waer34tawer

>I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him.

His association with conspiracy theories is the main thing he's known for. In order to claim that his views are not dangerous, you have to had heard of him. And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has.

> All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apologize. The internet is swarming with people who argue in bad faith to promote an agenda. They feign ignorance of things, hold contradictory positions, and derail discussions all while claiming to be perfectly innocent. I mistook you for one of the trolls. And that's exactly what the trolls want.

> That's not fair of you to say I am being disingenuous.

It is. You have heard of PJW. Enough to defend him here. So presumably you're aware of his views, which is what he's known for.

> I really don't want to get into nitty gritty debate over people like PJW

But that's what you've done.

> I don't see how believing in the illuminati, chemtrails, soy causing feminization, or that 9/11 was an inside Job are dangerous in the same objective sense that promoting racial violence is.

He stops short of promoting outright violence precisely because he knows that will get him kicked off of places. What he has done is portray muslims as boogeymen, saying that they are all rapists, that they turn cities into ghettos, and that the west needs "islam control." If you don't think that's dangerous, look into the anti-semitic conspiracy theories that spread throughout europe before the holocaust. Very similar language.

It may be me in the future. In fact, it's already happened to me before! I've been banned from a few forums and IRC channels in my day. The people there didn't like what I had to say. Am I angry? No. Because I've also run my own forums, and relied on the ability to ban and moderate comments in order to maintain a useful discussion.

But wait, Facebook isn't the same a forum, right? Well, it is, it's just bigger. Way bigger. The problem is how big it is. And how, in some countries, it's the only game in town (Facebook Basics).

It may seem like Facebook is overly moderated, but given it's size, it's really the opposite. It's a big free for all where hatred, deliberate misinformation, and calls to violence happen all the time. (Example: Myanmar). If you post that stuff on HN, it will quickly get taken down. But Facebook is slow to moderate anything, their moderation system is opaque, and thus hate speech is allowed to fester.

But not just fester. Facebook actually amplifies it. They see the engagement it gets and push it out to more people. So Facebook is not only negligent in their moderation, they are actively promoting toxic behavior. So long for Facebook being a "neutral platform."

Acting like the bans are the problem is the wrong idea. Moderation is important to any internet community, including this one. But when you get banned from a place, it shouldn't amount to not having a voice at all. Facebook is destroying the public square by maintaining a monopoly on internet communication. We should work to break them up, regulate them, or encourage people to leave the site.

You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes:

- 9/11 was an inside job

- The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails

- Soy beans are making men docile and feminine.

Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has.

He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous.

My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing to justify your argument - it's complete BS.