites, and that maybe we should do segregation again...this is the guy that you say "Makes great videos and raises wonderful questions". I guess for you, this is just a disagreement. For me, this tells me that this person is a quack at best. But remember, I'm the one that is 'Far-left' when the people you link and defend are White Nationalist. Remember, here, you just defended a white nationalist. I brought this up to you before when you linked this guy's video, but I guess that doesn't matter. You literally just defended him in this post. I honestly have no idea why you waste time insulting me every time I reply to your posts here, you know you opinion about me means nothing, it isn't even relevant. I think I figured out why you hate this article so much, because you watch the same videos and are going down the same rabbit hole. Anyways, where you fail is that your bias is obvious. Painfully so, and you don't even see it. The rest of your post is a literal strawman, you keep imagining that I'm talking about censorship. I am not. I am talking about youtube's recommendation system.
You did exactly what I said you would. Good job at living up to your reputation. Of course it is clear you're full of nothing but hot air.
I don't get my news from the guy and I certainly don't subscribe to any white nationalist views if he does have them. I honestly have watched a limited portion of his library and I don't intend to speak on his behalf. So yeah keep on trying with your guilt by association tactic.
The guy soaks up the White Nationalist causes and defends them vigorously but denies he is a supporter.
How am I supposed to know that when you say... When I brought up BPS again the first thing you do is defend him. Say that he makes great videos and raises wonderful questions. The guy is a raging white nationalist, every point he dishes out is framed by that. Every international issue. Every social issue. Everything is framed by that. Knowing that he's a white nationalist then, why should you trust the guy on anything he says? You can't take an exreme belief like racial segregation and then be rational about anything else. It's like if I believed in Lizard people...do you think I would be rational about anything? The other thing, he's also a raging sexist. Do you think this is a person that can rationally speak about women's rights or issues on women? He literally thinks that women having preferences and choosing who to be with destroys civilization. His views are trash. I bring this up so that maybe you can learn that his views are trash and maybe you'll be more careful about who you listen to for news...or maybe you won't...
You hate to see it. We had this conversation about BPS before, so he has to know the guy at this point, I even remember posting the video in which he talks about racial segregation because blacks are dumber and more violent than whites, according to BPS. So when he goes "He makes great videos and raises great questions..." not sure how he expects people to react to that.
He really did that? He posted a video in which they spoke of blacks being dumber and more violent than whites as a calls for segregation? I always thought dachuda86 was a fool of fools, but this is way past what I even thought he was capable of. So sad and sickening at the same time. Wow.
Dachuda never posted that video, he posted a video by BPS about South Africa. That's when I tried to tell him that he was getting this opinion about South Africa from a race/IQ ethnonationalist. Then, he said he didn't know that this youtuber, Black Pigeon Speaks, had that view, that he just thought the video was interesting or something. I accepted it then because whatever, it's possible he didn't know the youtuber at all... So now fast forward to today and when he's asked about this youtuber today he says that he makes great videos and raises great questions (both plural) and that I would find him guilty by association. I'm well aware of the trash BPS throws onto the internet. The race trash, the nationalist trash, and the "80% women orgasm during rape" trash...so I'm really curious at these 'great videos' that BPS makes.
What would we think about someone who posted videos of Hitler under the guise - "oh he has some interesting points"
Well if he's making stuff up like that I really don't see a need to share it. I think you're making a bigger deal than you need to cause you have a bee in your bonnet regarding this thread. I'm not here to defend BPS if he's saying stuff like that about rape victims and minorities being less intelligent. Also I get my news from a variety of sources (I don't consider youtube videos a news source as much as entertainment source, and if he says those things I will have to check out the context and reevaluate this channel). I definitely don't know much about what he said though. I'll look into it friend.
commentary on the Caleb Cain article: As media consumers, we have a responsibility to draw our own conclusions. Contrary to the Times’ sensationalist framing, technologies and political commentators that allow us to explore the full range of perspectives should be encouraged. This is how the marketplace of ideas is meant to function. The Times article may be indicative of how “old media” is reacting to an existential threat. YouTube audiences are beginning to catch up to the reach of traditional media outlets. Rubin’s YouTube show “The Rubin Report” recently hit 1 million subscribers. By framing legitimate commentators like Rubin, DeFranco, Peterson, and others as dangerous, perhaps the Times is reacting to a new landscape of media competitors. Critics are right to object to the framing of the article. While technology algorithms should be questioned, Cain’s story sounds more like a journey of intellectual exploration rather brainwashing, no matter what stops he made along the way. Call it radicalization, or call it curiosity. https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/14/new-york-times-frames-intellectual-curiosity-radicalism/
Man...the times never said Rubin, DeFranco, or Peterson as dangerous. It said that youtube's recommendation system leads to youtubers with dangerous videos...which it does, that's a fact. A Dave Rubin video could literally lead you to Molyneux who promotes White Nationalism which could then lead you to BPS who thinks women should have no rights at all.
Dave Rubin is a dangerous idiot also hiding behind the guise of "all ideas are welcome" shtick while having guests on spewing "Soros was a Nazi" type propaganda unchallenged with Rubin nodding his head.
Except - the only conglomerate is on the right with massive networks like Sinclair buying up stations and then spewing right wing propaganda and eliminating the other view point, and the Times nor Cain has called for any kind of censorship. Curious that you would quote Shapiro who has a reputation for spinning and warping facts into some kind of paranoid hate-the-left reality.
