🐷 Ethan Oliver Ralph / TheRalphRetort / Rad Roberts / Jcaesar187 / Rage Pig / "Killstream" / "Tequila Sunrise" - 5'1'' fat alcoholic, owner of a gunt, convicted felon and revenge pornographer, property of the ugly failed tranny pornstar Lucas Roberts. Has quadruple titties.

[MediocreMilt]

To be honest the politicised censorship side of it it and the fact it's going to be a massive shitshow for the odious WSJ is what makes the drama good.

The odd thing is that this literally is Gamergate 2.0. Gamergate was a bunch of SJW activist bloggers pretending to be journalists riling up the 'I just wanna play vidya crowd'. And so is this.

It's going to be sumptuous.

MFW Sargon was the big brain all along.

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

I don't have an opinion on private companies really, I'm just telling you that their vagueness is their carte blanche, it's right there in black and white. They are telling you exactly what they're doing. They're deliberately vague so they can ban whomever they like.
I'm not saying it makes sense to hold people responsible, but it's reasonable to assume that a "private company" like Youtube, with a known bias, are going to do these things and if you want to be able to stay on the platform, unfortunately you need to be careful about how you run things.
Having said that, they can and will take whoever they want off their platform.

In the Sandy Hook conspiracy era, Truthers were saying the same thing - they were being purged from Youtube for merely discussing Sandy Hook. There were people who weren't stalking anyone or harassing anyone, just talking about it, of course there were others that were batshit.
Youtube decided that that wasn't on, so they would mass ban. They said merely having a questioning opinion was harassment. 90% of any Sandy Hook discussion is now gone from YT.

This isn't something new. They've made it clear what they do and don't want on their platform and how they will go about purging that content.
Poking the bear with allowing autistic superchats isn't going to help you stay on the platform. It would be in the best interest of the program to sacrifice a few autistic superchats for the longevity of the program, if you choose to stay on YT.

Google isn’t a private company, it’s publicly traded.

 

[JustStopDude]

Where? I want to see this rolling dumpster fire begin first hand.

This is just my guess.

I realize that many people here that the media is out to get anyone and everything that is not SJW.

My perspective is that

1) there are much better targets than Ralph Retort with bigger audiences, saying more extreme stuff than his super chat. Unless someone follows the Ralph Retort, either through youtube channel or from twitter, the average person does not get exposed to him. Alex Jones was perfect target for this. Very well know. A long history of saying moronic, outrageous shit. Numerous cases of his fans doing very stupid shit in real life. A massive online presence. Ralph...doesn't fit this.

To me, this makes as much sense as WSJ doing a hit piece on DSP.

2) Ralph has already been targeted by idiots in the past with false flags in the past. There is an entire cast of characters that have justification in their mind to fuck with his channel.

3) the process for pulling youtube streams is functionally an automated process. People seem to think that one must have a lot of inside power with google to pull a stream. All you need is a bunch of accounts at once flooding the reporting system. This causes the stream to be pulled and THEN manually the account must be reviewed. This do this because of the potential for bad PR affecting ad revenue streams. The narrative that only someone in the media could pull a stream twice in short fashion is not accurate.

Youtube and google are terrified of losing ad revenue. If they cannot control what is displayed on their platform, advertisers will pull out in mass, even more so than already. Push comes to shove, the only thing that matters is money to them. And I know people will not like to hear this, but the same is true for politicians. No politician is going to run on a platform of de-monetizing the internet. Too much cash is involved. And the vast majority of youtubers will put up with youtube heavily regulating content over risking losing monetization of their channels.

4) Ralph and friends should be smarter in how to handle this. Optics is very important. Collecting information and then responding is always better than spinning up your fan base to lash out. So if what I say comes out to be true (which again, I have no proof in this and if I am wrong, I am idiot) and this was not caused by WSJ reporter, the damage is now done because if there wasn't going to be a nasty article about Ralph, there certainly will be one now because he and fans are sperging out.

Again, I am just spit balling here.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

@UnKillFill what do you think?

 

[He Who Points And Laughs]

Shakespeare was wrong- don't kill the lawyers, kill the journalists. They are after all the enemy of the people.

Kill all the lawyers like LanDUI and the upper echelons of the democrat party and other bureocromancers. But there are plenty of fine attorneys. I know some fine defense attorneys and prosecutors in my area, and then on YouTube there is Nick Reiketa, and YouTuber Law who are both entertaining. Greenburger is a shitlord supreme, and KiwiFarm's own AnOminous is a valuable resource of legal insight.

 

[TazMetric]

If you got cash to burn, to into every stream you see and super chat the most vile, racist shit you can think of. Then report it to youtube

 

[UnKillFill]

@UnKillFill what do you think?

I think you're missing the point when you say Ralph is "too small" to be a target. Ralph's stream had super chats disabled before he even started, so I don't agree that he was struck because he went after the reporters family. Also, apparently a bunch of other content creators all got strikes recently too, and I don't buy that as coincidence.

I think the msm are starting to realize that more and more people are getting their primary news from these "smaller" sources, and are experimenting with nipping them in the bud. Ralph isn't the first, and he obviously won't be the last.

Even if I'm totally wrong, I guarentee there's more going on here that we aren't seeing yet.

 

[Jaimas]

So deleting someone's YouTube account is justification for homicide?

It was for some insane woman who shot up Youtube earlier.

But she doesn't fit the narrative so no one's discussed her since.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

I think you're missing the point when you say Ralph is "too small" to be a target. Ralph's stream had super chats disabled before he even started, so I don't agree that he was struck because he went after the reporters family. Also, apparently a bunch of other content creators all got strikes recently too, and I don't buy that as coincidence.

I think the msm are starting to realize that more and more people are getting their primary news from these "smaller" sources, and are experimenting with nipping them in the bud. Ralph isn't the first, and he obviously won't be the last.

Even if I'm totally wrong, I guarentee there's more going on here that we aren't seeing yet.

If they actually do this wide unpersoning shit they did to alex jones on a wide scale, preventing people from basically existing online and shit, people are actually going to get violent.

 

[UnKillFill]

If they actually do this wide unpersoning shit they did to alex jones on a wide scale, preventing people from basically existing online and shit, people are actually going to get violent.

I don't think they care.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

If they actually do this wide unpersoning shit they did to alex jones on a wide scale, preventing people from basically existing online and shit, people are actually going to get violent.

Frankly put, we need to revise our conceptions of free speech and the public square to fit the digital age.

We all know that the free market won't (necessarily) solve this due to the dominance of FANG, and government regulations could only make things worse by opening the door for bad actors to directly censor undesirable information.

The simple solution is to legally treat these so-called platforms like publishers, putting them in an untenable legal situation. They'll reverse course soon after.

 

[Particle Bored]

What's up with all the "WSJ doesnt care about Ralph" stuff? Maybe you could say WSJ editors don't know/care, but their writer Koh obviously does, she's trying to write an article referencing his superchats.

Edit: also remember that Sarah Jeong is WSJ's "lead editorial writer on technology(/editorial board member)," so she may be aware of him as well.

 

[JustStopDude]

I think the msm are starting to realize that more and more people are getting their primary news from these "smaller" sources, and are experimenting with nipping them in the bud. Ralph isn't the first, and he obviously won't be the last.

I see two potential scenarios.

1) a troll or bunch of trolls flag Ralph's stream as they have in the past. Either through coincidence or intentionally, they wait until he is talking about someone in the media so there is a convenient target for blow back.

2) Its a nation wide conspiracy to shutdown Ralph because not enough people are going to the MSM for their furry coverage.

 

[Miller]

If they actually do this wide unpersoning shit they did to alex jones on a wide scale, preventing people from basically existing online and shit, people are actually going to get violent.

These journalists/activists' goal is to push the people they hate off the internet and off the entire tech industry. Violence is exactly what they expect/want. If there's another Nasim expect a ton of articles titled "this [crime] is why [people on the opposite side of the political spectrum] shouldn't have access to the internet". The GAFAM are totally fine with that goal and they've been working on it since 2016.

 

[HarblMcDavid]

I see a lot of "doubt" regarding the source of the strikes because Ralph's channel's stats are small, and frankly his numbers aren't huge, but this is deceptive.

Where he jumps to prominence is when he's actually on the air and has viewers as the live trending algorithm puts him in a pretty visible place on youtube when he is due to the number of viewers and lack of real competitors at the timeslot.

It's less that he reaches a huge nationwide audience and more that he's trending at or close to the top of the live algorithm that's supposed to prioritize peppa the fucking pig, not the fat southern yelly man reading spicy heeb removal superchats.

 

[Kirito]

I see a lot of "doubt" regarding the source of the strikes because Ralph's channel's stats are small, and frankly his numbers aren't huge, but this is deceptive.

Where he jumps to prominence is when he's actually on the air and has viewers as the live trending algorithm puts him in a pretty visible place on youtube when he is due to the number of viewers and lack of real competitors at the timeslot.

It's less that he reaches a huge nationwide audience and more that he's trending at or close to the top of the live algorithm that's supposed to prioritize peppa the fucking pig, not the fat southern yelly man reading spicy heeb removal superchats.

It always goes back to peppa pig. It's too much to be a coincidence.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

It always goes back to peppa pig. It's too much to be a coincidence.

we need to fucking fry that fucking bacon once and for all

WHATS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PEPPA PIG AND SHERRAT, WHO PULLS THE STRINGS

 

[Marvin]

A lot of people here have really poor understandings of what's going on here.

I really doubt there's collusion going on here. As @heathercho noted, PR is a much more straightforward explanation. People whine about nazis on youtube, the media starts writing a hitpiece about it and asks youtube for "a comment". Youtube checks their voluminous rulebook and easily notes a reason to block them, and says "oh, sorry about that, they're gone". That is not collusion. Collusion would be the WSJ reporter explicitly asking for youtube to block them. The WSJ reporter has no reason to risk that. It's way too easy just to do it the straight way.

If this is what happened (and it almost certainly is), then if someone still wants to push the collusion angle, then you're basically arguing collusion can be achieved by a private citizen publicly discussing a popular issue and a business reacting to avoid being tarred with that brush. That could arguably cover boycotts in general.

This is also why people get blocked from multiple platforms at once. You don't think these media dipshits aren't emailing twitter and facebook for a comment on what services they provide Ethan Ralph?

Also, people have a really poor understanding of CDA 230. What it guarantees is that if you have user submitted content on your site, but it shouldn't be misconstrued as your site authoring it. You still have a first amendment right to boot anything off your site you want. For the same reason null can ban anyone from kf for any reasons, without losing CDA 230 protections, so can youtube.

In fact, youtube can openly come out as a left wing video streaming platform, and police their rules as such, it'd be protected. The selection of content you display on your site is allowed to be curated, because that selection itself is speech. The body of each piece of content, however, is the responsibility of the author.

Kiwifarms is about lolcows. Null can remove threads on non-lolcows if he wants.

The only way to really lose CDA 230 protections is if you wipe away the line between your users' content and your platform's content. And that has to be tied very finely to the content itself. Just deleting stuff doesn't qualify. You'd have to like, edit people's posts by hand and change the meaning of their post. And even then, you're allowed to do that, so long as you put in a little note like "edited by moderator: removed line about blah blah blah".

All acceptable under CDA 230. And while youtube are being shitheads with this, fucking with 230 is the Samson option. It would destroy us all, including this very site.

 

[UnKillFill]

A lot of people here have really poor understandings of what's going on here.

I really doubt there's collusion going on here. As @heathercho noted, PR is a much more straightforward explanation. People whine about nazis on youtube, the media starts writing a hitpiece about it and asks youtube for "a comment". Youtube checks their voluminous rulebook and easily notes a reason to block them, and says "oh, sorry about that, they're gone". That is not collusion. Collusion would be the WSJ reporter explicitly asking for youtube to block them. The WSJ reporter has no reason to risk that. It's way too easy just to do it the straight way.

If this is what happened (and it almost certainly is), then if someone still wants to push the collusion angle, then you're basically arguing collusion can be achieved by a private citizen publicly discussing a popular issue and a business reacting to avoid being tarred with that brush. That could arguably cover boycotts in general.

This is also why people get blocked from multiple platforms at once. You don't think these media dipshits aren't emailing twitter and facebook for a comment on what services they provide Ethan Ralph?

Also, people have a really poor understanding of CDA 230. What it guarantees is that if you have user submitted content on your site, but it shouldn't be misconstrued as your site authoring it. You still have a first amendment right to boot anything off your site you want. For the same reason null can ban anyone from kf for any reasons, without losing CDA 230 protections, so can youtube.

In fact, youtube can openly come out as a left wing video streaming platform, and police their rules as such, it'd be protected. The selection of content you display on your site is allowed to be curated, because that selection itself is speech. The body of each piece of content, however, is the responsibility of the author.

Kiwifarms is about lolcows. Null can remove threads on non-lolcows if he wants.

The only way to really lose CDA 230 protections is if you wipe away the line between your users' content and your platform's content. And that has to be tied very finely to the content itself. Just deleting stuff doesn't qualify. You'd have to like, edit people's posts by hand and change the meaning of their post. And even then, you're allowed to do that, so long as you put in a little note like "edited by moderator: removed line about blah blah blah".

All acceptable under CDA 230. And while youtube are being shitheads with this, fucking with 230 is the Samson option. It would destroy us all, including this very site.

I agree with you that youtube is just covering their asses, but what you described is still the corporate MSM going after much smaller competition and actively doing things that they know will result in deplatforming. Even if it's technically legal, it's still scummy as fuck.

 

[Sonork]

Also, people have a really poor understanding of CDA 230. What it guarantees is that if you have user submitted content on your site, but it shouldn't be misconstrued as your site authoring it. You still have a first amendment right to boot anything off your site you want. For the same reason null can ban anyone from kf for any reasons, without losing CDA 230 protections, so can youtube.

Isn't there something about moderation though? You can't have content on your site like incitement to hatred if you moderate it and then get away by saying well I didn't post it. If you are actively moderating content you become liable for any illegal content on your site that you don't remove because you are tacitly endorsing it by not removing it.