A new Data & Society report hits out at YouTube, and a hand full of personalities, in particular, calling them an "alternative influence network" that is a breeding ground for rightwing radicalism. The report is more of a scathing hit piece that lashes out at a particular 60 or so YouTubers as being part of this "alternative influence network" that is spreading rightwing radicalism. Among the names mentioned in the report as being in this network of far-rightwingers are Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin, an openly gay liberal. The left is even going after its own leftwingers too who haven't confirmed to the traditional thought structure or aren't towing the party line.
So let's take a look at this report and what mainstream media outlets like The Guardian are saying about it. The report is titled <a href="https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf">"Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube"</a> by Researcher Rebecca Lewis and "presents data from approximately 65 political influencers across 81 channels to identify the 'Alternative Influence Network' (AIN); an alternative media system that adopts the techniques of brand influencers to build audiences and "sell" their political ideology." First of all, I think "sell" is a poor term because no one is going to YouTube, a leftwing company, and saying 'here, take my money and let me get some of that far-rightwing radicalization please."
The political censorship of Alex Jones isn't enough for the far-left SJWs, they want the 65 channels named in their report demonetized and banned from the platform as well. There is only one reason for this attack, they are upset they are losing this culture war and deep down they know that censorship isn't the answer and it leads to nothing good.
<img src="https://media.8ch.net/file_store/2b2646442fae18ab4c38a65d4987499c8d55648267bddac7f9baeb09a5cb7162.png" style="max-height:640px;max-width:360px;">
<span style="margin-top:15px;rgba(42,51,6,0.7);font-size:12px;">Data & Society</span>
Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/36527-Apple-Permanently-Bans-Infowars-App-From-Their-Store">Apple Permanently Bans Infowars App From Their Store</a>
The Guardian sums up the positions of those identified in the Data & Society report as "an opposition to feminism, social justice, and left-wing politics and present themselves as an underdog alternative to the mainstream media." The report itself states, "Discussing images of the ‘alt-right’ or white supremacism often conjures a sense of the ‘dark corners of the internet’. In fact, much extremist content is happening front and center, easily accessible on platforms like YouTube, publicly endorsed by well-resourced individuals and interfacing directly with mainstream culture."
The Guardian's real motivation for pointing out this report is to because it is uncomfortable with the fact that it is losing viewership to smaller channels on actual alternative media platforms, like YouTube. The real problem it has with the 65 YouTube channels highlighted in the report is that the left wants them silenced because they know they are losing power and there is a large void in the market for common sense, traditional, American viewpoints. It doesn't matter whether you are a liberal, conservative, progressive, or libertarian if this "alternative influence network" shows us anything it is that it is possible to have open discourse in a reasonable atmosphere with people whose opinions you may not agree with and there is nothing wrong with that.
Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/36922-Popular-Twitch-Streamer-Dr-DisRespect-Has-House-Shot-Up-Live-On-Stream-TWICE-Video">Popular Twitch Streamer Dr. DisRespect Has House Shot Up Live On Stream, TWICE! (Video)</a>
The report calls out internet personalities Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Dave Rubin, mind you that the latter is a gay liberal so how he can be deemed a member of this "alternative influence network" for far-rightwing radicalism is beyond me. I'll save you the time of actually reading this hit piece of a report, Rebecca Lewis gets down and dirty saying the previously mentioned individuals "have these conversations where really openly racist ideas are getting thrown around as if they are perfectly normal." She goes on to say, "This amplifies these ideas."
Lewis cites when Dave Rubin, a small YouTube channel with a studio in a guys basement who has only recently begun gaining larger viewership, had Canadian rightwing influencer Stefan Molyneux who she claims is openly racist for citing what he believes is scientific fact. The only way for people to become educated is to inspire them to do the research for themselves, if you hear a claim that you find hard to believe track down the source, read the study, find out what is really at the heart of the matter.
Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/37409-France-Biggest-Arab-Youtube-Star-Arrested-On-Multiple-Rape-Charges-Video">France - Biggest Arab Youtube Star Arrested On Multiple Rape Charges (Video)</a>
Lewis seems to take issue the most with a conversation between Rubin and Molyneux about genetics and race. Rubin asks, "Is there evidence it’s genetic?" Molyneux responds, "Yes." Rubin replies, "Genetic in what regard? I mean if we took the brain of a 25-year-old black man and the brain of a 25-year-old white man, what is it that they are doing that …" Molyneux replies in a purely reasonable tone, "They are different sizes." Rubin says, "Yeah?" Molyneux answers back with his own, "Yeah." We know that Africans from a certain descent have physiological differences in their bodies aside from melatonin.
A 1998 study examined the lumbar anterior longitudinal ligament of 48 African-American and Scandinavian men and women between the ages of 17-30. The results showed the width of the L1 part of the lumbar anterior longitudinal ligament in the African-American group was greater than that in the Scandinavian group. That isn't racism, that is a biological reality. So how is what Molyneux saying far-right or racist? He is stating scientific fact if you can prove the science wrong you are more than welcome to do so and confront Molyneux yourself with the evidence and that is the beauty of YouTube.
I'm sorry Lewis, most YouTube influencers aren't out there to change your mind and suck you into an alt-right echo chamber, they are only trying to present the facts in a way that they believe is objective and let you the viewer make the decision yourself, what is wrong with that? That report isn't seeking to provide an accurate analysis of the average YouTube viewer, it is written because the leftist, mainstream media is in its death throws and it can't take down the 65 channels mentioned in the report because as the report says itself they are very careful to stay just within the platform's terms of service.
Keep on floundering MSM, you are having the last gasps of a dying industry that will soon be replaced by those very people you unwittingly promoted in your hit piece of a report.
Tips? Info? Send me a message!
Source: https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation