The Great Debate

[Yuuki]

But then answer me this, Youtube experts and Cory.

Why are RATINGS disabled as well? If people aren't allowed to comment, why can't they at least leave a simple "yay" or "nay" as an expression of agreement or disagreement?

I'll tell you why, because Anita is aware that most people disagree with her and she doesn't want to set off anyone's bullshit-alarms with a huge dislike bar (like so many shit Youtube videos). Call them "trolls" all you like, in the end they still fall into the pool of people who disagree.

Anita is afraid of criticism, plain and simple. ALL her methods involve giving monologues/speeches or sermon-style presentations with zero room to respond or debate, this video isn't the only example where she has shut off feedback.

Stop. Fucking. Defending. Her. Bullshit.

Can't believe an Escapist artist has jumped onto the bandwagon.

 

[Caiphus]

But then answer me this, Youtube experts and Cory.

Why are RATINGS disabled as well? If people aren't allowed to comment, why can't they at least leave a simple "yay" or "nay" as an expression of agreement or disagreement?

I'll tell you why, because Anita is aware that most people disagree with her and she doesn't want to set off anyone's bullshit-alarms with a huge dislike bar (like so many shit Youtube videos). Call them "trolls" all you like, in the end they still fall into the pool of people who disagree.

Anita is afraid of criticism, plain and simple. ALL her methods involve giving monologues/speeches or sermon-style presentations with zero room to respond or debate, this video isn't the only example where she has shut off feedback.

Stop. Fucking. Defending. Her. Bullshit.

Can't believe an Escapist artist has jumped onto the bandwagon.

That's rather antagonistic, don't you think?

If every time I posted something relevant to my interests on youtube, an army of spiteful twits invariably materialised, well I'd probably disable feedback as well. In all forms. I just wouldn't want something that I'd made right next to a bunch of anonymous people calling me really rather terrible things. Maybe I'm scared of criticism, but I don't think so, I just don't think I'd like something I'd made used like that.

You might not think like this, you might have a stronger backbone than myself, and clearly Anita, and that's cool. But I think that there's no *obligation* to let people who have played no helpful role in shaping your content and who will have no role in shaping your content have a voice anywhere near your content. And clearly YouTube agrees; they let people disable comments.

You allow comments it if you like, and if the feedback is generally a pleasant echo chamber with some mild criticism most people will. If the feedback is 90% bile, then why bother? And why scold people when they don't bother? They're not performing censorship, not in any real sense. This is the internet, it's rather difficult to censor *anything* effectively. You can still have a perfectly good discussion about Anita's work on any other website (including this one) and those discussions are far more likely to be wholesome.

 

[likalaruku]

I advocate disabling comments. Why could that be?

1)Because your average youtuber rarely has anything of value to say.
2)Because two trolls using the comments section like a forum for an off-topic debate is inevitable.
3)Because I don't approve of the ability to rate comments. TGWTG got rid of theirs & the place is all the more polite for it.
4)Because I was raised on "if you can't say something nice, don;t say anything at all."
5)Because I also advocate censoring music. Who else will think of da childrenz?
6)Because if I uploaded videos, I'd be too lazy to approve of the comments one at a time, or deleting all of the spam & two-way conversations.

Freedom of speech & freedom of the press are great, in moderation. Does anyone else think that freedom of the press & freedom of privacy contradict eachother?

 

[PhiMed]

Thank GOD for posting this comic.

disabling youtube comments isn't censorship. Not by any meaningful definition of the word. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to speak in someone else's private space. Youtube isn't obligated to provide comment space, and as long as youtube provides uploaders the option to turn comments off, neither are they. It's like a newspaper or magazine or any other publication, they may print letters to the editor, but they're in no way obligated to print every or even any letter they receive.

Thank GOD for posting this comment.

Thats the long and the short of it. Anita has no obligation to provide space on her channel so 3 reasonable responses can be washed away in comments about rapeing her. If anything, she did her opponents a great SERVICE by not giving them the rope to hang themselves with.

Yes, some people with reasonable responses won't be able to post a comment on youtube...oh no, where on earth can this person discuss something about video games ON THE INTERNET? Just imagine how much discussion has been had about the lack of discussion caused by her disabling comments. The point begins to look comically absurd. Saying that disabling youtube comments is stifling the debate is kind of like saying that spitting in the ocean is contributing to rising sea levels. And quite frankly, saying that she needs to grow a thicker skin and not be offended by assholes on the internet when said assholes are threatening rape and violence is dumb, naive, involves a psychopathic lack of empathy for fellow human beings. Her disabling comments did nothing except improve the quality of the debate.

... and allow her to claim ignorance when asked to respond to her legitimate detractors. How could she know what her legitimate detractors are saying when she doesn't allow responses at all?

Be honest. She's not debating. She's lecturing. She doesn't intend to foster conversation. She intends to tell us THE TRUTH!!!!!!!! No questions asked.

Also, how would we know what her comments would eventually look like? She's allowed comments on one video ever. And that just happened to be the video that had its existence broadcast on 4chan, of all places, for 3 days. I think her comments may have been disproportionately negative after something like that.

But then again, I'm using common sense. Weird, right?

tl,dr: She's a hack who does hackish stuff. Just because stupid, powerless, bad people said mean things to her on the internet after someone pulled her from obscurity to the front page of /b doesn't mean she's some sort of hero. She got some disgusting comments on YouTube. That does not make her Salmon Rushdie.

 

[LetalisK]

I don't particularly like Sarkeesian and I agree. As much as I dislike how she discusses the topics and is not the right person to be doing this type of project, she still manages to be far more eloquent, cogent, and tolerable than the vast majority of the people who waste their time in her comments. But that's a pretty low bar as it is.

Though from a practical stand point, it's not the best decision. I mean, from her position, it would be poetic justice to let the babies have their bottles in the comments as they end up inadvertently supporting her through their actions. After all, she's only this popular because of the controversial actions of some shitheads. Why not harvest that?

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

It's curious, actually. If TotalBiscuit is to be believed, the more bitching in the comments there is, the more Youtube's algorithm decide the video is worth front-paging, or featuring, or what have you. Comments, views, and likes, apparently, are what popularizes a video - and as TB says, the more people argue, against or for him, the more hits he gets, and the more money he makes.

So Anita, disabling comments, has actually made it a detriment to her own popularity for the sake of quelling severely anti-intellectual discussion. I'd say that's a sacrifice if ever there was one: and, as she says, she does want people to talk about the video - on forums, on news sites, just not on the video - the one place where such debate would go to benefit her outreach. Worth thinking about.

 

[MeTheMe]

Yes, this comic has made my night. So much sarcasm and so much truth have melded together into something amazingly funny. This comic right here sums up most of my feeling towards what youtube comments are. Sad though, since they could be so much more, you do see occasional really good debates, but the vocal minority really like to be heard shouting about how much they hate stuff. Still, comic made my night to be sure, super funny!

 

[Yuuki]

But then answer me this, Youtube experts and Cory.

Why are RATINGS disabled as well? If people aren't allowed to comment, why can't they at least leave a simple "yay" or "nay" as an expression of agreement or disagreement?

I'll tell you why, because Anita is aware that most people disagree with her and she doesn't want to set off anyone's bullshit-alarms with a huge dislike bar (like so many shit Youtube videos). Call them "trolls" all you like, in the end they still fall into the pool of people who disagree.

Anita is afraid of criticism, plain and simple. ALL her methods involve giving monologues/speeches or sermon-style presentations with zero room to respond or debate, this video isn't the only example where she has shut off feedback.

Stop. Fucking. Defending. Her. Bullshit.

Can't believe an Escapist artist has jumped onto the bandwagon.

That's rather antagonistic, don't you think?

If every time I posted something relevant to my interests on youtube, an army of spiteful twits invariably materialised, well I'd probably disable feedback as well. In all forms. I just wouldn't want something that I'd made right next to a bunch of anonymous people calling me really rather terrible things. Maybe I'm scared of criticism, but I don't think so, I just don't think I'd like something I'd made used like that.

You might not think like this, you might have a stronger backbone than myself, and clearly Anita, and that's cool. But I think that there's no *obligation* to let people who have played no helpful role in shaping your content and who will have no role in shaping your content have a voice anywhere near your content. And clearly YouTube agrees; they let people disable comments.

You allow comments it if you like, and if the feedback is generally a pleasant echo chamber with some mild criticism most people will. If the feedback is 90% bile, then why bother? And why scold people when they don't bother? They're not performing censorship, not in any real sense. This is the internet, it's rather difficult to censor *anything* effectively. You can still have a perfectly good discussion about Anita's work on any other website (including this one) and those discussions are far more likely to be wholesome.

You know there is a reason I asked my main question in BOLD right? You didn't answer it in the slightest, you're just telling me the same thing everyone else in this thread is chanting - why she disabled comments. I KNOW why she disabled comments.

I'm not talking about comments, I'm talking about ratings. There is no room for trolling or hurtful comments in a rating - only an indicator of how people feel about the video.

Answer the bolded question.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Doubly so when trying to debate a complicated, delicate issue in under 500 characters.

This is what kills me about the idea of Youtube "discussion."

Oh, you guys want to see moronic comments on something? Go too any Yahoo!News article and read THEIR comments section. It's where conspiracy theories are born.

Why? Why would you wish that upon people?

I didn't mean to do that, I was warning against reading the comments on YahoO!News articles. in fact, don't read them at all. They'll just angry up the blood.

 

[Knight Templar]

No, that's called Youtube and if they're putting a public video up on a public website and disabling comments then yes, they're silencing discussion/debates/general nonsense about it.

But they are not doing that, no attempt is made to infringe on the rights or space of others, there is nobody who has been stopped from saying what they wish to.

 

[The Lugz]

you realize the irony here, of-course? you're basically just saying nobody matters but me all your opinions are stupid, because lol reasons!

and that's Exactly the sort of comment you get on youtube...

