And he was totally blasted by his own fanbase for it. Everyone might say something, once in a while, too far. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make him completely wrong on everything.
This is a sort of risky situation. I'm willing to invest time and energy in helping anyone who sincerely wants to use HN as intended. But it's actually a considerable effort. It's draining, because these discussions are so repetitive, and also because they're so adversarial. One spends a lot of effort on the boring task of weatherproofing whatever one says.
Such questions can amount to a DoS attack on moderators, because of the time it takes to patiently answer them, which then can't go into other things we might do to make the site better. If you want us to invest those resources into helping you understand the intended use of HN, you need to clearly establish that that is your good-faith intention.
Yes, but the YT recommendation algorithm doesn't know that, and even if it could know it wouldn't care. It's enough to watch a few IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) videos, the system will assume that you want racist, far-right, etc. content and that's what will pop up in your recommendations and "Up Next" video plays. That's an entirely programmatically-generated "pathway" into the alt-right rabbit hole; it has nothing to do with who the IDW themselves would want to associate with.
I'm probably going to bleed karma for this, but whatever - I think Trump's campaign had the same problem. I don't believe he's explicitly a white supremacist or that he wanted the support of neo-nazis, if for no other reason than that would be a stupid move politically, but for whatever reason neo-nazis seem to consider him their champion.
Likely in part it's a combination of his antagonistic (politically incorrect) demeanor and his populist rhetoric, but also (just to put it out there) the Republicans and Tea Party have been sort of low-key courting favor with racists for years, so there were already plenty in the base to begin with, they just needed to find their anti-establishment dark horse.
Even if they're less "white supremacist supporting" as "white supremacist supported," that's still a problem. They still feed on and profit from that element.
> they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons
> NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting."
These are not in conflict; your actions can still support fascists unintentionally. When people point out your beliefs are supporting white supremacists, it might be a good idea to correct the problem. Continuing to defend the problematic behavior is when what might have been unintentional support begins to look more like intentional participation.
Sounds like "better not let anybody be right-wingers or they may someday turn to fascism!"
(for a more nuanced answer, see [1])
Doesn't change the fact that NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting." I think the problem here is that they support some policies which white supremacists, as a group, also like supporting. Just because two groups can agree on something doesn't mean those groups are allies. Also, "white supremacist" is a great slam against someone you don't like regardless as to if it is true.