A Middlebury College Expert Explains the Ways Social Media Fuels Hate and How to Stop It  Seven Days

Visit link:

A Middlebury College Expert Explains the Ways Social Media Fuels Hate and How to Stop It - Seven Days

News broke Wednesday that JP Morgan would be banning Kanye West from using their banking services, with no official reason given, according to a Candace Owens tweet:

But its certainly possible that the real reason for the ban is Wests recent remarks about Jewish people on Twitter. West also apparently made offensive statements during a recent interview for The Shop, which resulted in that episode being pulled before it aired:

Removing a television episode due to inappropriate statements is one thing, but refusing banking services is another.

Banking is a fundamental necessity, especially for someone like West, with the financial complexity of his income situation.

While antisemitic remarks should not be tolerated, the banking industry deciding who it wants to do business with based on Twitter sets a terrifying precedent.

Just recently, PayPal announced, and then withdrew, a policy designed to fine individuals for the crime of contradicting liberal consensus.

In much the same way, this move likely indicates that banks will be willing to engage in similar viewpoint discrimination.

Already, weve seen financial institutions pull donations from politicians who supported Donald Trumps election claims, showing how committed they are to ensuring that only liberals are allowed to question election results.

As with most woke policies, the slippery slope is sure to be nearly endless.

Now, its targeting Kanye West, but when the next generation of woke employees take over, who knows if theyll go after anyone who publicly disagrees with the idea of biological males competing in womens sports.

Weve already seen that spreading COVID misinformation, otherwise defined as information that the governments preferred experts disagree with, can lead to deplatforming, frozen bank accounts or being fired.

Punishment never ends with the bad guys, because the definition of bad guys is ever changing and increasingly expanding.

JP Morgan recently pulled the same thing with the National Committee for Religious Freedom, before demanding it share its donor list to be reinstated:

Once the cat is out of the bag, its impossible to get it back. And the cat is long since out of the bag.

Whatever activists on the left demand, they get.

Imagine if these same standards were applied to those on the left.

Rashida Tlaib has a history of making blatantly anti-semitic statements, but theres no outcry to remove her from platforms or from the financial services industry.

Advocating to put sexually explicit materials in schools is acceptable, according to JP Morgan, since none of the teachers or school districts engaging in that practice face consequences.

Doctors who perform gender transition surgeries on minors are allowed to bank there, with no issues.

This kind of debanking has been attempted by liberals before as well, when the Obama administration enacted a program designed to discourage banks from working with gun shops and other businesses they disliked.

It continued into 2017, until the Trump administration put a stop to the offensive policy.

Because authoritarianism is now ingrained in the actions of left wing ideologues, they have no problem unleashing the power of the state or the institutions they control against those who disagree with them.

And unfortunately, JP Morgan cares exclusively about appeasing the left.

On its website, JP Morgan proudly discusses their commitment to banking in Saudi Arabia, saying its the only U.S. bank with two licenses in the country:

We are the only U.S.-headquartered financial institution with two operating licenses in Saudi Arabia, providing access to a comprehensive range of products and global banking capabilities for clients in the country.

Homosexuality is a crime in Saudi Arabia, in some cases punishable by death.

Unsurprisingly, their treatment of Jewish people has been less than friendly. Practicing Judaism is not allowed, and the Washington Post reported in 2006 that Saudi educational textbooks vilified Jews.

For years, Jewish people were banned from the country entirely, and even recently, those with Israeli passports have been denied entry. JP Morgan has no problem doing business in a country with those policies.

JP Morgan also has an office in Qatar, a country with a horrifying track record on human rights. And of course, they proudly do business in China and throughout the Middle East, where 74% of people harbor anti-semitic views, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

The hypocrisy is endless.

Whoever theyre coming for now, its inevitable that theyll come for you next.

More:

Kanye West Bank Ban Is An Indefensible Slippery Slope - OutKick

I have posted this short paper on SSRN (prepared for this weeks Stanford/UCLA conference on replatforming Donald Trump). Here is the abstract:

This short position paper, prepared for the Stanford Program on Democracy and the Internet/UCLA Safeguarding Democracy Project conference, Should Donald Trump Be Returned to Social Media?, October 14, 2022, argues that former United States president Donald Trump should remain deplatformed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube even if he declares as a 2024 presidential candidate.

Platforms as private actors engaged in curating speech have a First Amendment right to platform, deplatform, or replatform candidates as an exercise of editorial discretion. In exercising that discretion, platforms as good corporate citizens should support both free speech and democratic institutions.

Given the strong interest in free speech and access by voters to the speech of candidates, officeholders, and other significant political figures, platforms should impose a very high bar to the question of removal or exclusion. Candidates should face removal or deplatforming only if they pose a significant risk to the stability of democracy or foment hatred that poses a significant risk of causing social strife or violence. In particular, candidates should be excluded from platforms only if they show a consistent pattern of (1) suggesting violence as a means of taking power or resolving election disputes; (2) falsely claiming without reliable evidence that an upcoming or past election is or will be stolen or rigged; or (3) engaging in hate speech against racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or other groups.

Platforms should have preset criteria for determining when to exclude or remove candidates, and they should apply those criteria fairly and consistently. Except in extraordinary circumstances, platforms should first warn candidates of violations and give them a chance to remove objectionable content before deplatforming. Once deplatformed, a candidate should be required to renounce earlier statements that caused the deplatforming before being allowed to return. Platforms should consider the overall risk to public safety before replatforming. Returning candidates should be quickly deplatformed again for violating platform safety rules.

Under these standards, Donald Trump should remain deplatformed. He relentlessly continues to make false statements that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged, convincing millions of his followers to distrust election results. He has called for decertifying the 2020 election, even though such a remedy is not allowed under U.S. law. He has continued to suggest violence, as he did before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, this time as he faces potential indictment for criminal activities. Far from renouncing his speech that led this deplatforming, he has doubled down upon it. He remains a grave threat to American democracy.

Read more:

My New Paper: Donald Trump Should Remain Deplatformed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube Despite the High Bar That Platforms Should Apply to the...

After nearly a decade of peddling baseless conspiracy theories and outright lies about the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a Connecticut jury has awarded nearly a billion dollars in damages to families of the victims and an FBI agent whose lives were further upended by Jones claims the shooting was a hoax. Jones, who was deplatformed from most major social media and podcast platforms years ago, said on his show he would appeal the ruling.

Jurors in the weeks-long trial were tasked with deciding how much the Inforwars host should pay in damages to 15 plaintiffs after previously being found guilty of defamation. According to CNN, prosecutors had sought at least $500 million in damages to represent the more than 550 million online impressions Jones Sandy Hook lie allegedly received online. Jurors ultimately awarded $965 million, an amount that doesn't include punitive damages.

Though Jone and several accounts and pages associated with him have been banned from Facebook, YouTube and other platforms for years, his reach on social media prior to those bans was raised in court. At one point during the trial, prosecutors displayed Jones Facebook engagement in 2016, indicating he had more than 4.1 billion impressions on the platform at the time.

Jones and InfoWars were kicked off Facebook and Instagram for good in 2019, following earlier bans from Spotify and Apples podcast platforms. Though his deplatforming made him less relevant on mainstream social media, Infowars actually made more money after the ban, according to evidence raised in the trial. A forensic economist testified Jones net worth could be as high as $270 million.

Just how much money Jones victims will actually receive is another matter. In addition to an expected appeal, Jones has also been accused of using shell companies and other techniques to shield his wealth from lawsuits.

Read more:

Alex Jones ordered to pay $965 million after misinformation campaign targeting Sandy Hook families - Yahoo Finance

LeBron James' business partner Maverick Carter has announced that they will not be airing an episode of 'The Shop' recorded with Kanye West.

Controversial hip-hop star, fashion designer, and founder of DONDA Sports who signed Jaylen Brown, Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, has been removed from an episode of 'The Shop' along with LeBron James. 'The Shop' is the closest thing LeBron has to a podcast and usually features a variety of very influential guests from all walks of life.

Andscape broke the news that an episode with Kanye West was recorded for The Shop but one that will never make it to air because of controversial comments made by Ye during the recording.

Yesterday we taped an episode of The Shop with Kanye West. Kanye was booked weeks ago and, after talking to Kanye directly the day before we taped, I believed he was capable of a respectful discussion and he was ready to address all his recent comments. Unfortunately, he used The Shop to reiterate more hate speech and extremely dangerous stereotypes.

We have made the decision not to air this episode or any of Kanyes remarks. While The Shop embraces thoughtful discourse and differing opinions, we have zero tolerance for hate speech of any kind and will never allow our channels to be used to promote hate.

I take full responsibility for believing Kanye wanted a different conversation and apologize to our guests and crew. Hate speech should never have an audience. (h/t Andscape)

Ye is in extremely hot water right now by making insensitive comments against Black and Jewish communities. With the goal of not giving a larger platform to his problematic opinions, Maverick Carter and LeBron have made the decision to not air it at all.

Deplatforming someone like Kanye West is nearly impossible, so it was smart of LeBron to not get himself in trouble by association for whatever remarks Ye makes on his show. James would be held responsible for aiding the spread of these opinions, which would be a massive hit to him personally.

Censorship is not right but Ye has his own platforms with millions tuning in where he can spread his message. Maverick Carter and LeBron would ruin what they've built as many people would then associate them with the opinions spewed on their show. If they cannot endorse it, they shouldn't release it.

Go here to read the rest:

LeBron James' The Shop Will Not Air Episode Featuring Kanye West After Controversial Remarks By The Rapper - Yardbarker

The Washington Post has joined in a broad culture-war offensive to crush religious institutions that dont subscribe to elite morality.

The headline of the latest Post article reads, Spread of Catholic hospitals limits reproductive care across the U.S. The sloppy subheadline reads, Religious doctrine restricts access to abortion and birth control.

And the editor who let this through tweets out a dark warning.

One point never made in this story is how the consolidation of hospitals is a direct, and arguably intentional, result of government growth in the healthcare system.

THE FUTURE OF WORK REALLY IS FEMALE

More importantly, theres the misguided notion that religious institutions are somehow imposing their morality on others by operating their own institutions according to their moral teachings. This is rooted in an impossibly narrow and uninformed understanding of what religion is. You cannot have a religion whose adherents do not let their religion affect how they act in real life, including toward others who may not share their religion.

This mindset holds that the Little Sisters of the Poor should be forced to provide contraception coverage for employees, religious schools must be forced to treat boys who identify as girls as if they were actually girls, and Catholic hospitals should have to perform elective abortions.

The increasing animosity toward religion in the public square deserves deeper treatment. But for now, let's zoom out. We need to look at the context of this Washington Post piece attacking Catholic hospitals.

Two issues here are hospital consolidation and federal funding of religious institutions. Neither of these is an easy discussion. But as a religious conservative with a broad media diet, I see a larger pattern here. The largest media institutions are at the forefront of a broad campaign against conservative religious institutions that dont subscribe to elite morality on sex, gender, family, marriage, and which human lives deserve to be protected in law. The goals of this campaign are primarily to bully religious institutions into dropping their religious character or, alternatively, to drive them out of business altogether, using Big Government and Big Business as enforcers.

The tools of Big Government and Big Business include deplatforming, defunding, taxation, regulation, and, ultimately, police powers.

Look at the stories published by major news outlets in the past two months.

For example, heres NBC News bullying a small Christian school for running itself according to Christian teaching on sexuality and gender.

Second example: Heres a massive, yearlong New York Times story targeting Orthodox Jewish Yeshivas.

Third example: Here's a Time magazine piece warning of unregulated, faith-based crisis pregnancy centers that have exploded across the U.S. in the past two decades, fueled by an increasingly powerful anti-abortion movement.

In each of these stories, you can find some fault with a religious institution or say that there are real issues to debate. But thats why its important to look at the whole picture.

There are patterns in these articles. One trope is to talk misleadingly as if religious organizations or their teachings are some innovation or something new. These journalists write as if the baseline is total acceptance of abortion, gay marriage, and transgender ideology and that the scary new thing is the religious hospitals or teachings that have been around for centuries or millennia.

Spread of Catholic hospitals is a funny headline because Catholics were the ones who invented hospitals. If you wanted to write a trend piece, you should really write about the spread of laws and lawsuits threatening Catholic hospitals, which are actually new.

But of course, the major media have chosen to make themselves part of that culture-war offensive. They have no interest in reporting on their own campaign objectively.

Most of these articles also dangle taxpayer funding as a red herring. The taxpayer benefits to Brooklyns Yeshivas are tiny a subsidy for bus routes. The taxpayer money to Catholic hospitals is a result of a constant increase in the federal and state role in healthcare. If you make the federal government the largest payer in the healthcare sector, you dont get to turn around and complain that some federal dollars are going to religious hospitals, which long predated both Medicaid and Medicare.

Religious conservatives rightly read these articles as part of a broad campaign to smash our institutions our schools, our charities, and our hospitals.

We know what comes next is the government targeting us personally.

