Not related to the video but I just wanted to say: I haven't played Call of Duty since Black Ops II but I've stayed subbed to your channel all this time just for commentaries like this one Drift0r. You are very articulate and well informed on the topics you speak about. Although I don't watch all your videos, I definitely learn something new every time I click on one. I've grown up watching you. The way you encourage critical thought and independently learning about something (rather than just accepting what you're told by the media or your parents) has truly shaped who I am today, so thank you for that.
Damn I wish I had stopped at BO2 and avoided social media all together. I'd probably be a much happier person. That crack baby that made this video sure made some good points tho.
Same here!! I stopped playing after bo2 but this was one of the few channels I never unsubbed from bc of this type of content. I’ve recently picked up Modern Warfare 2019 so I’m enjoying the channel even more just like the good old days :)
Just wanted to mention, I wish I was as eloquent as you. I can usually think critically in my own head but can never get my point out in words. It's truly a skill I wish I had. You even do this without much pause, in a clear structured way off the cuff. Really impressive. It's a gift I always wish I had.
Honestly the key thing is practice and have debates with people (sensible people not ones that jump to conclusions and have a fit about it) - it worked for me and I genuinely love debating/discussing topics right now
And as soon as they hear something they don't agree with they immediately claim foul and totally ignore free speech. People can be hypocrites. Never be too dense to realize that you may be demanding your freedoms be taken away.
Skylancer727 the unfortunate reality is that giving up some freedoms for the benefit of the whole is necessary. True freedom is an impossible thing because everyone views what freedom means differently
@@legendhavok1723 This is especially true in the wake of this pandemic where people are going around deliberately spreading the virus in the name of "freedom"
Yeah if your a guy, they will just laugh at you for bringing that up. Hell there's even a good chance one of your parents would laugh at you for it. Men are expected to suck up everything, if you don't then deal with it. It's just the barrier between men and women. If you're a man then your feelings don't matter to others until you basically are on the edge of suicide and even still some might just call you a coward.
People are really surprised about Drift being this eloquent? My man been in front of the camera for a long long time. He isnt succesful because of nothing. Love the hair Drift.
"Innocent until proven guilty" means that you don't deserve to suffer consequences unless you are definitely guilty based on the facts. It is so important because we cannot allow *any* innocent people to be punished for a crime they didn't commit, even if that means that criminals also walk free.
Keep in mind that the legal protection of being "innocent until proven guilty" does not stop false convictions entirely. Sometimes the facts are wrong or the system itself has biases. Black men are seven times more likely to be falsely convicted and later exonerated over a white man for example. If anything, American's court and prison system is already guilty of what you are saying nobody should do. I'd be happy if prison and the courts were reformed of course. Especially because it seems to be suffering from systemic racism, but I don't think that's what Ivan was talking about.
But free speech does allow for us to pass judgement anyways so it's a grey area considering that many of these will never be substantiated whether true or not and that you have the right to judge based on what you see in a person. In that regard there really is no right answer in these situations. How do you prove the claims someone made as true or false exactly? If abuse that's over 3 weeks old, no evidence will be left, if rape and you didn't get pregnant nobody will believe it, etc. It's kinda why even when the claims are true people hold onto them. How exactly do you break the ice without just looking like a hater that's attacking them?
@@jakelee7083 I mean is it true I feel like it happens more often then alot of us think again I'm not sure I don't have facts or the statistics but just a feeling
Hey drift0r fellow Greenwood Mississippian here, so greetings from Mississippi! I lean more on the conservative end that you but I really enjoy your logical, unbiased approach to your philosophical/political commentaries. I commend you all these years for standing on what you believe is right and not just easy for you and your channel. Just wanted to tell you that you're doing a good job and that I and others on here are proud of you.
As a law student I can confirm everything you said was true (as far as free speech content - the only thing I am qualified to speak on) - in case anyone was wondering...
@@andrewgogolin1800 Yeah exactly. The press already have that power, there's nothing stopping it from happening and it's kinda encouraged by the media itself. Social media is just the modern system of media where instead of being controlled by a company, a company hosts the news from random individuals. There's nothing wrong with that. It may feel wrong but in the same regard, how is it okay that the news already does this? If you watch Fox News all the time they will tell you republicans can do no wrong and democrats are crap and if you watch MSNBC they will say the opposite. If your issue is that you can't change to the other station, then make a platform that does suit your views. It's that simple. I'm certain others with your views will join you there.
A billionaire that ran a few casinos into the ground and only got saved due to his popularity, which he got from being accused of racism, becomes president.
I (M) was drunk at a friends party. A girl and her friend picked me up (literally, physically lifted me up) out of the corner I was passed out in and brought me to the master bedroom where a good majority of people from the party had set up their pillows. I tried to fall asleep again, but one of the girls repeatedly used my junk in any way she wanted while I laid frozen. I know not everyone was asleep. I know people saw me fully exposed. I know I didn't want any of it. I know I had to high five my friends in the morning and pretend it was all okay.
"Facebook and Twitter are allowed to ban people under the first amendment." This is completely and utterly correct. They are. However, immunity from defamation lawsuits under section 20 does require impartiality and neutrality. They won't be prosecuted for breaking that neutrality, because it's free speech, but then they become open to being sued for the things people say on their platforms. They have the choice between publisher and neutral platform, under the first amendment, but they have to pick a lane; they can't pick and choose the best of both worlds for themselves... "It's not against the Constitution to fire or kick people out of their house for their political beliefs." It is. It's harassment and discrimination. It's not against Constitutional Law, but it is against the law. However, you can make up a reason, so... 😕 "You have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt." Actually, it's beyond reasonable doubt, not a shadow of doubt. Nothing is 100% certain. I believe that the threshold for a guilty verdict is meant to be a 95% confidence interval? Actually, in university, I learned that's only in criminal law; in civil law, it's "on the balance of probabilities", as in, in civil law, the required minimum confidence threshold for a conviction, or whatever the term is for civil law, is 50%, not 95%, at least over here in The United Kingdom...
@Mike Mitchell That's his point. The phone company can't ban you BUT they also can't be sued for what you say. They are a platform. A newspaper gets to pick and choose what content they publish, but they are responsible for it. they are a publisher. Twitter, facebook, etc. both are immune to liability for the content they host (platform) AND get to pick and choose what they allow. (publisher). They shouldn't get the benefits of both.
I think social media providers are in a unique position as they are responsible for at least attempting to remove content that is illegal such as child pornography, extremist material, discrimination that violates hate crime laws and they also have a set of terms and conditions that all users agree to at the point of creating an account which is basically a contract which specifies what is and isn’t allowed within their platform by signing up you technically signed a contract that means that if you violate the terms you agree to either have that content deleted or your account banned as outlined in said terms
@Mike Mitchell social media yes, phone company isnt a social media platform though its device for social media platforms and personal communication generally. Why people recording on their iPhones dont get sued by apple for what they say while using the phone to video, but if you put the video up somewhere that's a platform, and the owners of the platform have the right to decide what's said on their stage. It's like having people over to your house, people can say what they want outside your house or land, but you have no right to make them quit. However if they're inside your home or on your land you have the right to get rid of them if you wish, obviously asking them to leave if not their are legal ways that protect most people from getting someone off their property similar to how platform companies can do with their sites. Make sense now bub?
Well socially it never was a thing. That's just a legal clause as letting a criminal get away is better than punishing an innocent one. Socially it is part of freedom of speech to say you detest that person without listening. That's not really a good idea nor is it very diligent, but you can.
Innocent until proven guilty is the standard that must be met before depriving someone of their freedom or lives. It's not the standard before you're allowed to pull your support or platform on a private forum.
@@XtopherMartin Our criminal justice system treats people like they are guilty before they get a trial. Unless of course, they are wealthy enough to afford the outrageous bail. It's not uncommon for people to spend months in jail only to be found innocent when they finally get a trial.
I'm glad you brought up the men getting drunk and being raped. I recognize its different, esp in terms of the physical cost. But I don't have a single male friend who wasn't raped when we were in college. Hopefully one day there will be degrees of criminal charges for sexual assault like there is for murder.
