The definition of “hate speech” is anything that woke progressive activists who represent 8% of the population find objectionable. If it is not good enough for the famously tolerant New York Times newsroom, no one else in the country should be allowed to download and listen to the content. There needs to be a hall monitor in charge of censoring rightwing podcasts.
“He had already been banned from Twitter, but on his podcast he could give full voice to his hateful conspiracy theories.
The podcaster argued that the man in Atlanta who had confessed to killing eight people at massage parlors last week, including six women of Asian descent, was the one who had truly been victimized — the casualty of a supposed Jewish plot. …”
Systematic racism IS NOT a bigoted, hateful and hypocritical anti-White conspiracy theory peddled by the establishment. Blaming the Atlanta shooting on “white supremacy” wasn’t “misinformation” either. Real “journalists” investigated the matter and concluded that “anti-Asian bias” was the cause.
“Your heart goes out to the guy,” he said. The remarks, emblematic of a longstanding online network of white supremacists and pro-Nazi groups, weren’t hidden in some dark corner of the internet, but could be found on Google Podcasts, the search giant’s official podcast app that was released for Android in 2018 and expanded to Apple devices last year.
Many provocative podcasts, including several hosted by fringe and far-right figures, exist on nearly all the platforms. But the decision to ban Mr. Jones signaled a new willingness among leading services to take action against content they consider beyond the pale. … “
Obviously, the rules should be set by White college-educated professionals with cosmopolitan values and progressive politics who are unelected technocrats and who are the most left-leaning swath of the American electorate. They should determine what is “beyond the pale.”
“For Ms. Hoffman, the health of the ecosystem depends on finding some balance between free expression and safety.
“I really believe the openness of podcasting has been key to its success story so far, and will be in the future,” she said. “But there have to be some guardrails.”
Who is Keri Hoffmann?
Why should a person like that be setting the “guardrails” and determining what can and cannot be said by a content creator on the internet? Do the endless daily diatribes against Whites coming from the legacy media fall inside or outside of these “guardrails”?