Youtube refunded 26k $ from charity superchats for children cancer research hospital, because of the politics of WSJ

[PeterBocan]

Yesterday Youtube refunded 26k $ from charity superchats for children cancer research hospital of St. Jude, because of nature of the Youtube channel that livestream went on. 

The owner and host Ethan Ralph (@TheRalphRetort) who fancies the idea of absolute free speech is hosting streams named "KIllstream" that are giving platform for anyone to talk about anything, that many people may find upsetting. A month ago Ralph was hosting a special event named "Healstream" to donate money to the children's research hospital of St. Jude in which they raised 26k $. Also as an addition, Ralph got his both youtube channels terminated on the spot by Youtube.

 

Within 24 hours Youtube started refunding people, on 2nd of November, a new article made by The Wall Street Journal, describing the "Hate Speech on Live ‘Super Chats’ Tests YouTube" made by Yoree Koh (@yoreekoh) references the very same stream, what Ralph and many others from his fans see as a hit piece, the same way as they did with "PewDiePie is a nazi". On Twitter it's referred to the affair via hash tag #WSJKillsKids where they post memes about WSJ. 

 

The hospital haven't made a public statement as of yet, whether they decided to refuse money, or the refunding started on the discretion of YouTube.

 

Thanks to Twitter user Nick Monroe, who get information at one place. https://twitter.com/nickmon1112

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hate-speech-on-live-super-chats-tests-youtube-1541205849?mod=e2tw

 

 

 

[D13H4RD]

So much for being tolerant....

 

Maybe if they weren’t so fixated on the whole “hate speech” doohickey, they might actually see that it was supposed to end up for a good cause 

 

This is why I’m unhappy with Google’s decision for superchats to be monitored by AI, because what exactly constitutes as hate speech by Google’s standards? If it means restricting what people can say, I’m not having it. 

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, PeterBocan said:

The hospital haven't made a public statement as of yet, whether they decided to refuse money, or the refunding started on the discretion of YouTube.

But if YouTube is the entity refunding the money, then the money was never paid out to TheRalphRetort, meaning St. Jude's never had the oppertunity to refuse the donation. 

Or can you set YouTube to automatically pay out any donations from a given stream to a charity instead of the creator?

[PeterBocan]

1 minute ago, Volbet said:

Or can set YouTube to automatically pay out any donations on a given stream to a charity?

I have no idea how money flows in this case. In my opinion money were supposed to go directly from Youtube to the hospital.

[D13H4RD]

I’m more and more convinced that the human race at this point will go extinct not because of natural disasters, aliens, supernatural stuff or the like.

 

Instead, it’ll be due to blind ignorance and stupidity

[PeterBocan]

8 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

I’m more and more convinced that the human race at this point will go extinct not because of natural disasters, aliens, supernatural stuff or the like.

 

Instead, it’ll be due to blind ignorance and stupidity

It's the moral busybodies at places like the WSJ who go around the internet and watch for language. Just because they have a blue checkmark on Twitter and official email at the institution they work in gives them the power to insinuate the actions that should be made in the name of PC culture, restricting freedom of speech, freedom of association and it's allowed because by the fact that Youtube is de iure a private platform and they are allowed to do whatever they want on their platform. 

 

[D13H4RD]

8 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

It's the moral busybodies at places like the WSJ who go around the internet and watch for language. Just because they have a blue checkmark on Twitter and official email at the institution they work in gives them the power to insinuate the actions that should be made in the name of PC culture, restricting freedom of speech, freedom of association and it's allowed because by the fact that Youtube is de iure a private platform and they are allowed to do whatever they want on their platform. 

 

The thing is that aren’t those same people claiming to be pro-Freedom of Speech?

[Cereal5]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

I’m more and more convinced that the human race at this point will go extinct not because of natural disasters, aliens, supernatural stuff or the like.

 

Instead, it’ll be due to blind ignorance and stupidity

Yes, self destruction most definitely. I'm with you there. Towards the end of that twitter video, the guy said "they just want to create a space where you can have freedom of speech." Um... That place is here. It's called the United States of America. You're in it. We all are. WSJ doesn't have to like this stream. In fact, they can openly shame them for "being racist" (I didn't watch the stream, idk what was said), and they can do that because they have free speech, just like everyone in that stream. @PeterBocan brought up the part about youtube being a non-open platform (in the sense that someone owns it and has say over what it does) and... yeah that's kind of the only reason why this happened. That said... I don't like the term "hate speech" or "hate crime"... Technically anything negative could be justly classified as "hate whatever". The majority of the time it's just "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (throw back to high school english), or false cause and effect. Just because something negative was said about a person, does not mean that whatever was said is applicable to all people who are similar to him in ways that he cannot change and did not choose (race, sex, eye color, height, weight, whatever it may be). inb4 warning for being political because this is a privately owned website and they have say over what happens here... oh the irony. Still love this place though 

 

15 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

I have no idea how money flows in this case. In my opinion money were supposed to go directly from Youtube to the hospital.

 

18 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Or can set YouTube to automatically pay out any donations from a given stream to a charity instead of the creator?

Like the twitter video guy said, and similar to twitch, youtube collects all money from donations, subscribes, etc, and then sends it out a month or two later to the stream/channel owner. It will most likely just end up back in everyone's bank accounts in the next few weeks.

 

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

The thing is that aren’t those same people claiming to be pro-Freedom of Speech?

Yeah... this is where I would normally bring actual politics into it but I'll stop myself  That's the problem with people today.

[Misanthrope]

Oh yeah I can't possibly see why would a hospital or the youtube platform would be hesitant to take money from fucking Nazis. Hey you know this organization we created selflessly to help others? Guess what? Now it's being funded by internet shitlords that intentionally give us money for "the right" to talk about their hatred of Jews openly within the context of an extremely recent shooting at a synagogue.

 

Why? Cause my Freezed Peach! It obviously means that we need to compel otherwise well meaning charities to accept our bigotry and racism.

[PeterBocan]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

The thing is that aren’t those same people claiming to be pro-Freedom of Speech?

No. That's dead. You see, with the rise of Internet and Youtube, mainstream media are just obsolete. I can follow twitter trending tweets and get information hours before any one the MSM get to that story, so what are doing MSM? They are fighting the market, the people, they are stifling small youtube channels, who have dissenting views, they are stirring up drama for clicks and views *ON THEIR WEBPAGES*, because that generates revenue... It's like cars replacing horses, and telegraph replacing pigeons, now internet replaces TV and newspapers, and as Darwin said, it's not the strongest or wisest who survive, but those who adapt. 

[PeterBocan]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Oh yeah I can't possibly see why would a hospital or the youtube platform would be hesitant to take money from fucking Nazis. Hey you know this organization we created selflessly to help others? Guess what? Now it's being funded by internet shitlords that intentionally give us money for "the right" to talk about their hatred of Jews openly within the context of an extremely recent shooting at a synagogue.

 

Why? Cause my Freezed Peach! It obviously means that we need to compel otherwise well meaning charities to accept our bigotry and racism.

Free speech is a speech you dont want to hear. The concept of free speech is there to protect those who disagree with you. 

[Cereal5]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Oh yeah I can't possibly see why would a hospital or the youtube platform would be hesitant to take money from fucking Nazis. Hey you know this organization we created selflessly to help others? Guess what? Now it's being funded by internet shitlords that intentionally give us money for "the right" to talk about their hatred of Jews openly within the context of an extremely recent shooting at a synagogue.

 

Why? Cause my Freezed Peach! It obviously means that we need to compel otherwise well meaning charities to accept our bigotry and racism.

St. Jude can accept money from however they want. And just cause they accept money from someone, doesn't mean they align with their views. They most likely have accepted money from organizations on both the left and the right. Obviously they can't be both, but that hasn't stopped them from accepting a donation. Who cares what was said, why would they force the money to be refunded and taken from a hospital that does nothing but good for everyone who walks through their doors asking for help?

[Taf the Ghost]

28 minutes ago, Volbet said:

But if YouTube is the entity refunding the money, then the money was never paid out to The RalphRetort, meaning St. Jude's never had the oppertunity to refuse the donation. 

Or can set YouTube to automatically pay out any donations from a given stream to a charity instead of the creator?

I saw the hashtag on Twitter, and it appears the refunds were operated at the St. Jude's side of things. However, Ralph's entire YouTube presence was obliterated. 

[VegetableStu]

1 minute ago, PeterBocan said:

Free speech is a speech you dont want to hear. The concept of free speech is there to protect those who disagree with you. 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

Businesses are a creation of Government and Big Social has taken massive amounts of money from government, being both government contractors and operating as quasi-governmental agencies. Your attempt at memetics is thus false.

[VegetableStu]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Businesses are a creation of Government and Big Social has taken massive amounts of money from government, being both government contractors and operating as quasi-governmental agencies. Your attempt at memetics is thus false.

if the outlets/organisation are strictly part of the administration, then sure that side applies

[PeterBocan]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

Yes, that XKCD that got it absolutely wrong, wonderful.

Yes, it doesn't mean anyone else has to listen to Ralph's podcast and yes, it doesnt shield you from criticisms, but if you wiped out from a platform where 1.2+ billion people meet, then it is a violation of free speech, as it literally means you can not reach other people - where everybody else meets. At this point Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are town squares owned by private businesses. If you are not allowed in, because of the ideas you hold, it's the violation of the 1A. 

Also, if anyone else doesn't have to listen to Ralph's stream, why the mainstream media care? Why would anyone care about a few dozen small youtubers? Ha? 
 

[Taf the Ghost]

39 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

So much for being tolerant....

 

Maybe if they weren’t so fixated on the whole “hate speech” doohickey, they might actually see that it was supposed to end up for a good cause 

 

This is why I’m unhappy with Google’s decision for superchats to be monitored by AI, because what exactly constitutes as hate speech by Google’s standards? If it means restricting what people can say, I’m not having it. 

"Hate Speech" is whatever doesn't fit Google's acceptable narratives. It's thus undefined and that's intentional. It's intentionally something out of Kafka because the point is to always be able to charge/remove/attack anyone at anytime when it becomes useful. People thus self-censor into the discussion range that Google sets out as acceptable. 

[PeterBocan]

Nevertheless it seems like people who support deplatforming cant see past the politics and the fact that people gathered for a charity event. Politics and political opinions, and tribalism First.

[D13H4RD]

The real issue here is exactly what is constituted as hate speech?

 

Is there a clear definition of it or is it prone to being twisted based on one’s political or social views?

[PeterBocan]

7 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

s there a clear definition of it or is it prone to being twisted based on one’s political or social views?

Well, the definition is simple - it's the speech that can be framed as a hateful, bigoted. 

 

The problem is, anything can be framed as hateful and bigoted. And who decides what is and is not hateful or bigoted? The person who is the speech aimed for (but not necessarily, even people who are 'bystanders' can take that as an offence, even if it has nothing to do with them) . For example, if I was a touchy person any criticism would constitute as a hateful speech, because I am an arbiter, my mood, my current mental state is an arbiter of whether I like or don't like what you just said - that's hateful.

Hate speech can be anything I don't like. It's highly subjective, it's highly wishy-washy and based on the mood of the person.

[Cereal5]

4 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

Well, the definition is simple - it's the speech that can be framed as a hateful, bigoted. 

 

The problem is, anything can be framed as hateful and bigoted. And who decides what is and is not hateful or bigoted? The person who is the speech aimed for (but not necessarily, even people who are 'bystanders' can take that as an offence, even if it has nothing to do with them) . For example, if I was a touchy person any criticism would constitute as a hateful speech, because I am an arbiter, my mood, my current mental state is an arbiter of whether I like or don't like what you just said - that's hateful.

Hate speech can be anything I don't like. It's highly subjective, it's highly wishy-washy and based on the mood of the person.

Yeah, exactly what I said in my first post. Especially your last sentence. Politics is no place for moods or feelings.

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I saw the hashtag on Twitter, and it appears the refunds were operated at the St. Jude's side of things. However, Ralph's entire YouTube presence was obliterated. 

Considering YouTube's payment policy that doesn't really meake sense. 

YouTube usually pay out donations about a month after a stream as ended, and they, to my knowledge, only pay out to the owner of the streaming channel.

 

I see one of three options here:

So if the money had been offered to St. Jude's then the money was paid out quicker than usual and were attempted to be paid out to someone different from the owner of the channel. 

The money was paid out to TheRalphRetort (again, quicker than usual), refused by St. Jude's and then returned to YouTube for refunding by TheRalphRetort. 

Or the money was never even attempted to be paid out to anyone, and, due to TheRalphRetort being wipped off YouTube, the donations were returned to the donators. 

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, PeterBocan said:

No. That's dead. You see, with the rise of Internet and Youtube, mainstream media are just obsolete. I can follow twitter trending tweets and get information hours before any one the MSM get to that story, so what are doing MSM? They are fighting the market, the people, they are stifling small youtube channels, who have dissenting views, they are stirring up drama for clicks and views *ON THEIR WEBPAGES*, because that generates revenue... It's like cars replacing horses, and telegraph replacing pigeons, now internet replaces TV and newspapers, and as Darwin said, it's not the strongest or wisest who survive, but those who adapt. 

Trending topics about stuff very often spread false stuff in both directions much more than MSM does. Or lots of people trying to take advantage of it with twisting it in a way to  spread their political standpoint. In both directions.

 

It's a bad way to get information. Not saying MSM is perfect and not going in to spesific MSMs, some of them is shit others isn't.

[Taf the Ghost]

41 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Considering YouTube's payment policy that doesn't really meake sense. 

YouTube usually pay out donations about a month after a stream as ended, and they, to my knowledge, only pay out to the owner of the channel streaming channel.

 

I see one of three options here:

So if the money had been offered to St. Jude's then either the money was paid out quicker than usual and were attempted to be paid out to someone different from the owner of the channel. 

The money was paid out to TheRalphRetort (again, quicker than usual), refused by St. Jude's and then returned to YouTube for refunding by TheRalphRetort. 

Or the money was never even attempted to be paid out to anyone, and, due to TheRalphRetort being wipped off YouTube, the donations were returned to the donators. 

Not having a YT stream or ever playing with it, I have no idea if you can designate an output for something like that. St. Jude has an official YT Channel, so maybe the Super Chats were directly assigned to that? No clue on the backend stuff, so we'll find out more with time. I'm sure.