The way I’ve seen it play out with my own family going to court and dealing with the U.S legal system it almost felt more like they were guilty until proven innocent. My sister hit a car at an intersection because the car in front of her stopped where there was no stop sign or stop light. My sister was claimed to be the person at fault because she rear ended the car in front despite the other car doing the wrong thing. It took 2 months and several thousand dollars later for her to prove her innocence.
In car crashes the rear-ender is basically always at fault. This is because they have responsibility to keep safe distance from the car in front of them so even abrupt stops are the fault of the rear-ender. This is why in your drivers manual they tell you to keep another car length from the car in front of you for every 10mph you are moving. If you didn't and you hit them or you weren't actually watching them, that's on you for not being attentive or not following the rules. That's just how it works. It's the same rule for those pulling out of a side road. The car pulling out is basically always at fault as they are to watch both ways before going. The only exception in this one is that the person on the road you pull out on is supposed to watch for you as well so if they hit you as you pull out it may be their fault but you will be still first assumed for bad judgement.
This is the one thing that annoys me. When people don’t realize that they don’t have rights to other peoples services. They have never been through a modern 5-8tg grade history class. Also some people think hate speech is illegal?
@@kaungkhant632 No one knows just yet but he was suddenly perm banned from twitch and lost his discord partnership. It just instantly happened with no warning.
Truly loving the content lately ! Such a healthy balance between what’s going on in the world while still keeping up with what your channel is known for .. not many people can do that but you’re gifted Driftor 🖤 thank you for standing up and being on the right side of history :)
I mean in response to 22:20, the MeToo movement is actually exactly the movement bringing publicity into these things. 40 years ago, if you were raped or molested as a woman by you boss, good luck with reporting it (we would be fired instead of him). It shows especially in how you describe how HR should decide. You are thinking they should decide just upon what is best for the organization? There you are. What about ethics?
Social Preponderance is something that I knew existed but didn’t know the word so thank you for that. One thing that I would add to that you say that we have to take time to judge for ourselves how we feel about a given subject. But in my experience, humans are lazy/there isn’t enough time in a day for us to do that on every person and every situation. So, instead we find others who spend their lives researching those topics and put our trust in them. We are failing as a society to verify the sources, who provide us with that information, on their: credibility, accuracy, and accountability. We have instead taken the approach of cognitive dissonance rejecting facts that don’t fit our preconceived notions and instead look for conformation biases. It is easy to dog pile, retweet, denounce, etc. on social media because it only takes a second and makes us feel like we’ve accomplished something. Instead, if we want this problem to get better. We need to find the sources who provide facts, rational, and logical thinking, such as yourself, and then we can make level headed decisions. Unfortunately, emotion will always trump rational thinking, and that is something that requires everyone’s effort, not just a select few.
Right on Drift0r. A good friend of mine accidentally ripped a loud fart at a very unfortunate and important moment in his professional career. He was immediately cancelled and lost his house, wife and kids. Be careful as fart rights are not clear and people don’t like them. His colleagues were quoted as saying they “couldn’t remember what regular air smelled like”. So sad
That's just so wrong on so many levels. As drift pointed out, in cases like that we need to rely on preponderance of evidence, but people just jump to conclusions way too fast. I think we really need a culture change to fix this, nothing else will. We need to look at things more logically and with facts, not just with our feelings and biases.
This is absolutely amazing to hear that you got your twitch partnership back man! The last video you made about what you are going to do next - I felt really bad. Now that it's sorted, it just made me smile! I'll be sure to check you out routinely man. Take love. We're gonna have blasts in the upcoming days!!
We need to share this video, cause I have been a long time subscriber to this channel and when this man talks social norms and politics hes always factual. This is definitely information that needs to be known.
you seem like those smart kids in class back in high school or college that i always get along with but my mutual friends and his mutual friends dont like each other so we dont talk or hang out much, but when were in class together or anytime we see each other its always a good time. Came for the in depth videos, stayed because how articulate and awake you are!!!
The sentiment "innocent until proven guilty" was my reaction when the first case broke - and that is a matter of opinion, not an assertion of the law or an argument about free speech. I said this because people hear one side of the story and just react - and the idea that people are just guilty because someone says they are guilty... It's not fair that innocent people are just collateral damage because THIS has become the reporting system. We need to improve the system and I think that COULD be done. That's how you create real change, by setting things up that prevent things from happening and by providing better tools for people to report things, get counselling etc.
The great thing about preponderance, is people have the ability to weigh multiple things at once. For example the vast majority of people would be understanding of "bad tweets" from someone when they were 9.
I'd like to clarify the idea behind freedom and "innocent until proven guilty" because we've sort of lost the thread in America. Freedom is an idea, something that was found, not created. Freedom is a description of self ownership based on the logic of conscious experience. The only person who experiences what you do is you. All of your pain, suffering, joy, and happiness is uniquely your own. It cannot be transferred into the mind of another. By that logic you are, therefore, assumed to be in the best possible position to judge what is best for you. That is, to use the parlance of the Declaration of Independence, "unalienable". Everyone is an individual, who's inherent claim to his or her own life is presumably superior to any arbitrary claim another makes. But that doesn't mean there should be no law. Freedom isn't the absence of all restraint, that would be self-contradictory. That would mean one persons freedom could be used to deprive another of freedom. What Freedom truly means is freedom to act without first asking permission. Your freedom is only limited by another persons freedom, and when that is violated it is found in court. That is where innocent until proven guilty comes into play. That too is not just political rhetoric but an idea, not created, but found. One based in the logic of the burden of proof. Logic dictates that whoever makes the positive claim must be the one to provide proof. Why? Because if a burden of proof is not met, then we end at the initial baseline. It the burden is not placed on the one who makes the claim, but the other to disprove, then the assumed baseline is that the claim is true. That is a logical hall of mirrors. That puts the defendant in an impossible scenario, one where they would have to prove a near infinite amount of claims. To assign it to the person making the claim properly assigns that burden and neatly falls into logic.
Ive seen people rationalize guilty until proven innocent by saying "I'd rather defend a potential victim than a potential rapist" and I think thats an awful mindset to have.
Awesome vid. I think it’s important to note that censorship by platforms like TH-cam, Facebook, and Twitter are not technically unconstitutional, however, these companies have enough reach and influence to control public opinion by enabling the communication of certain ideologies and censoring others. Since the use of these platforms is so pervasive among Americans, we have to start asking ourselves if (like you mentioned) the spirit of the constitution is being attacked. It feels like we’re only a few steps away from a country where “the party is always right.”
The biggest problem is that Social Media companies get the best of both worlds when it comes to being considered publishers or platforms. Platforms are not held responsible for what people say on their platform because they don't regulate the content in any way. Publishers get to regulate what they publish, but as a result are held accountable accordingly. Websites like Twitter, Facebook and TH-cam are treated like Platforms despite acting like Publishers. We've got to legally establish which they are sooner than later or this will get out of hand fast.
The problem with the “private platform” argument is that the private platform has now become the public square, and as such the Supreme Court has determined that Public Officials cannot block people on Twitter. The problem begins when we allow faceless, unaccountable to deprive people of their human rights. The other question is, do people deserve to have their life ruined because they exercised their human rights? So long as you aren’t committing a crime you should not be punished so harshly, the court of public opinion simply requires an accusation. Simply being accused leads to your life being permanently ruined. Look at Johnny Depp. He was being abused by his wife and now he is unhireable because of what his wife did. This is what happens when you allow for these consequences to happen.
There needs to be (less or even identical relative to the crime the defendant is accused of) severe repurcussions for accusers if it comes to light they made a false accusation. EDIT: with some individuals being banned off major platforms, there have been concerted efforts to even contact payment providers, servers and domain registers to not host them, focused efforts to unperson them forever and all time, across the internet and now IRL.
The spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" in society demands that we wait for the dust to settle and don't jump to conclusions. We're all one hasty decision away from being tonight's big loser that believed the wrong person. On another note, whoever tells you that everyone that outs abusers and harassers has nothing to gain is being disingenuous. They do gain a social media following, whether they're telling the truth or not.
