[flagged]
This distinction you and others are trying to draw between "publishers" and "platforms" is a red herring.
The Communications Decency Act is very explicit about why this is a red herring:
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
It does not matter how much curation, promotion, or removal of content Google, Facebook et al. engage in. They will never be held liable for the content their users upload, beyond existing criminal and civil liabilities such as those imposed by the DMCA. By virtue of being a provider of an interactive computer service, they will never be treated as publishers.
I'm sorry, what?
> Last week, Maza called out the abuse in a supercut of comments Crowder has made on his popular YouTube channel in the last two years. They include: “lispy sprite,” “little queer,” “Mr. Gay Vox,” “Mr. Lispy queer from Vox,” “an angry little queer,” “gay Mexican,” and “gay Latino from Vox.”
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwn54q/google-says-right...
It's been a while since I watched John Oliver or Colbert, I guess I'm missing some information that would make the comparison even slightly accurate?
Colbert literally called Donald Trump Putin's "c--k holster" on live TV (but was obviously bleeped). Samantha Bee called Ivanka Trump a "feckless c--t." Both of these are easily Google-able.
Again, I'm not a fan of this kind of language on either side, but let's at least be fair.
Perhaps more important is that John Oliver is inciting people into political action; political speech by the press - even hen the press tells jokes - is protected very strongly in the US because it's named in the 1st Amendment. Crowder doesn't seem to be making a politically statement and generally seems to have acted like an asshole that says homophobic slurs.
By the way, even some cursory research would show that Crowder is extremely clear about his views on not harassing or doxxing, but it's clear that you haven't even done me (your opponent in this debate) the courtesy of some basic knowledge-gathering.
I do agree that Crowder is an asshole. I also think that assholes have a right to be assholes as long as their behavior doesn't violate Mill's Harm Principle.
It's always been an accusation about pattern of behavior, which includes multiple ("repeated") events that happened over the past (if I recall correctly) ~2 years. Some of these events involved Crowder using hate speech, which is not "calling people nasty names". Hate speech restrictions and laws are generally defined to target speech/writing/conduct/etc that incites violence or prejudicial behavior against a protected class. Calling some a well known slur is (probably) just being an asshole. When people talked about Crowder's hate speech, they aren't talking about him using a specific word; they're talking about how his rhetoric seems to be having the effect of inciting parts of his audience to attack Maza through his phone.
> It's now okay for John Oliver to go after organizations
Yes, of course it is. Attacking organizations (public or private) on matters of public interest is one of the primary goals of protecting the freedoms of speech and the press.
> he very clearly goes after the President
What specifically are you accusing John Oliver of doing with regards to the president? I doubt he say anything that would even theoretically qualify as hate speech, but if I'm mistaken, I would be interested in a link to any example of John Oliver inciting his audience to harass the President because of the President's race, sex, religion, or other protected class.
> ambiguous predicates
The only ambiguity I see is a lot of people misusing the term "hate speech".
> Crowder is extremely clear about his views on not harassing or doxxing,
I know; I do actually do my research about a topic before getting involved in an argument. Saying tht harassment and doxxing are bad is step 1. If he actually wanted it to stop, it would be a good idea for him to publicly condemn the those in his audience that were responsible for the harassment/etc, and work to avoid similarly inciting his audience in the future.
However, saying a few words against harassment and then continuing the behavior that he now knows could cause additional problems in his audience is at best irresponsible and reckless, and at worst makes his statements about harassment look suspiciously like a like or dog whistle.
> but it's clear that you haven't even done me (your opponent in this debate) the courtesy of some basic knowledge-gathering.
Warning: this kind of personal attack is against HN rules.
> I also think that assholes have a right to be asshole
I agree. Which is why the accusations against Crowder are bout the behavior that is significantly worse than simply being an asshole. Harassment and hate speech eventually lead to violence when ignored.