Does Banning Content Work?

[@slackstarfish8133]

His train of thought is not training. There is a point to be made that if you ban something in some place, a new place will just be created where that specific thing is not banned so that there is a guaranteed audience of people that will move to that new place. That is true. But the point he is trying to make is just a complete jump in logic. What he should’ve said is that banning doesn’t completely work in a media format because companies will take advantage of a lack of censorship if they know it can guarantee them an audience, and in turn, profit. That’s what kick has done. That being said, banning still absolutely limits the funnel of bullshit from like 100% to 10% of what it could be. Even if inevitably shit passes through the cracks, it will always be better than a whole in the wall.

[@fulltimeslackerii8229]

This is the most correct take on the matter

[@kioro4221]

He understands that these types of polemics are innocuous because problematic content will always be as present as it is profitable or convenient to companies. What he gets wrong is that he thinks ceasing to speak against it helps to stop it's proliferation

[@jordancourtney9142]

Man I just remember when duplee was just the dude who uploaded VODs of Fantanos streams

[@apeheadboink]

turns out it should've stayed that way lol

[@hallehuckleberry]

i thought duplee was black until his face reveal LOL his pfp influenced my perception

[@apeheadboink]

@@hallehuckleberry unlike him my pfp is true i am a sentient apple

[@azalago]

So he's saying that because Twitch has "draconian" rules, a guy is filming underage girls naked on Kick and posting it in his Discord instead of filming them on Twitch? What?

[@bullseye3805]

He’s saying he wouldn’t have the platform to do it because if twitch had less draconian rules not to the point of allowing cp just other things kick wouldn’t exist

[@fulltimeslackerii8229]

@@bullseye3805but if twitch did allow it, he would just post it on twitch??? And remember, this is CP, we don’t want it ANYWHERE so this argument he’s making makes no sense

[@bullseye3805]

@@fulltimeslackerii8229 twitch would still ban it in this hypothetical the rules aren’t loose enough to allow cp on twitch just loose enough so kick doesn’t exist

[@azalago]

​@@bullseye3805But a platform with less strict rules doesn't mean a platform allowing cp, which is illegal. You can't blame people doing horrible illegal shit that sexually abuses underage girls on Twitch being too tough on swearing. That is a shitty, pedo-apologist take.

[@gdsonsow]

you really bastardized it but yes i suppose that is the point, and it's right

[@LaneyStudios5]

I suppose the question is, under free speech, should a person be able to release content outright smearing an individual or group of people. I think realistically you'll never be able to stop it because there are so many shades of grey, but, the consumer are also well within their right to boycott and complain, and an employer/advertiser/partner should be well within their rights to publicly condemn you and terminate existing contracts with you if you become a liability due to saying some stupid shit. No one can stop you from saying anything, but they can sure as shit not give you a platform to say it on.

[@fulltimeslackerii8229]

Free speech only applies to the government. Please read the constitution better

[@Joeshmo042]

That guy was so dumb lmao

[@yuritarted9890]

Which one? There’s two dumb people in the video

[@troyvita255]

The thing people who complain about free speech and censorship on social networks/video services don’t understand is that those platforms aren’t public forums and companies can make whatever rules they want. They have the right to refuse service just like shops. They have advertising deals to worry about. look at what happened to Twitter when they made a big show of loosening guidelines

[@jackreeder215]

I would actually disagree with you here simply due to the fact the Government has been proven to mess with Twitter and other Social Media sites a ton. Twitter files being a perfect example of this. If the Government is intertwining and ultimately controlling a speech forum, then by definition it is a Public Utility as it is a Government utility and ergo it would be a violation of the Constitution only if the Government interferes in the Operations of the service. Ultimately though the real lesson is the disgusting cross section of State and Corporation all working for the 1%.

[@trashboat3096]

Lmao “well either it was or it wasn’t”

[@Kanyewestbiggestfan123]

That’s just a summary of what duplee was saying during the stream

[@uphillracer]

I watched the whole thing. It was nice for a change to see people disagree and not automatically get sulky and personally offensive over it.