As I'm sure you imply in your latter statement, it's a massive ego stroke regardless of the type of attention at the very least. Yet, I still find myself deriding people that post inflammatory statements or things that I strongly disagree with, knowing this information, because my own ego stroking is more important to me in the long run I guess. Gotta get over that.
That's not the reason behind innocent until proven guilty. We have it because of the death penalty and detainment. The idea is it's better to have a criminal get away then an innocent man suffer or die for something they did not do. If a man is put to death an 5 years down the line we verify they were innocent, well there's nothing that can be done now, they're gone. It's one of the main reason the death penalty is on the way out. The other big one is judges pushing for the death penalty for crimes that clearly shouldn't be punished with death. Though this doesn't mean the rule will change, having a person lose up to 20 years of their life in prison for nothing is also something we don't want to put people through, but given how many crimes are committed in a year, it's guaranteed someone will have been innocent.
@@Skylancer727 Agree, to a degree...however, the equivalence is a bit skewed with kids and adults committing suicide over these accusations and entire families are being destroyed... In a lot of cases, you have taken away the income, the family, friends, and because of the internet, there is no option for a fresh start how have you not sentenced this person to death..? Either by himself, homelessness, or other means. This leads to the next point...how long until the accused stop sitting by and end up deciding that they are going to take the lives of the person that has ruined their lives instead of just themselves? We have indeed weaponized social media and I don't see there being 'winners' at the end...
This was yet another interesting video, at the end you made a point about sexual assault against men which is genuinely not taken seriously by other men. I was once drugged on a night out without my friends there to help me home and keep away a man who I have never met before but was constantly following me I worry that I could have been a victim. When they explained this to the security at the bar they laughed and said he’s probably drank too much, when I went for a drug test the next day and discovered it was a common date rape drug and wanted to report it the police said it was probably a drink for someone else. There seems to be a common practice of ignorance in regards to sexual assaults in general where victims have to somehow prove without doubt that a rape was a rape when unfortunately that’s not possible like how many people have cctv in their bedrooms
You know when we've gone too far when someone says 'Man, I have these thoughts but I'm afraid to share them because I might get my entire livelihood destroyed by people who are incapable of seeing a big picture or context'.
At the end when you spoke about how sometimes men get raped by women, I remember how in high school we were being taught about rape and all that major stuff, of course it pretty much only consisted of cases where it's a guy raping a girl. It was pretty much structured to tell women what to do if it happened to them and stuff. At the end we were able to ask questions about the whole thing. So I asked what should a guy do if he gets raped. I got laughed at, and the people teaching us about all this stuff basically shot me down like it's impossible and doesn't happen. I'm 22 now just to give you a hint as to how long ago that was.
I admire your ability to speak and make yourself clear very well! Super interesting hearing about the postive and negative freedom too. I'm from the Netherlands and I never really thought about it. Glad you're partnered with Twitch again by the way, good job!
I love these social commentary videos! Keep it up! I see no dark path being taken. I see someone concerned about our current social climate & has the vocabulary to inform & somewhat educate his viewers. You're actually helping someone & don't realize it!
Fundamentally it's about power. The reason sexual assault is so hard for people to come forward with is the difference in power between the parties involved. This was a good video Drift0r. I think you touched on a lot of important topics and explained your ideas in clear, unambiguous ways. Props.
I feel that for social media, to avoid/stop cancel culture, people need to delete personal information off of all their social media and use aliases to avoid being identified.
Not gonna lie this video might be the best one i've seen on this topic. I personaly can't believe anything anymore that is written on the internet until there is some kind of really founded evidence. The recent events made me realize how easy it is to provide false accusations and people jump on you like animals. I really support the real claims with evidence and all that like with Josh and many others that came out to tell their story, it was the right thing to do. But man it feels like the internet is now like a gigantic witch hunt, everyone is a self proclaimed judge. Im not even involved in anything of that and it's exhausting.
Great discussion Drift0r, you boiled down my law school free speech class well. I think that there will need to be a new category of forum that would apply to general use social media sites. Something along the line of “semi-public forum.” Most speech regulations would have to be viewpoint neutral and any content regulations would have to be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
A nice comprise is that companies would have to state their bias overtly or be considered false advertising as a 'free platform'. Google would have to explicitly state on all search results/their front page that results are being filtered, TH-cam would have to only ban actual undeniable racists and not just people right of Karl Marx if they wish to continue as a platform that isn't advertised as left leaning, etc
I’m super glad that you are willing to listen and are able to change your opinion if shown wrong. I know it’s not all black and white today and hyper partisanship is sometimes hard to deal with. But the ability to come forward to potential changes in ideology through learning shows good character.
The last part is something that has been a big problem lately. Women or men coming out with rape allegations that happened decades ago and have absolutely nothing to prove it, sadly. Now whether its real or not, the accused's life has already been ruined due to the allegations and the many people that blindly support the accuser. For instance, not long ago some streamer girl came forward about her being raped by one of her stream moderators. Everyone put up their pitchforks, showed their support and complimented on her bravery, untill the accused came forward with messages with evidence that included that she consented to it, thus proving his innocense. Imagine if that person had no messages to back his innocense. His entire life would be ruined. Its sickening that the moment someone comes out with allegations, everyone sides with that person before hearing the other side. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply on social media these days.
Big example(sexual assault on a man and correct me if I'm wrong) was when a man came forward about being sexually assaulted by Kevin Spacey a while ago that was then proven most likely to be true. Then Kevin Spacey came out and said something along the lines of, well it was because I wasn't sure of my sexuality. And everyone just forgot about it the next day.
I know multiple guys who have had false claims against them. myself included. wheres the justice for us who are shamed and blamed for doing nothing wrong. wheres the justice for us
Happened to one of buddies in college. Luckily, some of the girl's friends said that the encounter was consensual and she ended up dropping the claim. Those girls were heroes in my fraternity. They saved this man's life.
I won a ban attempt on me against Playstation. I was banned for my username, they took everything my game ranks, values and items I earned in every game, k.d. and everything. I threatening Sony with the fact they allowed me to enter the username in the first place so it was their algorithms fault allowing me to enter my original username to begin with. Most games I played on my OG account gave me back lost items how they could. And playstation gave me 2 years free membership.
Well politics can be really interesting. Unfortunately most people are just block heads who stick their flag down and stick to it no matter what others say. It makes arguing with them totally hopeless. They are never going to listen and the whole point of politics is to sway others or at the very least make them understand your judgement. Many people also just don't have the time to actually read into a topic though so they will likely choice a side before even all the pieces are together. It's unfortunate that people can be that dense but for every one person that finds the topic interesting, there is another say 4 people who just don't want to listen and just want others to agree with them.
Lol the first half of the video It’s like “yeah, that makes sense” etc and it gives you ideas of things and solutions. By the last 5 minutes the issues are so complex you can’t really deduce how we should all go about it... some problems just have no correct solutions....
Yeah that's how most things go. There really is no good answer. Remember that while it's true you shouldn't punish someone for something you can't prove but even if the claims were true the evidence wouldn't exist anyways and you still have the free speech as a person to say you hate them anyways. There's just no right answer and anyone saying people should either shut up or speak louder are both kinda right and kinda wrong.
I still want to know why you called out Hutch and NadeShot about their character in the last video. I’m out of the loop and I’m a fan of Hutch. Edit: 4:32 on the last me too vid
I'm trying to recall but I believe he just brought them up at a bad time. Had his sentence been structured differently I don't think it would have seemed so brash a statement.
Great discussion Drift0r,we need this tbh.I don’t know what you thought about the comment I made on part one,I was trying to get a few points across about cancel culture & why I think it’s dangerous & damaging,especially to men right now.Be very careful on Twitch,Dr.Disrespect is gone for whatever reason,I don’t know why but I think youtube should be used for an open minded audience & not for the easily triggered.
