I don’t think your article applies here - it seems Andrew Tate has created misogynistic content on each platform that banned him. The timing might be suspicious, but ultimately, TikTok banned Tate because of the TikTok content he made, Google banned him because of the YouTube content and Twitter banned him based on his tweets.

I am also confused about why do you refer to people like Tate as ‘villains’ in quotes. The dude is a star of incels and like-minded women-haters. The world is better off without his content.

Even if you agree with his message, the guy is running a pyramid scheme.

The only reason he is famous, is that "Hustlers University" instructs you to spam clips of his to social media together with affiliate links to his scheme. Compound that with his Alex Jones-like talent to generate the most divisive, ridiculous, humorous and infuriating soundbites and you have a TikTok smash hit. But just like Alex, once he glows out, his shady dealings and ridiculous statements will relegate him to a subject of mockery and an argument to dismiss his ideas for the opposing side.

I don't think he actually made TikTok content?

According to the article he did:

EDIT: it seems that people have been making Tate clips and uploading them to TikTok and those are also the ones that got banned.

>TikTok has also banned an account belonging to Mr Tate as part of an ongoing investigation to remove content that violates its policies.

>A TikTok spokesperson told the BBC: "Misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated on TikTok.

>"We've been removing violative videos and accounts for weeks, and we welcome the news that other platforms are also taking action against this individual."

We can agree that inconsistency is bad, but Andrew Tate is most definitely in the banworthy category.

Instead of asking why someone was "immediately guilty as charged", one should maybe ask why it takes a coordinated effort to get social media giants to act on toxic people that are very clearly violating their terms of service. All while YouTube keeps banning LGBTQ creators from recommendations (not even just demonetization) for using words like "lesbian" in video titles. Why does HN rarely get upset about those cases?

> All while YouTube keeps banning LGBTQ creators from recommendations (not even just demonetization) for using words like "lesbian" in video titles. Why does HN rarely get upset about those cases?

Like I also said, Neither YouTube or HN cares and expecting YouTube to change is futile and it will happen to anyone. That is the point.

But then again, some believe it is not enough to de-platform or do a mass ban of these LGBTQ creators off of the internet. Why not get the payment companies and the banks to freeze their funds as well, or why not contact their energy and phone provider so that they can't access the internet or have electricity as well?

I await a giant outcry when this happens to another person and the whole of HN starts crying about the big tech surveillance dystopia they helped to create.

You're conflating minorities simply existing in public with incredibly toxic assholes choosing to be incredibly toxic assholes in these platforms. That's not even remotely the same thing.

But he's completely free to set up his own website or platform. YouTube doesn't owe him the right to host his content, given he's never paid YouTube a penny, nor FB/Insta/etc. A newspaper doesn't owe him the right to print articles by him either, yet he's still free to set up his own newspaper.

I don't understand your argument at all.

Fair enough if Tate broke ToS.

But the difference is that YouTube, FB etc. present themselves as platforms, avoiding the liability of being seen as a publisher.

If they start making value judgements on certain content, then they can't claim they act as a neutral platform, and as such should be held liable for other content.

https://review.gale.com/2021/01/13/platform-or-publisher/

That’s a common misunderstanding: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

So called "private platforms" don't exist on the internet. If YouTube really wants to be completely private, than the government should physically sever any backbone connections over public land. Let Google pay for every inch of fiber, and negotiate with every single property owner, every step of the way.

Then and only then will they actually have a private platform where they can ban anyone for any reason. Until then, they are imposing on the public, and the public has every right to require them to respect our most foundational values of freedom of speech.

The hosting company could deplatform him as well. If only self hosting would be easier...

There you go. They are totally clueless on how far the de-platforming can go. The domain provider, hosting companies can do the same and de-platform them as well.

Perhaps lets go far to de-platform them of their bank accounts, credit cards, etc since they are too private companies? Can we also contact their phone / energy provider(s) to shut off their electricity as well so they cannot access the internet?