President Barack Obama went to court against the Little Sisters of the Poor for their insistence on following Catholic teaching. Attorney General Merrick Garland is going after pro-life leaders while ignoring a pro-abortion terrorist campaign against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have verbally attacked. Every religious and conservative institution should expect and prepare for a culture war attack.

Lawyer up. Button down. Run a clean ship. Give them nothing to grasp at because biased reporters and Democratic attorneys general will come after you, no matter how clean you are. Prepare for your deplatforming and have a plan to stay in touch with your clients and friends.

How do you process payments? Can they take that away? Do you have a backup? Who hosts your website or your internal network? Can they drop you? How do you get health insurance?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Any one of these corporations could drop you tomorrow for not following their dogma, so you'd better be prepared.

It's a culture war, and the Washington Post is on the offensive with the rest of the cultural Left. Make sure your defenses are in place.

Here is the original post:

As Washington Post targets Catholic hospitals, every religious institution needs to build defenses - Washington Examiner

After it was concluded beyond doubt that propaganda website The Wire quite likely fell for a haox, if they have not perpetrated it themselves, involving Facebooks parent company Meta and BJPs IT Cell head Amit Malviya, Trinamool Congress MP Derek OBrien has now stepped in to give legitimacy to this. Taking to Twitter, OBrien said that he would raise this issue in the Parliament.

The good fight OBrien wants to take up has been categorically denied by Meta executives as fake and fabricated documents. In anarticlepublished on October 10, 2022, titled If BJPs Amit Malviya Reports Your Post, Instagram Will Take It Down No Questions Asked, leftist propaganda website The Wire alleged that BJPs Amit Malviya is an all-powerful individual who can get any social media post on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram removed.The article was based on some random troll account calling itself political satire account with less than 5,000 followers claiming Malviya personally targeted his posts and curbed his reach.

On one hand, The Wire wanted everyone to believe Malviya is some super-villain-ish individual with all the power on the internet and on other hand, it wanted us to believe he would personally go after obscure accounts on Instagram with hardly any clout when there are way more political influencer accounts who have way more nuisance value.

After the report was published Meta has categorically come out and denied the writeup published by The Wire and said that the documents they used for building up the narrative were fabricated. Metas Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Guy Rosen, issued a statement calling out the hoax and concluded it by saying that he hopes The Wire was a victim in the hoax and not a perpetrator.

Even before Facebooks denial came out towards the evening India time on Tuesday, many Twitter users, a lot of whom know a thing or two about technology had cast aspersions on The Wires report which appeared ridiculous from the word go. In fact, a lot of Modi critics and haters too did not buy The Wires writeup as it was clearly way too exaggerated and appeared ridiculously hilarious. Amusingly, it is the Left-Liberal cabal that has a history of deplatforming critics while championing the cause of free speech. Remember how former US President Donald Trump was deplatformed from all social media platforms? Social media platforms such as Twitter has quite clearly mentioned that their employees are left-leaning and it does show in the way it operates too.

But Derek OBrien here would like to take this hoax as some sort of gospel and raise the issue in the Parliament in winter session. The Wire hoax was so unbelievable that even Rahul Gandhi didnt share its screenshot to attack Modi government, like he usually does. To put things in perspective, Islamists are running riots in OBriens backyard, attacking Durga Puja pandals and opposing the celebration of Hindu festivals. But no, OBrien would rather exaggerate a hoax in Parliament than get the law and order in his own home state in order.

OBrien was also mocked at by netizens for the same.

While some even gave him advice to choose his battles wisely.

This, obviously, is not the first time OBrien has chosen to raise inconsequential issues in Parliament in what appears to be his way of making up for lack of credibility otherwise. Back in 2018, OBrien had threatened to name Twitter users in Parliament whom he found offensive and those who irritate him.

As seen above, Derek decided to accuse a twitter user of lying about Omar Abdullahs statement and as a result threatened that he would be mentioned in the Parliament. It was indeed shocking to note that a senior MP wanted to use Parliaments precious time todiscuss social media disagreements and call out private citizens, who would be in no position to defend themselves from his attacks.

Even before this, in 2017, based on a writeup by Swati Chaturvedi, abusive troll masquerading as a journalist with The Wire like sources, OBrien made childish accusations against some Twitter users, including against OpIndia co-founder Rahul Raj, accusing them of issuing criminal threats to other people while being followed by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi. This is akin to an MP quoting a pamphlet printed by ISIS to claim that Barack Obama was a terrorist. What next? An MP quoting a WhatsApp forward to make a point? It was a clear case of intimidation.

But it seems OBrien would still continue to put his bets on trash published by dubious platforms with questionable credibility and create noise in the Parliament so that the cries of people back home in West Bengal are stifled.

Imagine being so petty.

See original here:

TMCs Derek OBrien steps in to give legitimacy to The Wires Meta joke that turned out to be a hoax - OpIndia

One America News (OAN) is at risk of being completely blacklisted by the corporate left after Verizon Fios, the largest pay-TV network still carrying OAN, effectively blaclisted the conservative channel following pressure from leftist advocacy groups.

A channel carriage contract between Verizon and OAN was set to expire at the end of this month, and Verizon says it will not reach a deal with OAN to renew it.

Rep Anna Eshoo (Pool/Getty)

Verizons decision came after relentless pressure from leftist organizations like Media Matters and Free Press, as well as Democrat politicians. It also followedAT&T-owned DirecTV dropping OAN earlier in the year, amid similar political pressure.

The blacklisting by two dominant cable carriers in the U.S. is part of a rapidly escalating trend in the deplatforming of conservative media an attempt to take major conservative cable channels off the air, or to bankrupt them by denying them the cable carriage revenue enjoyed by other channels.

As Breitbart News reported last month, Democrat House members Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) used their clout as members of the House Energy Committees Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, which oversees telecom regulators, to pressure carriers into dropping OAN.

Via Breitbart News:

Telecom companies have already had an impact on national politics, with Verizon and AT&T brieflyshutting downTrumps campaign texts during the 2020 election, costing him millions of dollars.These conglomerates are vertically integrated, with the major companies also distributing Cable and Satellite TV. As with other concentrations of corporate power, the left hopes to use this to censor conservative viewpoints.

Last year Democratic Reps Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Jerry McNerney (D-CA), both of whom sit on the House Commerce Committee which oversees the FCC,wrote to the largest cable and Satellite companies including DirecTV, Verizon, Comcast, and Cox, stating: We are concerned about the role each distributor plays in disseminating misinformation to millions of [its] subscribers, and we write to you to request additional information about what actions [each distributor] is taking to address these issues.

The rise of telecom blacklisting has been blasted by one of the top Republicans in the House, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY). In a recent interview with OAN, she said Verizon was taking choice away from consumers.

Its not up to Verizon to determine what American citizens, what information they can access. Thats up to the consumer themselves, said Rep. Stefanik.

Verizon claims that its decision was not made on a partisan basis, with a statement on its website stating sometimes broadcasters and cable networks demand unacceptable price increases. But it stops short of specifically accusing OAN of making such demands, and there is no evidence that the network did so.

Leftists have made no attempts to hide their efforts to completely destroy OAN. In a statement following the Verizon news, the George Soros-funded D.C. nonprofit Common Cause urged smaller carriers to drop the network as well.

We hope those remaining small pay-tv providers and streaming services still carrying OANN will follow suit and deprive the outlet of any platform to spread harmful conspiracy theories, said Common Cause in a statement.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.He is the author of#DELETED: Big Techs Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.

See the original post here:

Verizon Blacklists One America News Network Following ... - Breitbart

A woman with dyed hair and a branded TikTok jacket chatted with a man dressed like an academic in the palm-shaded Alumni Center pavilion Friday morning. Stanfords first annual Trust and Safety Research Conference was a gathering of all kinds.

Online trust and safety is an interdisciplinary field, and the two-day conference brought together experts in computer science, law, and the social sciences to unify their work on online harm and distrust an unprecedented effort for the field, participants said.

Across Thursday and Friday, attendees dropped in on panels and research presentations taking place on the first floor of the Alumni Center and networked outside in the courtyard. Popular presentation topics included improved tools for online moderation, the spread of misinformation and how organizations and companies can design and implement tailored policies for online safety.

The conference was hosted by the Stanford Internet Observatory and the Trust and Safety Foundation. Early bird tickets ran attendees from academic and civil society $100, with the entry fee hiked to $500 for attendees from the industry.

Public content moderation expert and law assistant professor Evelyn Douek described the goal of the conference as a way to connect those working on internet safety across academia, industry and policy for the first time.

Community building is really important, Douek said. Actually getting people from lots of different disciplines in a room, meeting each other, building those bridges.

In Thursdays introduction to the Journal of Online Trust and Safetys research presentation, communication professor Jeff Hancock described how he co-founded the publication with other Stanford researchers in the field to fill that gap between those studying online safety from different disciplines. Alongside the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the researchers aim to understand and prevent potential harm from happening online.