 

[Olas]

It always annoys me when comments are disabled, the worst part is you can't even write a complaint about it in the comments because the comments are disabled.

Also, reading other peoples' comments on youtube makes me feel more intelligent.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

The OP is a gay ******.

Good comic, I laughed.

So, you're saying this is Grey?

Spoiler: A Gay ******

A Happy Cigarette.

:/ Well, he is British, so I guess that makes sense.

Great Comic. Keep up the good work!

 

[Evil Smurf]

The OP is a gay ******.

Good comic, I laughed.

So, you're saying this is Grey?

Spoiler: A Gay ******

A Happy Cigarette.

:/ Well, he is British, so I guess that makes sense.

Great Comic. Keep up the good work!

I was thinking more a bundle of sticks

 

[Griffolion]

You're not wrong in that people should not have to feel compelled to open the comments section for the sake of debate due to harassment etc. But that wasn't the reason why AS disabled the comments in some of her videos.

 

[Xisin]

Some people will argue that youtube comments are anonymous and therefore carry no weight because the shit people say would never be said to someone's face. They can easily be ignored because the majority will be shit. This attitude will eventually result in stifling actual debates that might pop up or simply silencing dissenting voices. Oh sure it's easy to crap on youtube but the same can be said for the escapist or any other forum or site where despite the rules of conduct there is still a large amount of crap.

Think back to for example the early Jimquisition days where the majority of the responses were hateful, vulgar, stupid, unintelligible, unintelligent or spam and they weren't just turned off. What if they had been turned off? What if those 1/10 posts that actually offered suggestions, explanation and analyses of the flaws were ignored all for the sake of not having to read the other 9/10 comments that read something like:

"Who is this fat stupid fuck and why is he on this site with his crappy show regurgitating whatever the community says?"

We wouldn't have our Wednesday poetry jam or our Monday show because the people that didn't talk with their posts would have talked with their views and nobody would have gained anything because nobody would know why the views went down.

Just because you don't want to hear someone tell you that you should be raped is no justification to also silence the person that would tell you why he disagrees with you in a well thought out argument. That is just the excuse for you to avoid any dissenting comments.

The difference for me is moderation. If after watching Jim's first episode, I commented with "Get raped Jim!" I would be banned or at least given a warning. So the next time, I wouldn't be there to add irrelevant comments. Freedom of speech or a lack of censorship doesn't mean a freedom from consequences.

Besides, I always have the right to say something and walk away. Why can't I have that option on youtube? Not even the default setting. Gosh knows I use that setting all the time in League. There was a Zilean 2 days ago pretending to be an Islamic Bomber... I hit the mute option.

 

[Xanex]

Anita doesn't know what she is talking about. Poor research and biased conculsions.

I know I am right, because I am. So I am going to turn off comments and ratings to ths post because there is nothing to say. I am right.


Now after that let me say. Anita markets herself and her approach to this subject as academic. As another youtuber said "In acadimia peer review is a essential part of the academic proccess". Without it all she is doing is presenting her opinion.

 

[Simonism451]

Anita doesn't know what she is talking about. Poor research and biased conculsions.

I know I am right, because I am. So I am going to turn off comments and ratings to ths post because there is nothing to say. I am right.


Now after that let me say. Anita markets herself and her approach to this subject as academic. As another youtuber said "In acadimia peer review is a essential part of the academic proccess". Without it all she is doing is presenting her opinion.

I can still however send you a private message, start a thread in which I write about your opinion and why I think it's wrong, I can make a blogpost, a Video reply or post on reddit or a similar platform: basically every form of communication available on the internet that requires more thought than writing "lol, aspie fag" in a box at the bottom of the page.
Additionally, for peer review to work, there needs to be a certain level of competence present in the reviewing peers which is more likely to be true for chimpanzees than the average youtube commenter.

 

[Malisteen]

disabling youtube comments isn't censorship. Not by any meaningful definition of the word. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to speak in someone else's private space.

No meaningful definition of censorship limits it to anti-democratic government-instituted censorship.

Censorship is the ereasal or limitation of communication. If I'm quoting your post, and replacing a word with asterisks, then by most common definitions, I am "censoring" your line. If I'm asterisking out my own words, I am prcticing "self-censorship". When the Escapist is deleting forum posts, they are censoring commenters.

I'm not saying that all these forms of censorship are wrong, they might be necessary, but first of all we need to admit what it is. If you are blocking comments from your youtube page, then you are censoring your youtube page. You are limiting other people's communication. And just because you do it in a way that is within your legal rights, doesn't change that basic fact.

To deny that, just because censorship sounds like such an unpleasant word, is a pointless euphemism.

The New York Times isn't practicing censorship when it chooses not to print a letter sent to it, you aren't practicing censorship when you choose not to forward a chain letter to 10 of your friends, I'm not practicing censorship when I choose not to scream every thought that comes into my head stream of consciousness style while I'm walking down the street, and Anita isn't practicing censorship when she turns off youtube comments on her videos.

A definition of censorship that would apply to those situations is meaninglessly broad. Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose what you don't say, what opinions you don't express in your own words or your own publications or spaces.