It’s weird when people assume that the number of malicious people who are willing to make false claims is so much higher than the number of people who actually committed these acts. I feel like that’s faulty reasoning, like we have a tendency to side with the accused over the accuser.
The way I’ve come to look at it is you have the freedom to say whatever the hell you want, but with that freedom comes the freedom to any consequences (typically social) that are given to you. As for the me too movement it’s a sticky situation as you described in your previous video. All it takes is one person who makes a false accusation and the whole movement is pretty much falsified or seen as disingenuous which harms people who have gone through a terrible thing such as sexual assault. It’s tough to judge because there always is the chance that someone could be lying but you also don’t want to invalidate someone’s experience because they possibility of them lying.
The 9yo on roblox was a good analogy because logically holding someone accountable for something they did as a child or even just a decade before is ridiculous because people grow over time and are very different from the age of 9 to 19 let alone 35+ like if someone's words and actions haven't reflected the same poor character in a decade or more then how can you treat them as the same person when they are clearly not. Obviously when it comes to serious crimes there needs to be accountability, but decade old words shouldn't be used to judge a person's character.
I have to say, I love this video. Some stuff I already knew but still learned a few things even though I live in America. Love the way you articulated your thoughts around the gamer me too movement and how you agree and disagree with certain points. Would love to see more videos like this.
I believe that the employer has every right to fire someone who’s racist I wouldn’t wanna be working with someone who’s racist I’d knock em out at work
I would argue that social media companies and the internet is such a public place and performs a public function in allowing the freeflow of information that social media companies should not have the power to deplatform people. If its illegal to discriminate for christians against homosexuals staying in a christian hotel (as it should be) then the potential for social media companies to discriminate in an identical manner online should not be allowed. Im from the UK so our laws are ultimately going to be different, but thats my opinion on it
The corporations do not all necessarily have the same rights of being allowed to control what is on and not on their platform, as while a regular corporation like Nestle or Nike can do what they want, social media platforms that benefit from Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act that allow them to not be legally liable towards user submitted/published content as long as they comply with the law when necessary in the case strictly illegal content is involved, with the idea that it would allow a free expression of different ideas on the platform. However, the argument is, with the documented anti-conservative bias on many social media platforms, these corporations overstep the bounds of being simply a platform and become a publisher, actively selecting what content is or is not displayed, promoted, or allowed at all on their platform, and thus should not have the legal privileges granted upon them by the federal government to not be liable for user content. A recent executive order was signed regarding specifically regarding the shift of social media websites from platforms to publishers, as the anti-conservative bias/censorship goes against the reason Section 230 protections were created in the first place. Basically, corporations are allowed to be as biased or selective in what messages they choose to promote and censor, but not when they are specifically benefiting from legal privileges that require them to act as a neutral platform for all, political or otherwise, viewpoints that do not include content deemed illegal by current legislation.
Excellent commentary. I rarely agree 100% with your opinions but on this one you are spot on. There is still hope for you yet! Lol ;) I'm glad you're back on Twitch. Congrats!
While you are correct in saying that companies banning people because of their opinions is legal under the 1st amendment, some of these companies have reached the domain where (legally, this was the major discussion when Mark Zuckerberg had his senate hearing) they are considered public domains of communication, so doing so is a violation of the 1st amendment. This is, however, open to change (and likely will be clarified in the near future) because the legal precedent was not made by the supreme court.
Love the video, but there is some mixing up of burden of proof (Inc. presumption of innocence) and standard of proof. Don't disagree with what you're saying but best to not get them mixed up. Also presumption of innocence is a very old concept, it can be seen in roman law, Jewish law, islamic law and a large proportion of modern legal sytems too.
Let be real here, the US courts and constitution SAY you’re innocent until proven guilty, but really you’re guilty until proven innocent. This isn’t just a problem within cancel culture, but our actual justice system as well.
The problem with the "Social Media platforms are people too and can ban whoever they want," is that those rights as an individual also comes with responsibilities as an individual. Yes, I have freedom to not listening and go no contact with any person that I don't feel like dealing with. However, if I say something that is slanderous against someone else or more importantly if I steal copyrighted content I can be held personally responsible for my actions. In the case of Social Media, they are currently abusing a system that gives them immunity from responsibility but still get the power to abuse the rights afforded to people. The are being treated as an open platform but are demonstrably publishers making edits and being selective in who can join and have their words printed to screen same as a publisher. And this is why these businesses need to be destroyed and brought to justice or legally forced to change. It is wholly unfair and should be completely against the law for a business to abuse both sides of the power. They are both publisher and platform, meaning they can strip rights as a publisher, but face no consequences like a platform. So yes, it IS an issue of free speech until these companies no longer have the public forum/social platform immunities they were granted as platforms by the government. IT IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE UNTIL THEY ARE TREATED AS PUBLISHERS (PEOPLE) INSTEAD OF OPEN PLATFORMS. EDIT: OKay, so you clearly understand the argument about publisher vs platform, then you should be able to understand why it is very directly a free speech issue because as they are acting now, they have been granted public forums status devoid of personal responsibility for what is said on their platform and the constitution says we have the right to assemble and the freedom to voice our thoughts in public. Their violation against the spirit of the law is clear and we should fight tooth and nail to fix this issue.
Great talk. For someone who said they were having a bid time with Warzone, you look like a hell of a player. I've never played it but you make it look very easy.
Not related to the video but I just wanted to say: I haven't played Call of Duty since Black Ops II but I've stayed subbed to your channel all this time just for commentaries like this one Drift0r. You are very articulate and well informed on the topics you speak about. Although I don't watch all your videos, I definitely learn something new every time I click on one. I've grown up watching you. The way you encourage critical thought and independently learning about something (rather than just accepting what you're told by the media or your parents) has truly shaped who I am today, so thank you for that.
:)
Damn I wish I had stopped at BO2 and avoided social media all together. I'd probably be a much happier person. That crack baby that made this video sure made some good points tho.
Grey Bush was that a joke?
Same here!! I stopped playing after bo2 but this was one of the few channels I never unsubbed from bc of this type of content. I’ve recently picked up Modern Warfare 2019 so I’m enjoying the channel even more just like the good old days :)
Just wanted to mention, I wish I was as eloquent as you. I can usually think critically in my own head but can never get my point out in words. It's truly a skill I wish I had. You even do this without much pause, in a clear structured way off the cuff. Really impressive.
It's a gift I always wish I had.
You can do this. It only takes some practice.
Yeah, Driftor is right, it’s mostly just practice, keep in mind Driftor has been doing this for years so he’s really good at it!
Honestly the key thing is practice and have debates with people (sensible people not ones that jump to conclusions and have a fit about it) - it worked for me and I genuinely love debating/discussing topics right now
@@Drift0r do you create an outline or something?
I have the opposite problem, I've a silver tongue yet a copper brain. Gets me in trouble.
I’m super glad twitch has repartnered with you drift, I had hoped they would understand your weird email predicament
Bill Burr said it best. Everyone is for free speech as long as they agree with what’s being said.
And as soon as they hear something they don't agree with they immediately claim foul and totally ignore free speech. People can be hypocrites. Never be too dense to realize that you may be demanding your freedoms be taken away.
Skylancer727 the unfortunate reality is that giving up some freedoms for the benefit of the whole is necessary. True freedom is an impossible thing because everyone views what freedom means differently
HORSE SIX ZERO then you missed the point of what he said.
@@legendhavok1723 This is especially true in the wake of this pandemic where people are going around deliberately spreading the virus in the name of "freedom"
I love how you included women and men when talking about reporting rape
Yeah if your a guy, they will just laugh at you for bringing that up. Hell there's even a good chance one of your parents would laugh at you for it. Men are expected to suck up everything, if you don't then deal with it. It's just the barrier between men and women. If you're a man then your feelings don't matter to others until you basically are on the edge of suicide and even still some might just call you a coward.
@@Skylancer727 ikr and I hate it
@@Skylancer727 "they" oh no, not them
People are really surprised about Drift being this eloquent? My man been in front of the camera for a long long time. He isnt succesful because of nothing.
Love the hair Drift.
"hair" lol
Its like a negative hair
Looks like he wants to do some kerb stomping 😃
"Innocent until proven guilty" means that you don't deserve to suffer consequences unless you are definitely guilty based on the facts. It is so important because we cannot allow *any* innocent people to be punished for a crime they didn't commit, even if that means that criminals also walk free.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer”
Keep in mind that the legal protection of being "innocent until proven guilty" does not stop false convictions entirely. Sometimes the facts are wrong or the system itself has biases. Black men are seven times more likely to be falsely convicted and later exonerated over a white man for example. If anything, American's court and prison system is already guilty of what you are saying nobody should do.
I'd be happy if prison and the courts were reformed of course. Especially because it seems to be suffering from systemic racism, but I don't think that's what Ivan was talking about.
@@the_bat_turtle yes.
But free speech does allow for us to pass judgement anyways so it's a grey area considering that many of these will never be substantiated whether true or not and that you have the right to judge based on what you see in a person. In that regard there really is no right answer in these situations. How do you prove the claims someone made as true or false exactly? If abuse that's over 3 weeks old, no evidence will be left, if rape and you didn't get pregnant nobody will believe it, etc. It's kinda why even when the claims are true people hold onto them. How exactly do you break the ice without just looking like a hater that's attacking them?
@@jakelee7083 I mean is it true I feel like it happens more often then alot of us think again I'm not sure I don't have facts or the statistics but just a feeling
Looks like driftor just escaped jail 😳
lmao
Legit looks like that Yegor skin.
I died when I read this comment
It looks like he just won in the gulag.
Hey drift0r fellow Greenwood Mississippian here, so greetings from Mississippi! I lean more on the conservative end that you but I really enjoy your logical, unbiased approach to your philosophical/political commentaries. I commend you all these years for standing on what you believe is right and not just easy for you and your channel. Just wanted to tell you that you're doing a good job and that I and others on here are proud of you.
As a law student I can confirm everything you said was true (as far as free speech content - the only thing I am qualified to speak on) - in case anyone was wondering...
What happens when a social media platform is so powerful that it can influence who gets elected?
That's the day the world ends...
Isnt that the reason most social medias dont want to allow politics on their platform? Since they dont want that to happen?
The press have had that power forever
@@andrewgogolin1800 Yeah exactly. The press already have that power, there's nothing stopping it from happening and it's kinda encouraged by the media itself. Social media is just the modern system of media where instead of being controlled by a company, a company hosts the news from random individuals. There's nothing wrong with that. It may feel wrong but in the same regard, how is it okay that the news already does this? If you watch Fox News all the time they will tell you republicans can do no wrong and democrats are crap and if you watch MSNBC they will say the opposite. If your issue is that you can't change to the other station, then make a platform that does suit your views. It's that simple. I'm certain others with your views will join you there.
A billionaire that ran a few casinos into the ground and only got saved due to his popularity, which he got from being accused of racism, becomes president.
I (M) was drunk at a friends party. A girl and her friend picked me up (literally, physically lifted me up) out of the corner I was passed out in and brought me to the master bedroom where a good majority of people from the party had set up their pillows. I tried to fall asleep again, but one of the girls repeatedly used my junk in any way she wanted while I laid frozen. I know not everyone was asleep. I know people saw me fully exposed. I know I didn't want any of it. I know I had to high five my friends in the morning and pretend it was all okay.
I'm so sorry that someone took advantage of you like that. Thank you for sharing your story.
"Facebook and Twitter are allowed to ban people under the first amendment."
This is completely and utterly correct. They are. However, immunity from defamation lawsuits under section 20 does require impartiality and neutrality. They won't be prosecuted for breaking that neutrality, because it's free speech, but then they become open to being sued for the things people say on their platforms. They have the choice between publisher and neutral platform, under the first amendment, but they have to pick a lane; they can't pick and choose the best of both worlds for themselves...
"It's not against the Constitution to fire or kick people out of their house for their political beliefs."
It is. It's harassment and discrimination. It's not against Constitutional Law, but it is against the law. However, you can make up a reason, so... 😕
"You have to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Actually, it's beyond reasonable doubt, not a shadow of doubt. Nothing is 100% certain. I believe that the threshold for a guilty verdict is meant to be a 95% confidence interval? Actually, in university, I learned that's only in criminal law; in civil law, it's "on the balance of probabilities", as in, in civil law, the required minimum confidence threshold for a conviction, or whatever the term is for civil law, is 50%, not 95%, at least over here in The United Kingdom...
@Mike Mitchell That's his point. The phone company can't ban you BUT they also can't be sued for what you say. They are a platform. A newspaper gets to pick and choose what content they publish, but they are responsible for it. they are a publisher. Twitter, facebook, etc. both are immune to liability for the content they host (platform) AND get to pick and choose what they allow. (publisher). They shouldn't get the benefits of both.
@Mike Mitchell wow lol. You're not very smart.
I think social media providers are in a unique position as they are responsible for at least attempting to remove content that is illegal such as child pornography, extremist material, discrimination that violates hate crime laws and they also have a set of terms and conditions that all users agree to at the point of creating an account which is basically a contract which specifies what is and isn’t allowed within their platform by signing up you technically signed a contract that means that if you violate the terms you agree to either have that content deleted or your account banned as outlined in said terms
@Mike Mitchell social media yes, phone company isnt a social media platform though its device for social media platforms and personal communication generally.
Why people recording on their iPhones dont get sued by apple for what they say while using the phone to video, but if you put the video up somewhere that's a platform, and the owners of the platform have the right to decide what's said on their stage.
It's like having people over to your house, people can say what they want outside your house or land, but you have no right to make them quit.
However if they're inside your home or on your land you have the right to get rid of them if you wish, obviously asking them to leave if not their are legal ways that protect most people from getting someone off their property similar to how platform companies can do with their sites.
Make sense now bub?
nice hair, you going full American History X?
Cheenky Eyed Alex Jones first thing I thought lol
Haha
@@assasin165 I thought of Remy from higher learning 🤣🤣🤣
I'm fed up with bad actors myself.
@@fishsmell2570 Like the left wing media?
Wow, I can’t believe Drift0r has cancer. I hope he overcomes it!
We gave up that whole "innocent until guilty" thing a long time ago.
Well socially it never was a thing. That's just a legal clause as letting a criminal get away is better than punishing an innocent one. Socially it is part of freedom of speech to say you detest that person without listening. That's not really a good idea nor is it very diligent, but you can.
Did you even watch the video?
Innocent until proven guilty is the standard that must be met before depriving someone of their freedom or lives. It's not the standard before you're allowed to pull your support or platform on a private forum.
@@XtopherMartin Our criminal justice system treats people like they are guilty before they get a trial. Unless of course, they are wealthy enough to afford the outrageous bail. It's not uncommon for people to spend months in jail only to be found innocent when they finally get a trial.
@@PaleGhost69 I'm not going to argue the merits of the criminal justice system. My point was to contextualize a term that was used.
Came for the COD, stayed for the reasonable and thought-provoking commentary on complex societal issues. Keep it up man.
I'm glad you brought up the men getting drunk and being raped. I recognize its different, esp in terms of the physical cost. But I don't have a single male friend who wasn't raped when we were in college. Hopefully one day there will be degrees of criminal charges for sexual assault like there is for murder.
Bs
The way I’ve seen it play out with my own family going to court and dealing with the U.S legal system it almost felt more like they were guilty until proven innocent. My sister hit a car at an intersection because the car in front of her stopped where there was no stop sign or stop light. My sister was claimed to be the person at fault because she rear ended the car in front despite the other car doing the wrong thing. It took 2 months and several thousand dollars later for her to prove her innocence.
In car crashes the rear-ender is basically always at fault. This is because they have responsibility to keep safe distance from the car in front of them so even abrupt stops are the fault of the rear-ender. This is why in your drivers manual they tell you to keep another car length from the car in front of you for every 10mph you are moving. If you didn't and you hit them or you weren't actually watching them, that's on you for not being attentive or not following the rules. That's just how it works. It's the same rule for those pulling out of a side road. The car pulling out is basically always at fault as they are to watch both ways before going. The only exception in this one is that the person on the road you pull out on is supposed to watch for you as well so if they hit you as you pull out it may be their fault but you will be still first assumed for bad judgement.
This is the one thing that annoys me. When people don’t realize that they don’t have rights to other peoples services. They have never been through a modern 5-8tg grade history class. Also some people think hate speech is illegal?
Well depending on how it is used it can be claimed as a type of deformation. The law is a tricky topic.
Rip doctor disrespect
Was he one of the streamers accused in the me too?
@@kaungkhant632 No one knows just yet but he was suddenly perm banned from twitch and lost his discord partnership. It just instantly happened with no warning.
Kaung Khant and they only said it was a breach of terms and conditions but didn’t go into specifics
@@anthrolover100 look up a vid of his last words, he kinda seemed to know it was coming
@@thunderslug1066 send a link if you can please
Truly loving the content lately ! Such a healthy balance between what’s going on in the world while still keeping up with what your channel is known for .. not many people can do that but you’re gifted Driftor 🖤 thank you for standing up and being on the right side of history :)
"Innocent until proven guilty" is for a court of law.
As we've seen and will continue to see, public opinion will judge how ever it wants.
Please play as shirtless putin in cod until you grow your hairs back.
Lol aye aye aye, leave our mans alone 😂
I mean in response to 22:20, the MeToo movement is actually exactly the movement bringing publicity into these things. 40 years ago, if you were raped or molested as a woman by you boss, good luck with reporting it (we would be fired instead of him).
It shows especially in how you describe how HR should decide. You are thinking they should decide just upon what is best for the organization? There you are. What about ethics?
I really enjoy these podcast type videos. Looking forward to see more.
Social Preponderance is something that I knew existed but didn’t know the word so thank you for that. One thing that I would add to that you say that we have to take time to judge for ourselves how we feel about a given subject. But in my experience, humans are lazy/there isn’t enough time in a day for us to do that on every person and every situation. So, instead we find others who spend their lives researching those topics and put our trust in them. We are failing as a society to verify the sources, who provide us with that information, on their: credibility, accuracy, and accountability. We have instead taken the approach of cognitive dissonance rejecting facts that don’t fit our preconceived notions and instead look for conformation biases. It is easy to dog pile, retweet, denounce, etc. on social media because it only takes a second and makes us feel like we’ve accomplished something. Instead, if we want this problem to get better. We need to find the sources who provide facts, rational, and logical thinking, such as yourself, and then we can make level headed decisions. Unfortunately, emotion will always trump rational thinking, and that is something that requires everyone’s effort, not just a select few.
Right on Drift0r. A good friend of mine accidentally ripped a loud fart at a very unfortunate and important moment in his professional career. He was immediately cancelled and lost his house, wife and kids. Be careful as fart rights are not clear and people don’t like them. His colleagues were quoted as saying they “couldn’t remember what regular air smelled like”. So sad
That's just so wrong on so many levels. As drift pointed out, in cases like that we need to rely on preponderance of evidence, but people just jump to conclusions way too fast. I think we really need a culture change to fix this, nothing else will. We need to look at things more logically and with facts, not just with our feelings and biases.
@@thepuncakian2024 r/wooooosh
@@sheriffaboubakar9720 stfu, redditor.
This is absolutely amazing to hear that you got your twitch partnership back man! The last video you made about what you are going to do next - I felt really bad. Now that it's sorted, it just made me smile! I'll be sure to check you out routinely man.
Take love. We're gonna have blasts in the upcoming days!!
We need to share this video, cause I have been a long time subscriber to this channel and when this man talks social norms and politics hes always factual. This is definitely information that needs to be known.
you seem like those smart kids in class back in high school or college that i always get along with but my mutual friends and his mutual friends dont like each other so we dont talk or hang out much, but when were in class together or anytime we see each other its always a good time. Came for the in depth videos, stayed because how articulate and awake you are!!!
The sentiment "innocent until proven guilty" was my reaction when the first case broke - and that is a matter of opinion, not an assertion of the law or an argument about free speech. I said this because people hear one side of the story and just react - and the idea that people are just guilty because someone says they are guilty... It's not fair that innocent people are just collateral damage because THIS has become the reporting system. We need to improve the system and I think that COULD be done. That's how you create real change, by setting things up that prevent things from happening and by providing better tools for people to report things, get counselling etc.
Negative Rights = What the Fed CAN'T do
Positive Rights = What the Fed CAN do
Dude I really enjoy these in depth conversations, brings a breath of fresh air from just watching random videos off the internet
The great thing about preponderance, is people have the ability to weigh multiple things at once. For example the vast majority of people would be understanding of "bad tweets" from someone when they were 9.
I'd like to clarify the idea behind freedom and "innocent until proven guilty" because we've sort of lost the thread in America. Freedom is an idea, something that was found, not created. Freedom is a description of self ownership based on the logic of conscious experience. The only person who experiences what you do is you. All of your pain, suffering, joy, and happiness is uniquely your own. It cannot be transferred into the mind of another. By that logic you are, therefore, assumed to be in the best possible position to judge what is best for you. That is, to use the parlance of the Declaration of Independence, "unalienable". Everyone is an individual, who's inherent claim to his or her own life is presumably superior to any arbitrary claim another makes. But that doesn't mean there should be no law. Freedom isn't the absence of all restraint, that would be self-contradictory. That would mean one persons freedom could be used to deprive another of freedom. What Freedom truly means is freedom to act without first asking permission. Your freedom is only limited by another persons freedom, and when that is violated it is found in court. That is where innocent until proven guilty comes into play. That too is not just political rhetoric but an idea, not created, but found. One based in the logic of the burden of proof. Logic dictates that whoever makes the positive claim must be the one to provide proof. Why? Because if a burden of proof is not met, then we end at the initial baseline. It the burden is not placed on the one who makes the claim, but the other to disprove, then the assumed baseline is that the claim is true. That is a logical hall of mirrors. That puts the defendant in an impossible scenario, one where they would have to prove a near infinite amount of claims. To assign it to the person making the claim properly assigns that burden and neatly falls into logic.
Ive seen people rationalize guilty until proven innocent by saying "I'd rather defend a potential victim than a potential rapist" and I think thats an awful mindset to have.
They support it until false accusations come their way.
Awesome vid. I think it’s important to note that censorship by platforms like TH-cam, Facebook, and Twitter are not technically unconstitutional, however, these companies have enough reach and influence to control public opinion by enabling the communication of certain ideologies and censoring others. Since the use of these platforms is so pervasive among Americans, we have to start asking ourselves if (like you mentioned) the spirit of the constitution is being attacked. It feels like we’re only a few steps away from a country where “the party is always right.”
The biggest problem is that Social Media companies get the best of both worlds when it comes to being considered publishers or platforms. Platforms are not held responsible for what people say on their platform because they don't regulate the content in any way. Publishers get to regulate what they publish, but as a result are held accountable accordingly. Websites like Twitter, Facebook and TH-cam are treated like Platforms despite acting like Publishers. We've got to legally establish which they are sooner than later or this will get out of hand fast.
The problem with the “private platform” argument is that the private platform has now become the public square, and as such the Supreme Court has determined that Public Officials cannot block people on Twitter. The problem begins when we allow faceless, unaccountable to deprive people of their human rights. The other question is, do people deserve to have their life ruined because they exercised their human rights? So long as you aren’t committing a crime you should not be punished so harshly, the court of public opinion simply requires an accusation. Simply being accused leads to your life being permanently ruined. Look at Johnny Depp. He was being abused by his wife and now he is unhireable because of what his wife did. This is what happens when you allow for these consequences to happen.
It’s funny how in all my years of public schooling I have never even heard of negative freedom
Those grenade launcher kills at 0:14 and 0:28 were so clean ngl.
Also, Driftor be spittin straight fax, no printer.
There needs to be (less or even identical relative to the crime the defendant is accused of) severe repurcussions for accusers if it comes to light they made a false accusation.
