🐷 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.
ddd2.png

INB4 late and muted.
 
You come off as someone who is unbelievably salty at the fact that some of this guy's fanbase made jokes at your race's expense at best, and at worst someone who's all for the wave of censorship at this point in time because it's not your, or people you like to hear from's neck on the chopping block.

I'd respect your opinion a bit more if you didn't try to couch it (poorly) in ambiguous language.[/spoiler]

You should go and find someone who believes any of that if you want to have that conversation because it's got nothing to do with me. Not everyone is here to prove the value of their political praxis. I just think it's funny that Ralph's fanbase was stupid enough throw a bunch of landmines at his feet and are now crying that he stepped on them and thought that should be pointed out, it's got nothing to do with with my political leanings. It's just fun to rub it in peoples' faces.

I took my screenname from a sketch by the originator of getting deplatformed for alt-right political beliefs who also took a hit because his viewers couldn't control themselves so it should be clear that what I don't think what happened to Ralph is "right." But Ralph and his guys could have beaten the system if they wanted to, instead - ABORT HEBREW BABIES ($14.88) - totally worth it, jews btfo XD btw enjoy the $8 jewtube!
 
The terms of service are vague enough that not moderating your chat or reading inappropriate superchats is a ToS violation.

This is the biggest issue, while Ralph was honest that the stream culture was gonna get them some day - it's a bigger issue overall

I know streamers where their streams are not even about politics but they'll still get superchat/bot-read-outs that probably skirt the ToS of that respective websites but everyone knows it's jokes and messing about. Generally people accept the money but politely refuse to read it out or (if readout bot) just tough it out.

At least in YT's case - this sets precedent that if you get even one Super-Chat that Youtube doesn't like - someone can complain about it and take action to this level with someone else. Consider how exploitable that is, someone can send you a donation with a ToS breaking message and report it to get your channel shut off in one go. You can lose all your donations because of it too.

Established media already has protections in place to ensure this doesn't happen to them. Donation drives only come with heavilly vetted messages or they have 5 minute delay on broadcast so they can cut/censor anything that would get them in trouble. Streamers don't get that choice, yet are expected to purify their raw audience?
 
How many times do I need to write that removing his superchats was not their goal, just their excuse for banning him? Is there something unclear with about that conceit? This is about Youtube controlling the perception of their moderation processes, not if their behavior was unethical or not. The perception is going to be that Youtube deleted Ralph because of what the major media publications are reporting, that his superchat and chat were breaking the rules of the website, which they can back up with apparent evidence in the form of screenshots and receipts, and then they deleted some other guy who tried to have him ban evade. Without superchats and post-/b/ behavior they would have no apparent evidence.
And how many times do people have to tell you super chat's weren't the reason for banning him. If it Super chats was the excuse they would have banned him pre-stream, and said "Super chats banned you." He went down midstream, and the cause given was hate speech. Super chats can't be the excuse if they weren't a factor when the ban took place. And ban evading? Does that mean if JF or Jim gets banned showing up on another livestream is ban evading?
 
WSJ and Fox News are both owned by the Murdochs
people think too much of that stuff, perceived sides matter a lot, if this starts hitting the larger right wing smaller media, people will wonder why Fox isn't talking about it

the best way to make money is to play both sides, not try to cover your ass. Sell guns to both sides of the conflict.
 
WSJ and Fox News are both owned by the Murdochs

yes, but that doesn't mean they know what is going on.

many company's leave their lower employees alone unless there's a controversy or something involving the company, then upper management usually clamps down.

granted this isn't a rule persay but it's just something i notice about companies in general.
 
You should go and find someone who believes any of that if you want to have that conversation because it's got nothing to do with me. Not everyone is here to prove the value of their political praxis. I just think it's funny that Ralph's fanbase was stupid enough throw a bunch of landmines at his feet and are now crying that he stepped on them and thought that should be pointed out, it's got nothing to do with with my political leanings. It's just fun to rub it in peoples' faces.

I took my screenname from a sketch by the originator of getting deplatformed for alt-right political beliefs who also took a hit because his viewers couldn't control themselves so it should be clear that what I don't think what happened to Ralph is "right." But Ralph and his guys could have beaten the system if they wanted to, instead - ABORT HEBREW BABIES ($14.88) - totally worth it, jews btfo XD btw enjoy the $8 jewtube!


It's good to know that you are self-admittedly too stupid to understand why exactly his audience's comments wouldn't have mattered either way.

Double points for admitting that you don't have any meaningful input and should be ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back