Watch a Mary Ham break down the situation surrounding Carlos Maza and Steven Crowder (4:56):
Watch Phillip Defranco covering the situation:
Watch Tim Pool’s report on the situation:
Watch Tim Pool follow up on of the adpocalypse:
Watch Lauren Chen cover the situation:
Watch Joe Rogan’s reaction to the situation:
CNN business interviews Maza over situation:
Watch 1791 profile Carlos Maza:
Watch 1791 follow up with “The Aftermath”:
Watch Glenn Beck’s reaction to the situation:
Watch Glenn Beck interview Steven Crowder:
Watch Jimmy Dore react to the situation:
Watch David Pakman break down the situation:
Watch Secular Talk break down the situation:
Watch Sargon of Akkad react to the situation:
Watch the Quartering react to the situation:
Watch Ben Shapiro cover the situation:
Watch Steven Crowder in his own words, “I’m not sorry”:
It may be Steven’s right to say whatever he wants but let’s not kid ourselves, there is speech that you just can’t defend. Using the word “fag” on a t-shirt you sell as merch, that’s not a hill worth dying on. Nor is it something I would want to support or sympathize with. He’s used the word fag regularly like in events held with Milo. Youtubers are more than just commentators, they’re role models to their audience. But when you look at what crowder actually says about Maza it’s always in the context of rebuttal.
He’s never said anything remotely close to anything like “this is the problem with the gays” or “people like Maza” or “he’s like this because he’s gay”. No. It’s always been an attack on Maza himself as an individual. And I’m sorry but when you create political commentary content where you’re whole shtick is criticising others, it’s just plain fair game that others are going to react to what you say. What is Maza actually asking for here? And by going after youtube Maza is demonstrating the very mob behaviour and targeting that he claims youtube enables in others. Critics have been parodying each other forever. Crowder denounces all forms of doxing and online bullying. This is not just to formally cover his ass, he knows and makes clear that is is exactly what people like Maza want so they can claim that sweet, sweet victimhood and it plays right into their narrative. Online bullying is never ok and never helps anyone. Crowder understands this and always denounces it. The responsibility of creators for their followers is another conversation.
Now as for Maza. All I can say is the guy isn’t real journalism, it’s the exact activist based narrative propaganda that he himself is so critical of. Crowder isn’t fooling anyone by using the word “Figs” instead of “Fags” on his shirt. Maza isn’t fooling anyone by advocating for acosting people with milkshakes isn’t an incitement for violence. I’ll tell you right now if you ever threw a milkshake at me I’d beat the ever living fuck out of you. I have my own hateful conduct policy. Kill me or regret it. So he violates actual laws but you’ll never see it enforced because society is adhering to this social justice rhetoric around protected classes.
I can appreciate that he may call himself a gay wonk and that doesn’t automatically exempt others from scrutiny for engaging him with the same language. I believe the word Nigger is reprehensible and should never be used. However I don’t care when I hear it in a song or in the context of news and the like. But the main point here is that Maza has entered the public domain to target and criticize others. This is his career. He gets paid to do this. This puts him squarely smack dab in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. His ideas and opinions are just as up for scrutiny as those he targets. He, himself, engages in the same demonizing language he’s critical over Crowder using.
He thinks he’s right based on his race and sexual orientation and Crowder is inherently wrong as a measure of his race and sexual orientation. Maza is wrong. He claims Youtube doesn’t care about it’s LGBTQ creators. This is a lie and his calls for protest are all simply aimed at damaging youtube and the creators on their platform. He even admits himself this isn’t really about Crowder. And he chose to do all of this at the same time of a vox walkout and during pride month. It’s calculated, manipulative and disingenuous. His proclamation of victimhood is, in my opinion, purely aimed at harming others. The mainstream hit pieces that have followed reinforce my feeling that this is just another attempt to reclaim lost ground against alternative media.
He’s doing it for the clicks
He’s doing it for the clicks
He’s doing it for the clicks
Watch Philly D cover new main stream media hit pieces:
Watch Tim Pool’s coverage of Media hit piece:
Watch The Quartering react to the media hit piece:
Watch 1791 cover the media hit piece:
Watch Secular Talk cover the media hit piece:
Watch Ben Shapiro’s coverage of the media hit piece:
So in closing, I need to ask. What exactly are we talking about here? Is this just a fight between Crowder and Maza? Well neither knows each other personally and it’s pretty clear that both parties have their own personal agendas behind their faux feud. So this really isn’t a conflict between these two. Is this a conversation about censorship? Maza makes clear that it’s not enough to demonetize creators channels, citing websites like patreon. Youtube has nothing to do with Patreon. Is it not enough to censor a creator? Must there be a collaborative effort to destroy the lives of those we deem ‘problematic’? Youtube can change it’s policies every hour if they want, I don’t think that’s what the issue is really about.
I think this all comes down to the big question of what is social media? Is it a private company that is allowed to ‘hire’ and ‘fire’ anyone they deem harmful to their brand? Is it a publication that produces us with news? Well all mainstream media has no problem citing social media for anecdotes in their work. All media utilize social media for their content to reach far beyond the municipal boundaries of their broadcast. Is social media really just a company that aims at only making money?
Well if social media wants to continue to regulate content then it increasingly fulfills the role of publisher as it guides our attention and calculates it’s recommendations. Maybe a better question is what is social media to us? Internet in general is now considered a basic human right as more people do their banking, communications and coordination through their smart devices or computers. Trying to live without a phone or access to internet truly does present very real barriers to thriving in a society that demands instantaneous communication.
Here are a few other good questions. If you cannot network, plan, promote, advertize or advocate on social media, how does that impact your professional and/or social life? Would you suffer damages by being barred from utilizing social media? What advantages would others have over you if you were not allowed access to social media while running for political office? While others have access to it but you don’t. How would that impact the election of your riding? Better yet, could you ever become president/prime minister without a presence on social media? I don’t think you could run a competitive campaign without some degree of social media activity.
How significant is our online avatar? Is our online presence as significant as our physical self in real life? If you disappeared from social media, would it have a measurable impact on your real life friendships? Could that lead to falling out with certain friends? Your profile, your avatar, your page, your library. Are these personalized home pages shares? Does holding a personal account/home page equate to holding a share within the company if it’s profitability is derived from your account/content? Is there an argument there that your account is a form of equity? Canadian government ruled that points accumulated on reward cards like air miles is a form of equity that is owned by the card holder, not air miles. This after Air Miles attempted to retroactively apply an adjustment to terms and conditions around accumulated points. Government ruled that unconstitutional. They ruled that digital equity could be property. Does my participation on social media produce equity that I should be entitled to?
Are these companies monopolies? What relationship do we have with social media? Is it addictive? Could it be so intrinsic to our functionality that social media can become a symbiotic relationship with us? It may be true that social media are private companies. This also means they are unelected officials regulating the centre of public discourse. So what responsibilities do these companies have in the symbiotic relationship their products have with our lives? Are these platforms an open forum? I don’t have the answers but I think after seeing just how far you can flesh out the significance of social media it tends to feel more like a public utility than merely a private platform. Perhaps how it functions goes beyond it’s intended design. But if it meets the definition of a public utility then we cannot ignore the conversation around civil rights. And if access to these platforms is a civil right then it’s pretty clear the conversation around regulation is far from over and far more complex than it seems.
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin