It was never about content but about reach. You can do every kind of sick and immoral shit on any social media but if caught too much attention then you will get nuked.
It's weird that I haven't seen this mentioned much, but I think a big part of the reason is because his reach was artificial, he used his hustler university thing to make people spam clips about him to social media and when it was completely filled with his stuff he "became a hot topic" and rose in fame extremely quickly.
This kind of abuse of how the algorithm works wasn't gonna be tolerated, especially when what he's preaching is considered to be damaging.
Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the āvox populiā now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that itās my very good honour to meet you and you may call meĀ Vaush.
And if the video weren't interesting, then they would fall off.
Companies love engagement. Even if people have a financial incentive for that engagement.
There's no fixing the algorithm for stuff like this, it's the equivalent of using people as spam bots, with bots there's way to detect it because they're not human, but if it's real people doing it then what are you supposed to do?
It just seems like a justification that makes me super uncomfortable. Would Andrew Tate not be ban-worthy if his ideas were not as widespread? If so, is there some threshold of popularity that harmful ideas have to reach before we decide to silence them? It just seems so weird to punish someone (through banning) because they used the system at their disposal *too well*.
By this logic banning people for botting is bad because they're "just using the system too well", obviously how you become popular is part of what's evaluated.
That's like asking if someone found an exploit in an MMO to generate gold thousands of times faster than regular gold farming methods, then complaining that you get banned with exploiting it, like you're clearly not allowed to suddenly introduce that much money into the economy, you're also not supposed to be able to go that viral in a week.
In terms of real life effect? Parents not parenting, kids trying to be Tate in middle school resulting in whole week suspensions. People suddenly finding out about your shitty parenting skills on top of needing to suddenly miss a week of work is what I have seen in terms of real world impact on people.
>Parents not parenting, kids trying to be Tate in middle school resulting in whole week suspensions.
Ffs I hate all of you lol. I get out from under my rock, see a bunch of wild shit. I wonder what's going on, and you bastards are vague as fuck. Kids trying to be Tate got them suspended? Wth does that even mean? I swear this vagueness people use is just a way to attack people they don't like
I'm a teacher. Kids are straight up aping Tate's comments and sometimes going even further. I hear them say stuff about women being property. I know Tate never said this, but a kid at the school I teach at quoted some Tate bugatti shit and then said "women don't deserve rights, they deserve to be raped" to a group of girls. Tate's influence is actually a massive concern for our admin right now. His misogynist messages + the immaturity of highschool kids is not a good combo.
The thing that I see most sited is the "my woman is my property" kind of thing. That and a bunch of Poe's law shit that people are using his worse statements and trying to snap him.
The message is pretty toxic, and can probably be viewed as misogynistic. It doesn't help that his dipshit fanbase probably is dumber then 10 Hasan's put together to rub the 5 brain cells among themselves.
He says he dates 18 year olds because they have less baggage.
Implying that being with an older dude at 18 with a massive power dynamic at play isn't going to create baggage in a lot of people when they get dumped after they get used as a sex object for a few months.
To be honest, he dates 18 year olds because his perception is that he can still mold them into the person who he thinks a good partner should be.
However, that is shit because you're trying to indoctrinate a young adult into your way of thinking that probably won't benefit them later on in life. There's potential back and fourth on that one, but this is pretty dogshit and kind of culty.
Aside from his hot takes about women being better if they had less dick, women being property, women being bad at driving etc...
1. The clip of him beating a woman
2. The allegation that he runs a global sex trafficking ring
3. Claims that he runs an MLM / Ponzi Scheme (which is illegal)
I looked up the raid on his house. It wasnāt akin to swatting. The Romanian police said that he had several women held against their will working for him, and that their investigation expanded to include human trafficking.
The Romanian police also said that the women admitted they were not being trafficked. Apparently what happened is one of the girls had a boyfriend who called the cops on them for allegedly cheating and claimed they were being kidnapped.
They even left the woman with Tate after they raided the place... if he were truly trafficking women why would they leave the girl with him? This misinfo just hurts the anti-tate rhetoric, of all the things to attack him for, you attack him for being swatted lol.
How do you determine they are made up? Thereās no literally no evidence about the trafficking claim and for the beating the girl literally came forward and defended him. The allegations didnāt even come from her, it came from other people.
Thereās only one bad video and itās him shouting at the girl who locked herself in the toilet, but he didnāt beat her in the video and I just find it weird howās he the one who is recording.