EDIT: with some individuals being banned off major platforms, there have been concerted efforts to even contact payment providers, servers and domain registers to not host them, focused efforts to unperson them forever and all time, across the internet and now IRL.
The spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" in society demands that we wait for the dust to settle and don't jump to conclusions. We're all one hasty decision away from being tonight's big loser that believed the wrong person.
On another note, whoever tells you that everyone that outs abusers and harassers has nothing to gain is being disingenuous. They do gain a social media following, whether they're telling the truth or not.
As I'm sure you imply in your latter statement, it's a massive ego stroke regardless of the type of attention at the very least. Yet, I still find myself deriding people that post inflammatory statements or things that I strongly disagree with, knowing this information, because my own ego stroking is more important to me in the long run I guess. Gotta get over that.
That's not the reason behind innocent until proven guilty. We have it because of the death penalty and detainment. The idea is it's better to have a criminal get away then an innocent man suffer or die for something they did not do. If a man is put to death an 5 years down the line we verify they were innocent, well there's nothing that can be done now, they're gone. It's one of the main reason the death penalty is on the way out. The other big one is judges pushing for the death penalty for crimes that clearly shouldn't be punished with death. Though this doesn't mean the rule will change, having a person lose up to 20 years of their life in prison for nothing is also something we don't want to put people through, but given how many crimes are committed in a year, it's guaranteed someone will have been innocent.
@@Skylancer727 Agree, to a degree...however, the equivalence is a bit skewed with kids and adults committing suicide over these accusations and entire families are being destroyed...
In a lot of cases, you have taken away the income, the family, friends, and because of the internet, there is no option for a fresh start how have you not sentenced this person to death..? Either by himself, homelessness, or other means.
This leads to the next point...how long until the accused stop sitting by and end up deciding that they are going to take the lives of the person that has ruined their lives instead of just themselves?
We have indeed weaponized social media and I don't see there being 'winners' at the end...
at the end of the video I kinda agree with your thoughts about how men dont get taken seriously about r*pe
Basically staying anonymous is the only option for now.
An easy distinction which helped me a lot in uni. Negative Liberty - ‘free from’. Positive Liberty ‘free to’
Driftor, you now look like the "Hard Labor" skin for Yegor
This was yet another interesting video, at the end you made a point about sexual assault against men which is genuinely not taken seriously by other men. I was once drugged on a night out without my friends there to help me home and keep away a man who I have never met before but was constantly following me I worry that I could have been a victim. When they explained this to the security at the bar they laughed and said he’s probably drank too much, when I went for a drug test the next day and discovered it was a common date rape drug and wanted to report it the police said it was probably a drink for someone else. There seems to be a common practice of ignorance in regards to sexual assaults in general where victims have to somehow prove without doubt that a rape was a rape when unfortunately that’s not possible like how many people have cctv in their bedrooms
You know when we've gone too far when someone says 'Man, I have these thoughts but I'm afraid to share them because I might get my entire livelihood destroyed by people who are incapable of seeing a big picture or context'.
Drift0r: my prediction happened
Me: the Simpson’s next generation spotted
At the end when you spoke about how sometimes men get raped by women, I remember how in high school we were being taught about rape and all that major stuff, of course it pretty much only consisted of cases where it's a guy raping a girl. It was pretty much structured to tell women what to do if it happened to them and stuff. At the end we were able to ask questions about the whole thing. So I asked what should a guy do if he gets raped. I got laughed at, and the people teaching us about all this stuff basically shot me down like it's impossible and doesn't happen. I'm 22 now just to give you a hint as to how long ago that was.
I admire your ability to speak and make yourself clear very well! Super interesting hearing about the postive and negative freedom too. I'm from the Netherlands and I never really thought about it. Glad you're partnered with Twitch again by the way, good job!
I love these social commentary videos! Keep it up! I see no dark path being taken. I see someone concerned about our current social climate & has the vocabulary to inform & somewhat educate his viewers. You're actually helping someone & don't realize it!
Fundamentally it's about power. The reason sexual assault is so hard for people to come forward with is the difference in power between the parties involved. This was a good video Drift0r. I think you touched on a lot of important topics and explained your ideas in clear, unambiguous ways. Props.
I feel that for social media, to avoid/stop cancel culture, people need to delete personal information off of all their social media and use aliases to avoid being identified.
Not gonna lie this video might be the best one i've seen on this topic. I personaly can't believe anything anymore that is written on the internet until there is some kind of really founded evidence. The recent events made me realize how easy it is to provide false accusations and people jump on you like animals. I really support the real claims with evidence and all that like with Josh and many others that came out to tell their story, it was the right thing to do. But man it feels like the internet is now like a gigantic witch hunt, everyone is a self proclaimed judge. Im not even involved in anything of that and it's exhausting.
Great discussion Drift0r, you boiled down my law school free speech class well. I think that there will need to be a new category of forum that would apply to general use social media sites. Something along the line of “semi-public forum.” Most speech regulations would have to be viewpoint neutral and any content regulations would have to be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
A nice comprise is that companies would have to state their bias overtly or be considered false advertising as a 'free platform'. Google would have to explicitly state on all search results/their front page that results are being filtered, TH-cam would have to only ban actual undeniable racists and not just people right of Karl Marx if they wish to continue as a platform that isn't advertised as left leaning, etc
What about the movie "White Chics"? Does this get a 2020 pass?
I love the way you deliver your thoughts effortlessly! Great skill!
I thought the same thing after the post, I said dang Drift0r JUST said this would happen. He had receipts too
I’m super glad that you are willing to listen and are able to change your opinion if shown wrong. I know it’s not all black and white today and hyper partisanship is sometimes hard to deal with. But the ability to come forward to potential changes in ideology through learning shows good character.
The last part is something that has been a big problem lately. Women or men coming out with rape allegations that happened decades ago and have absolutely nothing to prove it, sadly. Now whether its real or not, the accused's life has already been ruined due to the allegations and the many people that blindly support the accuser.
For instance, not long ago some streamer girl came forward about her being raped by one of her stream moderators. Everyone put up their pitchforks, showed their support and complimented on her bravery, untill the accused came forward with messages with evidence that included that she consented to it, thus proving his innocense. Imagine if that person had no messages to back his innocense. His entire life would be ruined.
Its sickening that the moment someone comes out with allegations, everyone sides with that person before hearing the other side. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply on social media these days.
Big example(sexual assault on a man and correct me if I'm wrong) was when a man came forward about being sexually assaulted by Kevin Spacey a while ago that was then proven most likely to be true. Then Kevin Spacey came out and said something along the lines of, well it was because I wasn't sure of my sexuality. And everyone just forgot about it the next day.
where did ur hair go
I know multiple guys who have had false claims against them. myself included. wheres the justice for us who are shamed and blamed for doing nothing wrong. wheres the justice for us
Happened to one of buddies in college. Luckily, some of the girl's friends said that the encounter was consensual and she ended up dropping the claim. Those girls were heroes in my fraternity. They saved this man's life.
I won a ban attempt on me against Playstation.
I was banned for my username, they took everything my game ranks, values and items I earned in every game, k.d. and everything.
I threatening Sony with the fact they allowed me to enter the username in the first place so it was their algorithms fault allowing me to enter my original username to begin with.
Most games I played on my OG account gave me back lost items how they could. And playstation gave me 2 years free membership.
Drift0r is the only guy that can make me interested in 'politics'
The other thing that will do that is taxes.
Well politics can be really interesting. Unfortunately most people are just block heads who stick their flag down and stick to it no matter what others say. It makes arguing with them totally hopeless. They are never going to listen and the whole point of politics is to sway others or at the very least make them understand your judgement. Many people also just don't have the time to actually read into a topic though so they will likely choice a side before even all the pieces are together. It's unfortunate that people can be that dense but for every one person that finds the topic interesting, there is another say 4 people who just don't want to listen and just want others to agree with them.
Can you release the audio for videos like this as a podcast?
Lol the first half of the video It’s like “yeah, that makes sense” etc and it gives you ideas of things and solutions. By the last 5 minutes the issues are so complex you can’t really deduce how we should all go about it... some problems just have no correct solutions....
Yeah that's how most things go. There really is no good answer. Remember that while it's true you shouldn't punish someone for something you can't prove but even if the claims were true the evidence wouldn't exist anyways and you still have the free speech as a person to say you hate them anyways. There's just no right answer and anyone saying people should either shut up or speak louder are both kinda right and kinda wrong.
"Do the people grabbin' butts matter?" is a line I didn't think I'd ever hear until today.
I wonder if Drift0r is slightly hinting at Doc getting banned from twitch...whether he was or not, he certainly called it 🤷🏼♂️
Going through chemo AND still making video's, what a champ
I still want to know why you called out Hutch and NadeShot about their character in the last video. I’m out of the loop and I’m a fan of Hutch. Edit: 4:32 on the last me too vid
I'm trying to recall but I believe he just brought them up at a bad time. Had his sentence been structured differently I don't think it would have seemed so brash a statement.
He didn't call them out but Hutch is super liberal and so bias it's sad, even though I still watch his videos.
mcnalga he said they’re not humble and they should be because of their beginnings. He didn’t mention politics.
Grey Bush mcnalga he said they’re not humble and they should be because of their beginnings at lower class jobs
You see that John Cleese skit from like 30 +yrs ago bout pc and cancel culture. Crazy no better time than now. It was inevitable. 💯
Great discussion Drift0r,we need this tbh.I don’t know what you thought about the comment I made on part one,I was trying to get a few points across about cancel culture & why I think it’s dangerous & damaging,especially to men right now.Be very careful on Twitch,Dr.Disrespect is gone for whatever reason,I don’t know why but I think youtube should be used for an open minded audience & not for the easily triggered.
These are the types of videos that have kept me around on top of the great cod content @Drift0r!!
It’s weird when people assume that the number of malicious people who are willing to make false claims is so much higher than the number of people who actually committed these acts. I feel like that’s faulty reasoning, like we have a tendency to side with the accused over the accuser.
The way I’ve come to look at it is you have the freedom to say whatever the hell you want, but with that freedom comes the freedom to any consequences (typically social) that are given to you. As for the me too movement it’s a sticky situation as you described in your previous video. All it takes is one person who makes a false accusation and the whole movement is pretty much falsified or seen as disingenuous which harms people who have gone through a terrible thing such as sexual assault. It’s tough to judge because there always is the chance that someone could be lying but you also don’t want to invalidate someone’s experience because they possibility of them lying.
About the invalidation part: No rational person would/should believe the accuser without proof.
The 9yo on roblox was a good analogy because logically holding someone accountable for something they did as a child or even just a decade before is ridiculous because people grow over time and are very different from the age of 9 to 19 let alone 35+ like if someone's words and actions haven't reflected the same poor character in a decade or more then how can you treat them as the same person when they are clearly not. Obviously when it comes to serious crimes there needs to be accountability, but decade old words shouldn't be used to judge a person's character.
I have to say, I love this video. Some stuff I already knew but still learned a few things even though I live in America. Love the way you articulated your thoughts around the gamer me too movement and how you agree and disagree with certain points. Would love to see more videos like this.
I believe that the employer has every right to fire someone who’s racist I wouldn’t wanna be working with someone who’s racist I’d knock em out at work
You seem to be the one who's more likely to get knocked out
Hoppean snail memes how so my g
I would argue that social media companies and the internet is such a public place and performs a public function in allowing the freeflow of information that social media companies should not have the power to deplatform people. If its illegal to discriminate for christians against homosexuals staying in a christian hotel (as it should be) then the potential for social media companies to discriminate in an identical manner online should not be allowed. Im from the UK so our laws are ultimately going to be different, but thats my opinion on it
The corporations do not all necessarily have the same rights of being allowed to control what is on and not on their platform, as while a regular corporation like Nestle or Nike can do what they want, social media platforms that benefit from Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act that allow them to not be legally liable towards user submitted/published content as long as they comply with the law when necessary in the case strictly illegal content is involved, with the idea that it would allow a free expression of different ideas on the platform.
However, the argument is, with the documented anti-conservative bias on many social media platforms, these corporations overstep the bounds of being simply a platform and become a publisher, actively selecting what content is or is not displayed, promoted, or allowed at all on their platform, and thus should not have the legal privileges granted upon them by the federal government to not be liable for user content. A recent executive order was signed regarding specifically regarding the shift of social media websites from platforms to publishers, as the anti-conservative bias/censorship goes against the reason Section 230 protections were created in the first place.
Basically, corporations are allowed to be as biased or selective in what messages they choose to promote and censor, but not when they are specifically benefiting from legal privileges that require them to act as a neutral platform for all, political or otherwise, viewpoints that do not include content deemed illegal by current legislation.
I have a more enjoyable time just listening to Drift0r talk about political issues than any professor I've ever had. Like, ASMR Drift0r or something?
That Scar-H triggered me. Not only because it was a Scar-H but also because it had all the wrong attachments
Excellent commentary. I rarely agree 100% with your opinions but on this one you are spot on. There is still hope for you yet! Lol ;) I'm glad you're back on Twitch. Congrats!
While you are correct in saying that companies banning people because of their opinions is legal under the 1st amendment, some of these companies have reached the domain where (legally, this was the major discussion when Mark Zuckerberg had his senate hearing) they are considered public domains of communication, so doing so is a violation of the 1st amendment. This is, however, open to change (and likely will be clarified in the near future) because the legal precedent was not made by the supreme court.
Anyone else think it's important to remember what happened with Tobuscus during all of this?
This doesn't have anything to do with the video but how do you get that bizon blueprint its nice
Came for damage numbers, stayed for political commentary. Great content drift, keep it up!
Can you make a Video about the weapon right in America
What does this have to do with Call of Duty? Why is there a muted, I’m unrelated Warzone video playing?
A search engine should search all information that’s available. Period.
We need more smart people that can spread actual thought out ideas like you in this world
Love the video, but there is some mixing up of burden of proof (Inc. presumption of innocence) and standard of proof. Don't disagree with what you're saying but best to not get them mixed up.
Also presumption of innocence is a very old concept, it can be seen in roman law, Jewish law, islamic law and a large proportion of modern legal sytems too.
I'm happy to hear you got your Twitch partnership back!
Let be real here, the US courts and constitution SAY you’re innocent until proven guilty, but really you’re guilty until proven innocent. This isn’t just a problem within cancel culture, but our actual justice system as well.
The problem with the "Social Media platforms are people too and can ban whoever they want," is that those rights as an individual also comes with responsibilities as an individual. Yes, I have freedom to not listening and go no contact with any person that I don't feel like dealing with. However, if I say something that is slanderous against someone else or more importantly if I steal copyrighted content I can be held personally responsible for my actions. In the case of Social Media, they are currently abusing a system that gives them immunity from responsibility but still get the power to abuse the rights afforded to people. The are being treated as an open platform but are demonstrably publishers making edits and being selective in who can join and have their words printed to screen same as a publisher. And this is why these businesses need to be destroyed and brought to justice or legally forced to change. It is wholly unfair and should be completely against the law for a business to abuse both sides of the power. They are both publisher and platform, meaning they can strip rights as a publisher, but face no consequences like a platform. So yes, it IS an issue of free speech until these companies no longer have the public forum/social platform immunities they were granted as platforms by the government. IT IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE UNTIL THEY ARE TREATED AS PUBLISHERS (PEOPLE) INSTEAD OF OPEN PLATFORMS.
EDIT: OKay, so you clearly understand the argument about publisher vs platform, then you should be able to understand why it is very directly a free speech issue because as they are acting now, they have been granted public forums status devoid of personal responsibility for what is said on their platform and the constitution says we have the right to assemble and the freedom to voice our thoughts in public. Their violation against the spirit of the law is clear and we should fight tooth and nail to fix this issue.
Great talk. For someone who said they were having a bid time with Warzone, you look like a hell of a player. I've never played it but you make it look very easy.