So what is their response? Don't like it? "BuILd yOur Own VISa / mASteRcArD paymeNtS pLATFORM", "buIlD yOUr oWN IsP", "BuiLD YOUr oWN doMain PRoviDER", etc, etc.

As I said, creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user.

Be nice then.

Is that what you will say after the Big Tech companies have de-platformed you as well? It is not just Andrew Tate, but they will do this to anyone they don't like, and they do not care and won't ever change and this was a coordinated ban. Why wait until a social media mob appears to execute this mass ban?

Like I said, this is creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet via a mob, which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user and perhaps you think it's OK for the banks, payment platforms, etc to do the same?

So the next time someone you like gets the same co-ordinated mass ban; let's tell them to 'Be nice' to the big tech companies. So on to the next 'villain' of the week.

Turn your computer/smartphone off, is also good advice in a similar vein. I don't make a living from going around shouting my mouth off saying offensive and derogatory stuff about women, designed to trigger and demean them, so being deplatformed isn't a risk for me. While I'm a follower of Voltaires "I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" line of libertarianism, at the same time large companies I totally understand don't have the compunction to be forced to do business with you and promote your agenda if it doesn't fit with theirs. The man in question still has the right to shout his mouth off all over the internet. It's just that now Google/FB/TikTok have realised it's not in their interest to have such a negative presence on their services. He doesn't need or deserve airtime on the monopolistic BBC or NBC either but I think you'd find it ludicrous proposition that he should be given it, free of charge, to promote whatever agenda he likes. He's still free to set up a website, stand on the street and tell people about his mysoginy, organise public meetings,you name it. The serious issue in this case is that his "it's just a bit of fun honest" get-out clause doesn't wash, because his mysoginistic talk is backed up with actual physical violence against women, and controlling and coercive behaviour toward them in the real world. So it's not a case of "OMFG platform capitalist monopolies shutting people down judge jury executioner no oversight OMFG" this is a case of real people at those companies deciding it's in everyone's interest they don't do business with him. A book publisher would do the same thing. Behind every company are people with feelings and concerns, not blank evil algorithms out to shutdown random lives with no comeback. Do you think the women working at Google/FB/TikTok were impressed with his content and want to work for companies that promote it?

andrew tate is a violent misogynist human trafficker, banning him from everywhere on earth is not anywhere near dystopia or censorship.

How is he "human trafficker" ? Is there any source?

"Nice" could get you in some chinese censorship. Are we back on banning magazines because they are not christian and they degrade the pure souls of human beings?

`given he's never paid YouTube a penny` - this is not how yt gets paid. One day someone will sue them for the income yt earned off a creator they demonetize/ban. ps - never actually heard about him

I realise completely this is not how yt gets paid... but virtually everything else in the economy works on contracts and payment. YouTube says "you don't owe us money, because we're freemium and are so good at the internet we'll handle all that, just accept these terms of service and it's a deal". It's a very non-standard way of doing business. I'm sure suing them for demonetising a creator would go absolutely nowhere and likely lose pretty quickly in court, because they don't owe you the right of doing business with you, or continuing to do business with you, should you fall foul of the terms set out. YouTube could also lucratively host content like pornography but that's just not the business they want to be in. Neither is hateful speech that has become obvious enough to upset enough of their customers to the point they will complain about it.

Monopoly and antitrust laws have yet to be enforced for tech giants, but that doesn't make it right.

Maybe Tate engineered the ban? Put up toxic content on each platform?

The article claims that Tate has been glorifying violence against women for years though, so that wouldn't explain why the ban would happen now.

Andrew Tate is definitely guilty of TOS violations on more than one platform (and a whole lot more egregious offences like quasi-legal sex trafficking but I digress) so I'm not sure that a millionaire who does not require social media to peddle his brand of fascistic garbage is the best example of big tech censorship.

Quasi-legal sex trafficking?

I was referring to his Only Fans "agency" but I actually somehow forgot the far more blatant and very much not legal thing he stands accused of: https://thesportsgrail.com/andrew-tate-house-raided-in-roman...