[@mikalokasso]

Of course it does. The number one creator of reach is availability. Banning also prevents harmful content from reaching neutral or misinformed people and affecting them negatively.

[@turboshazed7370]

This dude isn't making a concrete point at all HOLY F

[@Phoreverman]

Thoughts ain't thoughtin

[@fulltimeslackerii8229]

“We should discourage certain types of content” And what happens when the audience for said content is bigger than the people who are discouraging? Thats why in some instances discouraging content “doesn’t work” because you haven’t yet realized you are actually the vocal minority. Just some food for thought

[@vandalrabbit2338]

All content should be banned because it opens the door for problematic content to arise. The risk is too great for it to prosper unfettered.

[@oh_banana]

Obviously, you prove content is bad and then you ban it. Banning something without proving its negative draws outcry and a counter-culture response. Kick was birthed out of a ban on gambling on Twitch. We agree that gambling is normalized in society even though gambling addiction is detrimental to society and common, which is why banning it was controversial and there was enough counter-culture to spawn a smaller community. That's not to say Kick will rise above Twitch, it just exists and allows something Twitch doesn't, and any added baggage like CP seems unintentional and is more related to capitalism than the social dilemma of rejecting a person or corporation for the content they're responsible for.

[@kioro4221]

Banning content does reduce proliferation but it's only possible when companies think it's more profitable than allowing it. It's not something caused by good willed individuals "deplatforming" and speaking against it like fantano seems to think

[@fulltimeslackerii8229]

This guy isn’t making sense. His argument almost makes it sound like people post negative content out of spite for rules against them rather than an inherent desire to do so

[@gyronutz3043]

I think what he’s saying is that Twitch’s rules against problematic stuff and the way they were enforced lead to sites like Kick being created and popularised, therefore giving people a platform to post crazy things.

[@leakxed9481]

maybe

[@Boosker]

Can you please debate people who aren't OBVIOUSLY dumb, so there's at least some suspense in these discussions? Mfs like Los and Duplee really aren't making you work for anything lol.

[@CPUGaming]

Los isn't really there to debate. That's just for the fun banter and it isn't meant to be taken seriously.

[@safebans1369]

He's only debating this guy because he called him out in his video as problematic. And the 'debate' with Los is just about if Drake is good it's not serious if it's even a debate lol

[@hello_hello569]

I kind of get what he's trying to say. The idea is that if twitch had been more lenient on things like gambling and edgy jokes then there would be no market for a rival platform like kick, and therefore you wouldn't be able to get any attention from collecting CP for example. It's still a garbage take tho.

[@fulltimeslackerii8229]

Yeah but then if twitch just allowed these things, sure kick wouldn’t exist but then we’d just have the stuff on twitch which doesn’t solve the issue of “how do we stop this stuff from being spread to the public”

[@michaelbenham3603]

This guy made a mistake debating you

[@dyll_pyckle]

Dang. I found Duplee recently and liked his vids but he sounds super incoherent and rambly here.

[@opaquehawk8575]

PLEASE REVIEW GRACE BY JEFF BUCKLEY

[@Cantcomeupwithanamewhatever]

You shouldn’t ban content because you can’t make a clear distinction between what is wrong and what is not, if you try you are always going to be a hypocrite. If you disagree with what someone is saying why not just critique them and prove why they are wrong?

[@CPUGaming]

Yes, you can. Not always of course, but you sometimes can. People like Andrew Tate and Alex Jones are bad for society and that's obvious. I mean, do you think a group ISIS should be allowed to have social media accounts to spread their message? According to you, should we allow that because we can't tell of that's wrong?

[@seanhollibaugh3776]

Are you going for the smoothest brain award with this take? If so good job.

[@RemixedVoice]

If we couldn't make a clear distinction between what is wrong and what is not, we would still be living in caves flinging our poo at each other. The fact that you are I are talking to each other right now is a testament to how far our species has progressed mate

[@cr1tikal_arc]

yes, yes we can make a clear distinction lol. you're about as dumb as the guy fantano here is talking to, if not dumber.

[@erdnasiul87]

Even CP? Sure dude...