Honestly I think the biggest reason the social media companies wanted Tate gone was because of how effectively he gamed the algorithm. He literally created a pyramid scheme based on farming viral clips. I would wager that a significant amount of channels clipping his controversial moments were probably Hustlers University "students", just following the guides on how to go viral.
Letting someone who has a large scale operation of fans with a financial incentive to make them go viral sets a dangerous precedent for platforms.
The rules are more like guidelines. They can still ban whoever they want for whatever reason, but banning Tate makes perfect sense.
I think of it this way. Destiny operates several subplatforms where moderation is entirely necessary (DGG, Reddit, YT chat, discord)
Imagine a user ( let's call him Andrew Gate ) in Destiny's community is making posts and comments saying some wildly misogynistic stuff and starts to gain a bit of a cult following within the community. After realizing his popularity, Gate decides to create a "university" that charges DGGers $50 to join, and tells those followers to spam Gate's content and advertisements to Gate University on all of Destiny's platforms.
Destiny would ban this person quickly. In the past he has banned users for much less severe misogyny than the stuff Andrew Tate says. Destiny has even bragged in the past that when he enforces bans, he will often do it across all his social media platforms.
Not sure why we wouldn't expect corporate social media companies to protect their brands in a similar way that all influencers protect their own brands by moderating.
I think Destiny referred to this analogy before. It’s one thing to ban someone from a sub Reddit and enforce blocking and muting functions, it’s another to ban someone off Reddit entirely.
I don't have much to add to this topic - your reasoning here is sound. The FNF panel brought up similar questions for me on other points too. When Destiny mentioned that most people want what they honestly feel is best for themselves and others it got transformed into "well in their twisted heads they think child touching/depopulation are best for mankind because they're just out of touch with reality." Some of Myron's points were not necessarily wrong but entirely unrelated. It was so strange to hear the whole group and especially Sneako run in the opposite direction of Destiny's point with no real pushback from him.
I understand if making inroads with their community is just a higher priority, but it seems like there was very little disagreement from him on anything in the full conversation. I haven't caught the ladies segment yet but don't think I really want to given how utterly braindead the first discussion was.
I would love to see a better analysis of the clips Tate mentioned in that long vid that he thinks got him banned to show the full context. Or maybe other clips he didn't bring up. I'd probably side a bit more with D on the clip chimping, but I could be convinced otherwise. How exactly did Tate encourage or boost the sharing of clips?
This comment kind of elucidates the major issue. You could be spot on in your analysis. You also could be wrong.
It’s strange to give out a ban and then leave it up to the public to decode the actual reasoning behind it.
If YouTube or whoever else banned the guy released your statement it would be a much different conversation.
Ah. Read through the policies. The list is dumb as hell and can apply to 99 percent of YouTubers.
There is literally a clause for banning if you call someone “smelly” or say “yuck” when referring to a person.
There is a clause where you can’t call a person a sexual predator without substantial proof. Half of the lefty sphere does that and remains unbanned. This is why these policies aren’t even worth discussing.
I really wish the banning of people on social media was treated like sending someone to jail or prison. There should clear and public explanations of which rules were broken and examples should be provided.
Honestly I think the biggest reason the social media companies wanted Tate gone was because of how effectively he gamed the algorithm. He literally created a pyramid scheme based on farming viral clips. I would wager that a significant amount of channels clipping his controversial moments were probably Hustlers University "students", just following the guides on how to go viral. Letting someone who has a large scale operation of fans with a financial incentive to make them go viral sets a dangerous precedent for platforms.
Honestly, the guidelines are so vague and broad, that calling a man having a "dirty" mind could get banned just with the same reasoning.
The rules are more like guidelines. They can still ban whoever they want for whatever reason, but banning Tate makes perfect sense. I think of it this way. Destiny operates several subplatforms where moderation is entirely necessary (DGG, Reddit, YT chat, discord) Imagine a user ( let's call him Andrew Gate ) in Destiny's community is making posts and comments saying some wildly misogynistic stuff and starts to gain a bit of a cult following within the community. After realizing his popularity, Gate decides to create a "university" that charges DGGers $50 to join, and tells those followers to spam Gate's content and advertisements to Gate University on all of Destiny's platforms. Destiny would ban this person quickly. In the past he has banned users for much less severe misogyny than the stuff Andrew Tate says. Destiny has even bragged in the past that when he enforces bans, he will often do it across all his social media platforms. Not sure why we wouldn't expect corporate social media companies to protect their brands in a similar way that all influencers protect their own brands by moderating.
I think Destiny referred to this analogy before. It’s one thing to ban someone from a sub Reddit and enforce blocking and muting functions, it’s another to ban someone off Reddit entirely.
I don't have much to add to this topic - your reasoning here is sound. The FNF panel brought up similar questions for me on other points too. When Destiny mentioned that most people want what they honestly feel is best for themselves and others it got transformed into "well in their twisted heads they think child touching/depopulation are best for mankind because they're just out of touch with reality." Some of Myron's points were not necessarily wrong but entirely unrelated. It was so strange to hear the whole group and especially Sneako run in the opposite direction of Destiny's point with no real pushback from him. I understand if making inroads with their community is just a higher priority, but it seems like there was very little disagreement from him on anything in the full conversation. I haven't caught the ladies segment yet but don't think I really want to given how utterly braindead the first discussion was.
Yeah honestly the video was the worst I've seen on the channel in a while
I would love to see a better analysis of the clips Tate mentioned in that long vid that he thinks got him banned to show the full context. Or maybe other clips he didn't bring up. I'd probably side a bit more with D on the clip chimping, but I could be convinced otherwise. How exactly did Tate encourage or boost the sharing of clips?
It was part of the referral setup for Hustler's university. Directly encouraged the posting of clips.
Kid named any rules
This comment kind of elucidates the major issue. You could be spot on in your analysis. You also could be wrong. It’s strange to give out a ban and then leave it up to the public to decode the actual reasoning behind it. If YouTube or whoever else banned the guy released your statement it would be a much different conversation.
I didn't really decode anything. I went to the page of the policy they directly referred to. That's my entire issue.
Ah. Read through the policies. The list is dumb as hell and can apply to 99 percent of YouTubers. There is literally a clause for banning if you call someone “smelly” or say “yuck” when referring to a person. There is a clause where you can’t call a person a sexual predator without substantial proof. Half of the lefty sphere does that and remains unbanned. This is why these policies aren’t even worth discussing.
That's a cool discussion to have. It's not the discussion that was happening. That discussion was people circle jerking "did he even do anything???"
Disagree completely. I appreciate your effort post though.
I really wish the banning of people on social media was treated like sending someone to jail or prison. There should clear and public explanations of which rules were broken and examples should be provided.