YouTube didn’t make it through because of how it actively pushes alpha male crap at teenage boys. The Tate brothers and others who push the whole toxic masculinity, man are superior, men must protect women even from themselves, to be a man you must be able to fight, men are owed a position of power and women should be subservient, etc. It was a very strong feature in the early debate, and something educators put in as part of their submission as being an extremely noticeable shift for young men, and those same young men quite consistently stating the same content they viewed.

YouTube’s tendency to push extreme rabbit holes and funnel towards extremism and conservatism in young men is what led to them being included.

▲

chocoboaus3 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

"YouTube didn’t make it through because of how it actively pushes alpha male crap at teenage boys"

Which previously parents could blocking using the parental tools. Now they cannot because logged out will still show said videos.

The government are idiots

▲

AnthonyMouse 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"YouTube is targeted for a ban because it shows children conservative viewpoints" seems somehow simultaneously an obvious free speech violation and a proper own-goal for the conservatives pushing these rules.

▲

OccamsMirror 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You seem to be telling on yourself if you think Andrew Tate's viewpoints are representative of conversative viewpoints and not just toxic misogyny.

▲

AnthonyMouse 2 days ago | parent [-]

Anyone can find specific things to dispute about Tate's views, but "traditional gender roles exist for a reason" is obviously not the position associated with the left.

▲

ryan_lane 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're putting Tate's views in an overly good light with the way you represent it. "traditional gender roles exist for a reason" is the very lightest possible way you can phrase his viewpoint.

He hates women, to the point of trafficking them. He's a predator and he spreads hate, and it reflects poorly on conservatives if they feel that represents their political views.

	▲	AnthonyMouse a day ago \| parent [-]
		There is a generic flaw in humanity that controversy brings popularity. The result is that if you take the core of something popular (e.g. the political beliefs of half the population) and then sprinkle some rage bait on top of it, you'll have an audience. This is the business model for the likes of Tate. The problem is, it's also an asymmetric weapon when you try to ban that unevenly. If you censor Tate but not the likes of Kendi who use the same tricks, you're saying that it's fine for one side to play dirty but not the other, and that's how you get people mad. Which plays right into the hands of the demagogues. So all you have to do is achieve perfect balance and censor only the bad things from both sides, right? Except that that's one of the things humans are incapable of actually doing, because of the intensely powerful incentive to censor the things you don't like more than the things you do, if anyone holds that power. Which is why we have free speech. Because it's better to let every idiot flap their trap than to let anyone else decide who can't. And if you don't like what someone is saying, maybe try refuting it with arguments instead of trying to silence them.

▲

ryan_lane 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"YouTube is targeted because it shows children hate content, which happens to be a popular viewpoint of conservatives."

Fixed that for you.