The Great Debate

[Iridium Dawn]

People with something constructive to say have had no real avenues to speak cut off. Grey pointed many of those out.

1) It is. It doesn't violate free speech but it is censorship.
...
2) Bullshit. Comments are an avenue to speak, and not everyone has a video to make a video response with or has a place that will publish an article.
[From a later response] Or he's looking at on a library computer.
...
3) Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them.
...
4) Allow comments. Not that hard. She says wants to foster dialogue but her actions say otherwise.
...
5) Oh and not all insults are ad hominems. It's only ad hominem if you use it to dismiss arguments. Calling someone a coward isn't ad hominem, saying "they're a coward so they must be wrong" is.

Okay, a couple of responses. Sorry about the formatting and length, Father Time did a couple of posts and I can't make it pretty. I added a 1), 2), etc, before the things I want to address.

Father Time, I think in general you and some others are appealing to some pretty abstract ideals of censorship, free speech, desire for a completely open discussion, and it doesn't seem to get at any of the concrete events that led to Anita disabling comments. The problem with focusing on such abstract ideals is that it becomes easier to point out that they are being selectively applied.

What, exactly, do you want to happen as a result of comments on her videos being enabled? Will enabling comments actually cause those things to happen?

1) Disabling comments is censorship
I will grant you that disabling comments is, in some nebulous way, censorship. I should have said "not MEANINGFUL censorship". Youtube, hell, almost all websites have some limitations on content. An Escapist mod gave somebody earlier in this thread a warning for posting "Agreed". That is by far a more concrete method of censorship. If not allowing comments is a bigger upset than direct censorship, then how are you not taking issue with the basic idea that you can't say whatever you want, whenever you want?

2) Comments as an avenue to speak
Fine. Comments are an avenue for speech. They are not indispensable and everyone DOES has a place that will publish an article. There's WordPress, Blogger, GoogleBlog, WordSpot, BlogPress, FaceTube, YouBook. It's the Internet, there's LOTS, all free. As for the objection that not everyone has a computer, fine. There are people who only have consistent internet access at a library. They still have access to free blogging sites. And if somehow blocking comments is disabling their one avenue for speech, than you might as well say that Anita's videos not being translated into French prevents feedback. It does prevent feedback, but at that point it's not a useful objection and there's a much bigger underlying obstacle you're overlooking.

3) "Honestly no one expects the video makers to respond to comments, especially ones that get a lot of them."
I agree, but saying this contradicts your argument. If people don't expect video makers to respond to comments, then what does it matter if comments are not allowed? If it matters, then what you are actually objecting to is them not providing a forum for discussion. But why should they, if you don't expect them to participate?

4) Fostering dialogue
Her actions don't say otherwise. She posts video that anyone is free to watch and people are free to use any other forum to discuss. By disabling comments, she's turned Youtube into a simple delivery medium, nothing more or less. If that is failing to foster dialogue, so is every book that doesn't have a website and forum.

5) Insults and ad-hominems
No, calling someone a coward is not inherently an ad hominem, but it does imply a character defect that disparages them. It doesn't dismiss their argument but in the absence of actual evidence of cowardice, you're using it to dismiss them.

 

[Iridium Dawn]

Content creators retain the right to accept and dismiss criticism at their own discretion, and do not owe you an explaination. To assume the dismiss your comment out of fear of criticism is impossible to prove. You have no idea what goes on in the minds of content creators, and there can be a hundred thousand reasons they dismissed your comment.

Thank you! That is precisely something I've been trying to say. Except, said concisely.

Not giving someone a forum to speak is not the same thing as censoring them. If it is, that is such a broad definition that the concept of censorship becomes meaningless.

 

[Holythirteen]

Ah sometimes these jokes literally write themselves don't they?

 

[Carlston]

The Great Debate

We Will Not Be Silenced!

Read Full Article

I see little problem with it. There are times you want to share a video on youtube for the video's contents.

The problem is there are viewers who take this whole trolling thing to far and have to start the, gay, rape, fag, ect ect ect comments to someone say showing a nice sunset. And honestly in America your freedom of speech is only gaurented in a public venue to be heard with politicans and if you slander, say something treasonous, or vulgarly insult someone you lose that "right" to the rights corasponding responcibilities.


If the internet held peoples free speech to what is really writen, most trolls would be banned from all forums after about three posts. But kids never want to follow the rules to the right. They just want the right with no holds barred.

If your so out of wack calling someones sunset video faggoty or whatever...make a video responce like most the people out there and allow it. But no one needs to allow you to crap all over their video just for your jollies.

 

[AJey]

I don't get why she isn't allowing comments. I mean, it's inevitable it would be filled with misogynistic shit, and then she could just point at that and go 'yeah, you're kinda proving my point here'.

I would like to disagree with the premise. Had plenty good quality intellectual debates on youtube comment sections.

How? The character limit is laughably small, it's the thing that always annoys me, and even discussions that have potential to be intellectual get muddled and misunderstood because you have to get your meaning across in such a short message. And you can't post links, can you?

Makes giving references difficult.

The only kind of discussion I really get into on Youtube is small positive stuff, like talking about how my ferret also does this cute thing, or how bunnies are cute but kittens are more adorable.

Youtube debates start in comment section, but end in private messages.

 

[jboking]

Anyone that claims that youtube comments have no worth has never seen PBSIdea Channel, and is a significantly lesser person for it. Discussion can be good, and if Anita provided a link in the description of her videos to a forum where she could host the debate, that would solve the entire problem. She just wants a moderated forum, and that's understandable. However, there are people who would genuinely like to discuss her material, and while I know that Cory and Grey's job is to exaggerate for effect, it is mildly damaging to assume everyone who sees Anita's videos will respond with a "I hope you get raped." Making a video response is an option, but it is a drastically slower one, and I'd wager not a viable one for all people on youtube.

 

[John Funk]

People angry about Anita Sarkeesian disabling comments because OH NOES IT STIFLES MY FREE SPEECH IF I CAN'T RESPOND TO IT OR DISAGREE are missing one huge point (whether deliberately or accidentally, I don't know):

You can still respond to it. You can still disagree. You can make a YouTube video response. You can make a blog post. You can comment in any one of the threads on major gaming sites about it. You just can't do it in her space. And as for the laughable claim that she's being hypocritical because "she claims to want to start a dialogue but then prevents it from happening," she's not preventing a thing! Look at us. Right here. This is part of the dialogue! Every comment thread, every video response, every tweet about her videos is the very dialogue she wanted to start!

It's an asinine argument that simply falls apart under logical scrutiny. If you disagree with her, great! Disagree all you want; there are plenty of spaces in which you can do that. But she is not obligated to provide you one.

 

[rasputin0009]

Just because the soap company stopped putting out boxes for you to stand on, doesn't mean you can't find other boxes.

 

[AJey]

I don't get why she isn't allowing comments. I mean, it's inevitable it would be filled with misogynistic shit, and then she could just point at that and go 'yeah, you're kinda proving my point here'.

I would like to disagree with the premise. Had plenty good quality intellectual debates on youtube comment sections.

How? The character limit is laughably small, it's the thing that always annoys me, and even discussions that have potential to be intellectual get muddled and misunderstood because you have to get your meaning across in such a short message. And you can't post links, can you?

Makes giving references difficult.

The only kind of discussion I really get into on Youtube is small positive stuff, like talking about how my ferret also does this cute thing, or how bunnies are cute but kittens are more adorable.

Youtube debates start in comment section, but end in private messages.

But then, is it still a youtube debate?

Of course. It is taking place on youtube after all.

 

[Prosis]

Does anyone still remember how this whole fiasco started?

She made some video (not nearly her fist; just another video in a long string of videos). Video got spread across 4chan. Tons of people posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture.

She's a big name now not because of how good or bad her content is, not because she's a feminist, not because of the merit of her arguements, but because of youtube comment sections.

Personally, I'm glad that comments are disabled. Women and gaming can definitely be discussed, but youtube has already demonstrated that it can't have a mature conversation. If she comes up with a new video, discuss things then. Until then, everything to be said about Anita Sarkeesian has already been said. Let it fade away already.

 

[MorphingDragon]

First of all, she is not an academic, academics (generally) strive to present unbiased studies and the like. She is about as academic as any of those silly right-wing studies that link being homosexual with any number of bad things.

So by your idea no one is fit to judge anyone else's works as they don't have the same experiences. And as a matter of fact I have written essays for my college years ago on videogame topics. And I do post on youtube, both assholish comments when responding to an idiot and actual debates when the mood strikes me.

Anita Sarkeesian is about as academic as anyone's ever gotten with video games. Her analysis is strong, well researched and very articulate. Meanwhile, the bulk of video responses to her seem to have no understanding of what is meant by the term 'trope', as they think if they can find one example of a game that doesn't conform it disproves her entire point.

While not strictly disagreeing, that's a shit argument. To say that she's is about as academic as anyone's ever gotten with video games is far from the truth. Especially when there are Universities filled with media studies students/professors doing plenty of academic study and publishing peer reviewed papers. There are people like Jesper Juul who could quite frankly run circles around her.

 

[Shaitan051]

Does anyone still remember how this whole fiasco started?

She made some video (not nearly her fist; just another video in a long string of videos). Video got spread across 4chan. Tons of people posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture.

She's a big name now not because of how good or bad her content is, not because she's a feminist, not because of the merit of her arguements, but because of youtube comment sections.

Personally, I'm glad that comments are disabled. Women and gaming can definitely be discussed, but youtube has already demonstrated that it can't have a mature conversation. If she comes up with a new video, discuss things then. Until then, everything to be said about Anita Sarkeesian has already been said. Let it fade away already.

Let me fix that for ya:

She made some video (just another video in a long string of poorly researched of videos skewed to get the desired conclusion). She spread it across 4chan. She then allowed unedited public comment for the first time ever. Tons of 4channers posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments as she intended. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture as she intended. Then she made a butt load of money on her Kickstarter as she intended

She's a big name now not because of how bad or lazy her content is, not because she's walking stereotype of straw feminism, not because of the almost complete lack of merit of her arguements, but because she played 4chan, feminists, and white knights then laughed all the way to the bank.

I'm angry that comments are disabled. Women and gaming can definitely be discussed, but hiding behind censorship and your "right to control YOUR video" tells the world you think your arguments cannot stand up to criticism. Especially when it's her policy to delete any dissenting opinion her site too no matter how politely it is worded.
Thankfully this manipulative pseudofeminist has pretty much faded away. At least until she wants money again and taunts internet trolls.

 

[shifter85]

She made some video (not nearly her fist; just another video in a long string of videos). Video got spread across 4chan. Tons of people posted countless sexist insults and death/rape threats in the comments. Every gaming news site wrote a story about the storm of rage and sexism in the youtube comments, spreading Anita's name throughout all of gaming culture.

And so what?

Fact is, these people MADE these violent and sexist threats. Threats of death and rape - because a "feminazi" said something they didn't like. As far as I'm concerned, the whole "showing it to 4chan" was simply a way to lift away the rock that these insects crawled under. It was a sneaky way of showing what was there - but it still showed what WAS there.

That some people don't like the way she GOT the evidence (of gaming culture possibly being a cesspool of misogeny), does not CHANGE the evidence.

 

[ClanCrusher]

One thing that I think a lot of people forget when preaching about the first amendment and trying to wow us with the evils of censorship is that our first amendment does NOT give you the right to be heard, it does NOT require people to listen to your opinions, and it most certainly does NOT give you the right to say anything you want anywhere you want without any form of consequence.

That aside, I am in complete agreement with Erin's views here. In order to have a reasoned discussion on the internet, you need moderation. YouTube does not have moderation in any real sense of the word and thus the comment section falls prey to adolescents (or at least those with the mind of one), tired cliches, unfunny jokes, and flat out, needlessly cruel remarks.

 

[Prosis]

snip

Did she play the system? Yep. And it totally sucks that she yanked the internet by their collective balls. But rage only furthers her influence.
It doesn't matter what arguements she makes, or what arguements are made against her. As long as people continue to discuss her, she will still be at the forefront of gaming culture. Her arguements have already been broken down and destroyed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I). But it doesn't matter if everything she says is false. It doesn't matter if her every arguement is turned around and crushed.

This is the internet. Traffic matters more than anything. Everyone hated Rebecca Black's "It's Friday". But she made millions, because they hated it. Everyone knows the Kardashians are worthless. But they are some of the richest celebrities, simply because people won't stop talking about them. Online, its not about logical arguements or discussions. It's all about Traffic.

Traffic = money. Traffic = popularity. Traffic = influence.

And every thread that discusses the stupidest things that Anita has recently done only sends more traffic to her videos and her websites.
So I'm glad comments are disabled. Comments enabled would only generate more people post RAGE, more people reading that RAGE and becoming sympathizers, and more traffic to her site.

We can't logically debate and discuss her out of gaming culture. If we truly want Anita gone, we have to quit talking about her.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

The nature of freedom is that some people will use it do things you don't like.

And the minute Youtube becomes free you will have a point.


Until then, you're not talking about a forum for free speech in the first place, so lolfreespeechandcensorshipclaims, I guess.

It's nice that you want some sort of platform for intelligent discussion, but trying to force it on Youtube is like trying to get a panda to mate with a BMW. Fruitless, and probably frustrating for the panda as well.

But fine, we'll play it your way. Part of freedom is freedom of determination. If we are talking a truly free forum (though we are not), then people should absolutely have the right, nay the obligation to determine the channels by which they are interacted with. Why do you oppose others' freedom, rembrandtqeinstein?

You have CLEARLY never wandered onto a Creationist channel have you?

I honestly can't blame them for not wanting to be laughed at openly.

BMW?... Big Metal... Wombat? Yeh, won't do that.

People angry about Anita Sarkeesian disabling comments because OH NOES IT STIFLES MY FREE SPEECH IF I CAN'T RESPOND TO IT OR DISAGREE are missing one huge point (whether deliberately or accidentally, I don't know):

You can still respond to it. You can still disagree. You can make a YouTube video response. You can make a blog post. You can comment in any one of the threads on major gaming sites about it. You just can't do it in her space. And as for the laughable claim that she's being hypocritical because "she claims to want to start a dialogue but then prevents it from happening," she's not preventing a thing! Look at us. Right here. This is part of the dialogue! Every comment thread, every video response, every tweet about her videos is the very dialogue she wanted to start!

It's an asinine argument that simply falls apart under logical scrutiny. If you disagree with her, great! Disagree all you want; there are plenty of spaces in which you can do that. But she is not obligated to provide you one.

Hello.

I think the distinction is that people want to address her directly, and hopefully get a response. Not saying they're entitled to it, but she does drop the "opening a dialogue" line, I think... in most videos of hers that I've seen. She's had youtube comments, twitter and her own website where comments have been moderated with the rules-of-conduct more-or-less being "agree with me or get deleted". The dialogue gets to happen(yay!...?) but it has to happen away from her, unless it's praise... in which case, it's welcome.

It's her space, that's fair. The messages are a little mixed though, and dialogue between people who all agree is of questionable worth.

Love Panda.