Added SIO director and cybersecurity expert Alex Stamos in an interview, One of our goals at SIO is to make [online] trust and safety a legitimate academic topic.

In the past two years, the threat of internet-enabled violence and public mistrust has become difficult to ignore. Several mass shootings were preceded by hateful screeds posted on the online forum 8chan. Online misinformation has been linked to COVID vaccine hesitancy, and conspiracy theories fueled the organization of last years Capitol insurrection on forums and social media sites.

Security wasnt seen by CS academics as a real field, Stamos said. But these days security is seen as one of the absolute hottest parts of computer science. We need to have the same kind of transition in trust and safety, but we dont have fifteen years.

Panelists emphasized that a one-size-fits-all framework for online safety simply cannot exist; the internet is too big, run and used by too many people.

It would be impossible to create a single governing force to regulate online content and behavior, said Del Harvey, vice president of trust and safety at Twitter, on a panel.

I keep hearing this: What we need to do is make it so that the companies arent making the decisions, and instead this benevolent entity that we create, that will have all the information that is informed by all the things that are right and just and good in the world will [enforce online safety], Harvey said. However, Harvey added, We are nowhere near the utopian world where that can exist.

To panelist Mike Masnick, a blogger and tech policy expert, the recent deplatforming of hate forum Kiwifarms by infrastructure provider Cloudflare demonstrated how important decisions about online safety are often left in the hands of a few small companies.

The reality was that the situation was up to [Cloudflare], Masnick said. And a decision to do nothing meant that people were going to get harmed.

Some participants said there may be no single system that can prevent the harms of the internet, but they expressed hope that actors in the internet ecosystem can take steps to prevent harm and preserve public trust.

The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect decision, Douek said. Every decision is still going to involve harm. There needs to be trust that youve thought about those decisions.

Read the original post:

Conference aims to make trust and safety hot topics in computer science - The Stanford Daily

Content warning: This article contains references to sexual assault and may be triggering for some readers.

Andrew Tates cultural flame has been snuffed. Since being banned from YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitch, nobody really references him anymore. The people who want to become Top Gs are scarce. Tate no longer has the influence that he had just a few short months ago.

Over time, his fans will either flock to one of the million other cringelords doing the same shtick or grow up. His name will become a crusty meme, and the people will move on.

However, theres one place Tates fans will no longer go. And thats the YouTube channels of Nico Kenn De Ballinthazy, AKA, Sneako. This is because that dude has also just been banned from the platform.

Thats right, you can no longer go to Sneakos YouTube channels to endure such videos as Why Ugly Girls Think Theyre Beautiful. Nor can you suffer through How Women Manipulate Men.

We have reviewed your content and found severe or repeated violations of our Community Guidelines, YouTube stated in an email to Sneako. Because of this, we have removed your channel from YouTube.

This is ultimately a good thing because Sneako did in fact violate YouTubes policies. Earlier this year, Sneako simulated raping a female content creator that he disagrees with. He did this on camera.

Related: Sneako is the New Andew Tate and Needs to Be Deplatformed

Related: Why Is Andrew Tate So Popular? Heres How to Talk to an Andrew Tate Fan

Nevertheless, while its right that YouTube kicked both Tate and Sneako off its platform, it needs to be quicker at deplatforming its bad faith actors. According to Bloomberg, Tate was only kicked off YouTube after Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter had already pulled the plug on him.

Moreover, on September 1, a YouTuber named Nick Green called for Sneako to be booted from YouTube. Green even mentioned the fact Sneako pretended to rape a woman in a video.

As Green explained, Sneako has grossly violated YouTubes terms of service and qualifies for removal from the website.

This means that YouTube took over a month before removing Sneako from its service. A month having his videos pop up in peoples recommended feeds and a month of people subscribing to his content. Thanks to this decision, Sneako had over 30 more days of having an audience.

Additionally, Sneako still has his Twitch channel. And while he may not have violated this sites guidelines, he has repeatedly demonstrated he has the capacity to be heinous online. Unfortunately, the saga of Sneakos content might not be over.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of a sexual assault, please contact theSexual Assault & Domestic Violence National Help Lineon 1800 Respect (1800 737 732) or head toThe Australian Human Rights Commissionfor a list of state by state resources.

Read more stories fromThe Latchand subscribe to ouremail newsletter.

See original here:

Sneako: Andrew Tate 2.0 Has Been Kicked Off YouTube | 2022 - The Latch