Shutting Down Atheists on YouTube. Some questions?

[H3LL]

We all know that rational argument and evidence are not the tools of the religious and the woo-woo.

I'd like to keep away from other methods and just concentrate on YouTube incidents for now:

There have been a number of incidents of vote-bots, false flagging and false DCMAs that have resulted in a number of prominent atheist/rationalist YouTubers having their accounts closed, suspended, videos removed or some other inconvienience with some difficulties recovering. The Thunderf00t vs. VenomfangX fiasco perhaps the most well known.

I'm not a regular visitor to the videos of the religious and the woo as I have a habit of wanting to keep the food I eat inside my body for long enough to digest it.

Also, personally, I find the underhand actions of the religious and the woo repugnant and could never condone similar action in retaliation. Others may disagree.

Is there any evidence that woo-woos are suffering the same sort of tactics on the same scale?

Should "we" fight fire with fire?

[Cainkane1]

Don't retaliate. Complain to youtube. Hopefully they have a in place system whereby they can look before they eliminate. I've observed atheists taken out only to return again a short time later.

[Lanzy]

Fighting fire with fire might spark some kind of war.


Let's do it!

[Cavemonster]

No, no no.

The strongest objections to abandoning religion aren't logical, they're moral, and the idea that kindness and morality can only come from a god.

Always prove them wrong by taking the high road, it will win more hearts and minds in the long run.

[MG1962]

I think I would like to see a lot more information about this issue rather than establishing a guilty till proven otherwise stance

[H3LL]

I think I would like to see a lot more information about this issue rather than establishing a guilty till proven otherwise stance

Which issue?

False DMCAs are self evident. If they weren't false the site/account/video would stay gone (or may return edited).

For DMCAs, false DMCAs and other issues Google and even YouTube is your friend or do you want spoon feeding beyond the example given above.

T_MYyc-PtH4

Guilty or not, MG1962?

The use of the underhand tactics appears to be dominantly one way (examples are, sadly, legion) - I'm asking if anyone knows otherwise.

.

[fuelair]

No, no no.

The strongest objections to abandoning religion aren't logical, they're moral, and the idea that kindness and morality can only come from a god.

Always prove them wrong by taking the high road, it will win more hearts and minds in the long run.
Good try, their response will involve the Devil quoting scriptures.

[H3LL]

Good try, their response will involve the Devil quoting scriptures.

Didn't he write the scriptures?

Maybe he could file a DMCA against god's representatives. ;)


.

[MG1962]

yt]T_MYyc-PtH4[/yt]

Guilty or not, MG1962?

The use of the underhand tactics appears to be dominantly one way (examples are, sadly, legion) - I'm asking if anyone knows otherwise.

.

LOL ya going to need to do a lot better than that. You said there were a number of incidents...how many is a number. Are athiest accounts being targeted any more than any other group having a ideological spat with another group

You seem to be making the mental leap that because an athiest posting or account is suspended, it must be because of underhanded actions of Christians. The reality is there are a lot of reasons those accounts and clips could be removed

[H3LL]

LOL ya going to ...words ....

I'm sorry to hear Google or YouTube doesn't work for you. I hope you get it fixed soon.

Are athiest accounts being targeted any more than any other group having a ideological spat with another group

Erm ... exactly the question I asked in the OP.

Probably better worded by you though. Which is odd, as you seem to be having problems reading as well as with Google and YouTube.

You seem to be making the mental leap that because an athiest posting or account is suspended, it must be because of underhanded actions of Christians. The reality is there are a lot of reasons those accounts and clips could be removed

No. You are just making things up.

Please point out the bolded parts in your quote that I have stated here.

Trouble with reading, Google, YouTube and comprehension ... Oh dear.

[MG1962]

I'm sorry to hear Google or YouTube doesn't work for you. I hope you get it fixed soon.

Sorry this is your OP - Your story....you are competing against 100s of threads here for attention. If you want people to believe what you are saying, the onus is on you to present the evidence


Please point out the bolded parts in your quote that I have stated here.

Also, personally, I find the underhand actions of the religious and the woo repugnant and could never condone similar action in retaliation. Others may disagree.

My apologoes - I made your statement less inclusive than it was intended. However the linkage of cause and effect is obvious in your OP. It is clear you are blaming the relgious and the woo for what has been going on

[Simon39759]

It's a common occurrence of people being targeted by vote-bots or being complained about to youtube on false grounds.
It's always atheist/free thinkers/pro-evolutionary videos and on several occasion, pro-religious posters have been caught or have admitted, doing so (VenomFangX being a prime example).


But I disagree about 'fighting Fire with Fire'. I believe in having the moral high grounds, not because it will convince people but for the sake of our own self-esteem.

[Cynic]

Maybe this should have been set up as a poll. But generally, no -- hypocrisy is rarely a good idea. IMO, atheists have enough of the wrong sort on their side as it is without adding to it.

[H3LL]

My apologoes - I made your statement less inclusive than it was intended. However the linkage of cause and effect is obvious in your OP. It is clear you are blaming the relgious and the woo for what has been going on

Apologoes accepted but apologies would be nicer and without the made up caveat. ;)

Well seeing as numbers are important to you we will keep it simple and keep it Christian (your chip needs feeding while sat on your shoulder).

There are many others available to peruse by simply typing "false DMCA" into Google or YouTube and I see little point in duplicating here what can be done with a few mouse clicks or a cut and paste.

I have provided one example of a person that is both a self proclaimed Christian and also a self proclaimed Creationist who has, most definitely, by his own admission filed a false DMCA in order to attack a prominent YouTuber that is neither a Creationist nor a Christian nor religious.

Can you provide one - just one - example where the situation above with VenomfangX and Thunderf00t is reversed.

You may choose either a prominent YouTube Christian or a Creationist and it is clear that the DMCA is both false and filed by an atheist.

Provide just one and I will admit defeat and retire from the thread and conceed that it was a foolish knee-jerk response with limited knowledge.

Good luck.

[bokonon]

I'm sorry to hear Google or YouTube doesn't work for you. I hope you get it fixed soon.
Oh, come on. You asked if there was evidence that religion-friendly videos were targeted in the same way that you claim irreligious videos are being targeted. If Google and YouTube are all the "evidence" you need to provide, they should be enough for you to answer your own question.

[H3LL]

bokonon, I'm quite capable of using search facilities but there lies the problem.

I keep coming across situations like the VenomfangX example.

Worse still I find examples like the YouTube Yahweh Clan

.... this family unleashes holy ruin on all those who refuse to accept Yahweh as their personal savior

A nastier bunch you would be hard pressed to find and most definitely not one I'm inclined to link to. Look them up if you really must. For the record, I don't consider YTYC to be representative, at least I hope not.

The religious and woo-woos are masters at claiming persecution but I find so little hard evidence. At best claims - but they make a lot of claims - and so very few on the OP topic.

Unsupported claims, lies and misinformation are the bread and butter of those groups - evidence, even shaky evidence is so hard to find.

Those of you that mix in such groups and enjoy watching religious content may have come across what I'm looking for where searching has failed me.

It seems not.

Denial and obfuscation is what I'm getting and it doesn't really help much for someone making a genuine attempt to see the other side but slowly realising, perhaps it doesn't exist and it really is dominantly from one side.

.

[H3LL]

Got called away ...

One other factor, again on bokonon's point, is that anyone, even if they had never heard of the situations mentioned in the OP can find examples within a few seconds, couple of minutes, tops.

The reverse???

My Google-foo may be crap but I'm not having much joy even though it was not crap enough to not find the OP examples.

[Simon39759]

Virtually all the atheist/free thinker/ scientific literacy videos I am following on Youtube have been reported being victims of these sort of practice. Often, multiple times.

While these are only anecdotes, whose plural is not data, it is enough for me to convince me that the phenomenon is real.
I, however, do not follow Religious or Creationist channels and can not assess if the reverse is true. I do however hope it is not and encourage my fellow atheist not to do it.

[H3LL]

Virtually all the atheist/free thinker/ scientific literacy videos I am following on Youtube have been reported being victims of these sort of practice. Often, multiple times.

While these are only anecdotes, whose plural is not data, it is enough for me to convince me that the phenomenon is real.
I, however, do not follow Religious or Creationist channels and can not assess if the reverse is true. I do however hope it is not and encourage my fellow atheist not to do it.

Now if I had said that I could have saved a lot of typing.

Thanks for an almost perfect summary.

"Almost" because I understand the VFX vs. TF issue to be more than anecdote primarily because of VFX's response.

[MG1962]

Provide just one and I will admit defeat and retire from the thread and conceed that it was a foolish knee-jerk response with limited knowledge.

Good luck.

It is not about proving it happens or not. It is about context. For argument sake a 1000 accounts were wrong pulled by Youtube in a month and we find 900 of them are athiest attacks on religious beliefs, we see a very significant trend, and one that needs to be stopped immediately

However if among that 1000 bannings we dont see any significant demographic represented, then the cause and effect has been negated, even though the core problem should still be addressed

[H3LL]

The context was very clearly stated in the OP.

I'm not concerned with these issues in other areas, videos are pulled regularly for various copyright and other infringements, rightly and wrongly, on just about every subject and topic you can think of.

As Simon39759 stated:
Virtually all the atheist/free thinker/ scientific literacy videos I am following on Youtube have been reported being victims of these sort of practice. Often, multiple times.

That is my experience too - Note, the context - It's very clear.

Searching not only pulls a lot of examples but even overtly religious groups dedicated to attacks.

Aware of my bias, I don't watch religious or woo crap by habit and do not subscribe to religious or woo crap accounts, others here may do.

Right from the beginning I have requested information and examples of attacks on religious/woo-woo accounts by atheists. Again the context is very clear.

I have received and found nothing of substance only denial, and obfuscation.

I understand a some of the members that have posted here are religious apologists and they have also come up blank.

Given the time since the OP and the fact that attacks on atheist sites can be found in a matter of seconds, particularly false DMCAs, my original question:

Is there any evidence that woo-woos are suffering the same sort of tactics on the same scale?

would appear to have the answer - No.

Should anything appear, at the very best it would seem the answers would be - Very occasionally but nothing like the level experienced by atheists.

That question would appear to now be closed.



My second question:

Should "we" fight fire with fire?

for which my personal answer is a resounding "NO!", is still open.

The apologists may want to chip in with their opinion. I would be curious as to what it is and whether their opinion is derived from religious "morals" or secular considerations.

If it is suggested that a new thread would be more appropriate I will make one.

[CriticalSock]

We have a morality with a couple of thousand years more development than the Xtians so it behooves us to conduct ourselves with fitting decorum.

[bokonon]

Right from the beginning I have requested information and examples of attacks on religious/woo-woo accounts by atheists. Again the context is very clear.

I have received and found nothing of substance only denial, and obfuscation.

I understand a some of the members that have posted here are religious apologists and they have also come up blank.

Given the time since the OP and the fact that attacks on atheist sites can be found in a matter of seconds, particularly false DMCAs, my original question:

would appear to have the answer - No.
That assumes that someone was motivated to do such a search. Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Venomfangx, and other peddlers of uncritical thinking I've seen on YouTube, disables ratings, immunizing him against votebots. I would not be opposed to having critical thinkers "fight fire with fire" in this case, by similarly disabling ratings. It doesn't seem to me that there's a significant downside, and if you're worried about ratings, the option is available.

VFX and others also censor comments, approving only those which are favorable to their own point of view. This would be counterproductive for one who is trying to promote critical thinking. If you don't have time to respond to comments yourself, and your videos don't attract the quality and quantity of people you think are required to respond on your behalf, disabling comments could be considered. I don't know if that option is reversible or not, but assuming it is, you could potentially allow comments again if you found yourself with more time to respond.

Finally, filing false DMCA complaints would also be counterproductive. If there are truly DMCA violations, and if YouTube encourages reports from those who are not the copyright holder, filing a valid DMCA complaint (especially against someone who throttled discussion and comment) might be briefly effective. However, since an argument rarely hinges on the presentation of copyrighted content, it doesn't seem likely to be effective over the long term.

Generally, those who seek to encourage critical thinking do not seek to stifle debate. That's why this forum is open to those who are not necessarily proponents of skeptical viewpoints, while many "true believer"-type sites are not open to skeptics. Critical thinking thrives on open discussion, while those whose power depends on some degree of uncritical acceptance prefer to create insular environments in which only certain viewpoints may be expressed.

I think the tactics adopted by most on YouTube are good ones - creating "response" videos in lieu of responses in a comments section, for example.

[Magyar]

But I disagree about 'fighting Fire with Fire'. I believe in having the moral high grounds, not because it will convince people but for the sake of our own self-esteem.


But isn't this like showing up with a knife to a gun fight?! The very reason that religion is the self evident non-sense it is, IS because anyone with half a brain recognizes that it has NO moral high ground. The "morality" religion creates is based on cultural bias, ignorance and prejudice and the religions followers simply justify the ignorance, - see xians response to tattoos and wearing leather and cotton vs homosexuality as a great example -
hate and prejudice by appealing to a sky daddy. Thus they create a play ground where you as an non-believer in THEIR specific brand of goofy CAN not win- never mind if you're an atheist.

[H3LL]

That assumes that someone was motivated to do such a search.


Well I was and came up with nothing useful.

..... disabling ratings. It doesn't seem to me that there's a significant downside, and if you're worried about ratings, the option is available.


I'm also against disabling ratings and comments but, as you suggested, such action is borderline.

The rest, is fair comment.

[Mojo]

...how many is a number.


1.

[Simon39759]

42.