🐷 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you're not only tacitly but openly agreeing with the idea that as long as you don't say things that these corporate moralists view as wrongthink you're fine? Because the funny fucking thing about censors is that they never stop shrinking the circle of views allowed to go past them until everyone is saying exactly what they want. You can bet your ass that RSBN will be up on the chopping block eventually if these people are allowed to take an axe to anyone/anything they view as threatening their monopoly on the public discourse.

Yeah, it reminds me of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics#Origins

The term salami tactics (Hungarian: szalámitaktika) was coined in the late 1940s by the orthodox communist leader Mátyás Rákosi to describe the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party in its ultimately successful drive for complete power in Hungary.[2][3] Rákosi claimed he destroyed the non-Communist parties by "cutting them off like slices of salami."[3] By portraying his opponents as fascists (or at the very least fascist sympathizers), he was able to get the opposition to slice off its right wing, then its centrists, then the more courageous left wingers, until only those fellow travelers willing to collaborate with the Communists remained in power.[3][4]

All of which makes me thing I should probably stick up for those Memphis teenagers spamming '1488' in the comment section.

At the very least I think if people on the left ask me to disown them I'm going to ask them to disown the Marxists first.

Besides which the Alt Right make some funny parody songs and memes.
 
If you're saying the super chats were just the problem they could have just removed his ability to super chat. They didn't. They destroyed the whole network and his ability to stream on any platform, including his co-hosts, which don't do super chats. Your super chat theory is wrong dude. I get we're on the same side, but it was not the super chat issue, it was the influence issue. Ralph's audience weren't boomers. They were core demos for voters and could influence others.

You have to remember YouTube's ultimate goal is to replace TV. It wants none of this on there, and will eventually eradicate bigger right wing streams, small streams and the skeptics. It will reverse the adpocalypse by eliminating offensive content so that they can find a new market for TV. This is the plan, its been the plan, it still is the plan. The last to go will be the big ones like pewdiepie and Keemstar.

Its a loss leader for a reason. They plan on moving away from a content creation model. They just have to excise everything that will prevent them from doing that.
And now the WSJ is saying that yes, it's fucking super chats.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Lysol
I asked a friend that watches Markplier how is charity streams work, and he told me they're pretty typical. However, he did say that when he donated to St. Jude's they responded saying they would accept the money, but if he wished to donate in the future he would have to watch his content (language/ profanity) or they may have to decline the donation in the future. Issue is I can't find any info on this specifically. Maybe it was a different charity.
Lmao, ok, now i'm getting suspicious

Woz Lee, Kraut, all are very happy about this, 'they knew it was coming'
Did Kraut loop the WSJ into his GAY OPS?



Who else isn't surprised that a German has an obsession with shit?

Kraut was in contact with NYT journo. Not a far reach to believe.
 
Here's the full article.
7567653765375676576.png
 
archive isn't cooperating.
Hate Speech on Live ‘Super Chats’ Tests YouTube
Feature that gives paid comments special treatment generates revenue but can include racist comments
By
Yoree Koh
Updated Nov. 2, 2018 8:50 p.m. ET

Hours after Robert Bowers stormed the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh on Oct. 27, far-right personality Ethan Ralph launched a live stream on YouTube to discuss the shooting that claimed 11 lives. Soon, some viewers began paying to have their comments featured on the live chat scrolling alongside the streaming video, through a feature YouTube launched last year called Super Chat.

During the live stream, which YouTube since deleted, one user paid two British pounds to write, “How u get a Jewish girls number? Roll up her sleeve.” Another viewer paid $5 and wrote: “If you want to know if the Synagogue shooting was a false flag then check out the lucky Larry life insurance policies on those dead Jews.”

YouTube said late on Friday that it had permanently removed Mr. Ralph’s channel, “Ralph Retort,” from its platform for policy violations and for going against its terms of service.

Mr. Ralph, whose channel had 22,500 subscribers, is one of several far-right YouTube celebrities who have used the Super Chat function to make money. Topics among such users can be wide-ranging, from events like the tragedy in Pittsburgh and the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to critiques of the media and internal debates among members of the far-right online communities.

Most Super Chats generate a few hundred dollars in revenue, according to an analysis conducted for The Wall Street Journal, with YouTube typically collecting 30%, people familiar with the matter said.

A spokeswoman for YouTube, owned by Alphabet Inc.’s Google, said the company donates to charity the proceeds from any Super Chats that violate its hate-speech policy.

“Hate speech and content that promotes violence is prohibited on YouTube,” the spokeswoman said. “We have also been working over the last several months to refine our policies on who has access to monetization features, and while this work is ongoing, we are dedicated to continuing to improve in the fight against hate online.”

Like other popular social-media platforms, YouTube has struggled to draw the line between cracking down on hate speech and allowing freedom of expression. The company relies on a sprawling ecosystem of “creators” to supply a steady flow of content to the world’s most popular video site, where they get access to special benefits and resources on the platform.

Super Chat was launched last year to further encourage those creators to produce more content and attract more viewers. Paid comments receive special treatment: The video host often reads the comment out loud on air, and it gets pinned to the top of the fast-moving chat thread. The more someone pays, the longer the comment stays featured at the top of the chat box.

While the Super Chat function is available to YouTube’s vast cast of video celebrities, and was made primarily to appeal to gamers, it hasn’t gained the same traction or scale among those groups as it has with the far-right crowd, according to an analysis by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that is owned by News Corp, the Journal’s parent company.

Racist comments are not uncommon. Just as troubling, according to researchers, are the comments that stay within YouTube’s guidelines to avoid getting taken down through the use of coded language in place of hot-button topics and slurs. For instance, some commenters use the term “basketball Americans” rather than a slur against African-Americans and “population replacement” when referring to conspiracies about white genocide. Some users spell certain words with numbers to avoid detection by YouTube software.

Many payments, for example, are made in the amount of $14.88—the number 1488 is often used as shorthand among white supremacists to signify their ideology, and related merchandise is often sold for $14.88.

“What they’re doing is transmitting these ideas in other ways,” said one researcher. The researcher has been targeted in the past by white supremacists and other members of the far-right fringes.

After a BuzzFeed article in May detailed the popularity of Super Chats among white nationalists and other far-right personalities, YouTube said it had started using machine-learning technology that can detect hateful comments and put them on hold for further review. The company doesn’t disclose how much it makes from Super Chats overall.

When YouTube temporarily suspends a channel for a violation, that creator often appears as a guest on a like-minded person’s channel until the ban is lifted. The problem for YouTube, said this researcher, is that “YouTube is going to be continuously trying to apply a technological fix to what is a social problem.”

Mr. Ralph didn’t respond to a request for comment. On Thursday evening, after the Journal approached YouTube with questions for this article, Mr. Ralph opened a new live stream by reading what he said was a Super Chat submitted earlier in the day, in which the viewer wrote “Abort Hebrew babies.” The stream continued for more than 20 minutes before it was shut down for violating YouTube’s policy on hate speech, according to a notice posted on his Twitter account. Mr. Ralph then shifted to another channel and continued for several minutes before that also was shut down.

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital this week arranged to return donations raised in September during a live stream by Mr. Ralph dubbed a “Super Chat for Good,” even as the comments section became populated by anti-Semitic comments and the hosts talked about a Holocaust meme. The money totaled about $26,000. Many on Twitter complained Friday about having their donations returned to them. They also attacked the Journal and members of its staff, blaming the news organization for the return of the money.

When contacted earlier in the week, St. Jude said it was aware of the chats and was making arrangements to reverse any donations. On Friday, a spokesperson said: “We had no intention of receiving or accepting any of the funds associated with the live stream.”

Following the Journal’s questions, YouTube also took down a live stream by far-right personality Jean-François Gariépy that was broadcast after the Pittsburgh shooting and included a number of anti-Semitic and racist comments in the paid Super Chats.

Mr. Gariépy said his channel doesn’t allow hate speech and that he tries to delete Super Chats that “are either hateful or that constitute calls for violence.” He said his channel has banned thousands of viewers from his channel for repeatedly violating that policy.

Mr. Gariépy, who calls himself a white nationalist, said he doesn’t see a problem with people referencing 14/88 or Hitler, saying such comments “are aimed at encouraging people to gain a better historical understanding of Germany during the first half of the century.” He added that it would be easy for YouTube to prohibit donations made in that amount “if they differ from my interpretation.”

Mr. Gariépy’s live stream in the wake of Pittsburgh generated $244 in revenue, according to the Storyful analysis.

Write to Yoree Koh at yoree.koh@wsj.com

Appeared in the November 3, 2018, print edition as 'Hate Speech on Live Chats Tests YouTube.'
 
just an aside from the spergs trying to say it doesn't matter and that image is more important than 27K, a reminder about PR.

the golden rule is "assume any action taken will be discovered by the general public. can I reasonably defend it?". Can anyone reasonably say that they could defend taking 27K from kids dying of cancer? no? sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, and let the adults talk.

Hey, PR master, I've got your reasonable defence.

"We at St. Jude's Hospital, are apalled at the fact that organizations that promote hate have taken advantage of donating to our cause to promote their hate message masquerading as honest charity. St. Jude does not want any part of money used to promote hate and violence. Especially in the recent wake of attacks the nation suffered."
 
Consider the following scenario.

#wsjkillskids and/or #cancergate becomes a GamerGate like rabble uprising against journos.

Shitrat and Kraut are found to be the flaggers. Sargon is implicated.

So Sargon gets his GamerGate 2.0 but he's on the Anita Sarkeesian side.

LMAO.

If Trump tweets about CancerGate before GamerGate will Sargon an hero on a live stream?
 
Here's the full article.
View attachment 582981

LMAO did this just go up? It's exactly what I've been saying re: the super chats. Ralph would still be streaming if his fans spent even one second considering if they really needed to use their credit card to recycle A. Wyatt Mann jokes in the superchat box.

It's just another example of the children having their play-doh taken away because a few retards won't stop trying to eat it.
 
And now the WSJ is saying that yes, it's fucking super chats.

Yeah, the journal can say whatever the fuck it wants. YouTube wants this shit gone regardless and will do anything in its power to remove people like Ralph. YouTube could have stopped Superchats on Ralph's channel and let him stream. They didn't. Ralph didn't want to censor his chat.

I don't believe a fucking word of it. You're saying St. Jude didn't do shit for an entire month, but all of a sudden an article comes out, they're rushing to refund the money. Give me a fucking break. They knew where it came from and didn't do shit until a media outlet came running at them. If there was no WSJ article, there would be no refunds and we wouldn't be talking.

LMAO did this just go up? It's exactly what I've been saying re: the super chats. Ralph would still be streaming if his fans spent even one second considering if they really needed to use their credit card to recycle A. Wyatt Mann jokes in the superchat box.

It's just another example of the children having their play-doh taken away because a few exceptional individuals won't stop trying to eat it.

Ralph had a holocaust denier on his stream talking about holocaosters. The whole article is a load of crap and just an excuse for YouTube to remove people it doesn't like. They could have easily disabled superchat function.

You're also missing the fact Zidan's channel was struck down for no reason. It doesn't do superchats. You're buying this load of horseshit? I don't get how this is hard to understand. Ralph gets popular, attracts a lot of eyes. Raises a lot of money easily. Has controversial guests. YouTube wants him gone. WSJ exploits Superchat angle. Youtube finally has an excuse even though they could have just taken away hi superchat ability.

Zidan stream channel eliminated for no reason whatsoever with and has no superchat functionality because Ralph went and streamed it and started with that Reporters family. Ralph was going to do an election spectacular on that channel right on the midterms. Are you this gullible?
 
LMAO did this just go up? It's exactly what I've been saying re: the super chats. Ralph would still be streaming if his fans spent even one second considering if they really needed to use their credit card to recycle A. Wyatt Mann jokes in the superchat box.

It's just another example of the children having their play-doh taken away because a few exceptional individuals won't stop trying to eat it.

i'm happy to blame the exceptional fans for edgelording ralph's channel into the dustbin of internet history. nevertheless they could have picked on literally anything to shut him down and make an example out of him. being anything to the right of batshit looney antifa sjw leftist gets you the label of "promoting far right wing hate speech."
 
Yeah, the journal can say whatever the fuck it wants. YouTube wants this shit gone regardless and will do anything in its power to remove people like Ralph. YouTube could have stopped Superchats on Ralph's channel and let him stream. They didn't. Ralph didn't want to censor his chat.

I don't believe a fucking word of it. You're saying St. Jude didn't do shit for an entire month, but all of a sudden an article comes out, they're rushing to refund the money. Give me a fucking break.



Ralph had a holocaust denier on his stream talking about holocaosters. The whole article is a load of crap and just an excuse for YouTube to remove people it doesn't like. They could have easily disabled superchat function.

You're also missing the fact Zidan's channel was struck down for no reason. It doesn't do superchats. You're buying this load of horseshit? I don't get how this is hard to understand. Ralph gets popular, attracts a lot of eyes. Raises a lot of money easily. Has controversial guests. YouTube wants him gone. WSJ exploits Superchat angle. Youtube finally has an excuse even though they could have just taken away hi superchat ability.

Zidan stream eliminated for no reason whatsoever with no function on superchat because Ralph went and streamed it and started with that Reporters family. Are you this gullible?

You're catching on to what I'm saying.

Youtube does not want Ralph's content.
Youtube does not have a legitimate reason to delete Ralph's content (Once again, holocaust denial and the like is NOT grounds to getting removed from Youtube. You'll get delisted but NOT deleted.)
Youtube was given a reason to delete Ralph's content because of superchats which included things that actually ARE against Youtube's rules.
Youtube got rid of Ralph's content.

Superchats were the excuse used to delete Ralph's content. It was the mechanism that allows them get away with it in the eyes of the public and advertisers. Superchats legitimized their removal of Ralph's content. Without an excuse to delete his shit Ralph would be quietly plugging away in his own little corner of the internet, feeding money to Youtube and making a nice little chunk of cash for himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back