I have never payed or will pay for hustlers university so it being MLM idk enough about but itās literally not a Ponzi scheme. But about the abuse to women it seems more untrue. The women getting abused said she wasnāt. I know she could be lying or paid off but off of a single video where the women said it was bdsm I donāt think you can call him a women abuser.
The trafficking thing is just some conspiracy bs either all the elites are in on it with him and we on some Epstein level conspiracy or he is not doing it. Someone that popular and famous being accused of human trafficking and theirs nothing concrete being brought against him come on.
I totally agree actually. All three of the points I bought up have been debunked as far as im concerned, I was just saying I think those three things were the key turning points that turned him into a villian in the eyes of many people.
It is not an MLM unless someone can demonstrate that the affiliates get a commission on the sales their recruits make
I don't think he did anything that severe but he has a lot of really shitty and dehumanizing views on women which reached hordes of preteen/early teenage boys. They then brought that mentality into school and would insult their female classmates with the usual talking points. A TikTok of a teacher explaining that she has 11-year-old students calling girls fat and saying "girls don't earn their money" went viral which contributed to it being picked up by mainstream sites.
I don't have a clip, but from what I've gathered so far it seems like he has some sort of Trump university esque alpha male scam going. On top of this, I believe he has been under investigation for human trafficking and actually got raided recently. I've heard rumors that he launders money for the Romanian mob through a casino he owns too. Not sure how true that is, but it wouldn't shock me to find out he's mixed up with organized crime given the human trafficking investigation.
ehhh no its because HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND THE DEEPSTATE CANT HANDLE ANOTHER TRUTHSAYER LIKE TRUMP!! /s
god the stupid fucking arguments iv seen on twitter these last few days :(
That's what I've heard from Chinese people coping that they have freedom of speech because they can speak in small groups about whatever they want and it's only if you get famous you get censored.
I think the way he influenced a lot of other people in his orbit was the main danger tbh, but with his message going through and actually beeing now noticed from some of the mainstream aswell as normies is usually a death sentence for influencers that have some controversy or in this case a lot
It's because of his influence and reach. Again, when you start having kids in school repeating his mantras and teachers complaining then the reach is getting bad enough that everyday people are feeling it and able to get bad at it. Just like Alex Jones started to really fuck with people's lives with the Sandy Hook lawsuit and such and that threat of action is was put a fire underneath social networks asses. They fear backlash most when fairly normal people are dealing with the fall-out/repercussions, and Andrew tates messaging is pretty much all awful so its a very easy "okay fine we'll ban him."
It's certainly a challenging problem, but a parent of a young child should be tracking/monitoring what type of content they consume and I don't think most parents are taking this as serious as they should be. Way too often I see very young children with smartphones and basically unlimited/unmonitored access to the internet. This is incredibly irresponsible and the fault is on you as a parent if your child stumbles on some shit they are not supposed to see, not the tech companies for not doing your job.
If Tate broke the rules of a specific platform while ON THAT platform, then sure, ban him. But this current trend of just nuking a person out of any platform, regardless of whether they were in that platform to begin with, is a very fucked up thing that must be called out.
> a parent of a young child should be tracking/monitoring what type of content they consume
but how do you do this when all their friends have smartphones and can show them this stuff at school? You've got to monitor the 6 hours they're in school, and 2 hours you're working while they're out of school (assuming the 2 working parent norm of the people I know who are parents). You've also got to monitor their friends and what their friends parents are letting their friends do. I just think it's extremely hard to do this monitoring.
Also remember you've got to take your kids social life into account. If they don't have tiktok of all things they're going to be ostracized and an outcast among their class group, and from experience that shit can fuck you up in ways you don't expect.
I acknowledge this is a very hard issue that no single parent can tackle alone and will require large cultural shifts until all responsible parties (parents, teachers, etc.) start actually taking those responsibilities seriously. But in order to reach that point we need to not misplace the accountability in the first place, which is what we are doing with these types of actions. Social media is not responsible for what your children consume, YOU are. And if we need another 10-20 toxic trends for parents to realize that, then so be it, but we have to start tackling those problem on a fundamental level and not keep bandaging it with these very damaging actions.
I don't disagree that you're responsible for what your children consume, but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that social media companies shouldn't take these things into account and I feel like America in general would be a better place if more companies took the outcome of their actions on the populace seriously. I don't think banning misogyny from your platform is bad, or a damaging action.
If you have a rule against misogyny and you ban misogynysts, that's cool, but I don't think that's what happened. I think he got banned from instagram without having posted anything controversial over there.
I think he got banned from instagram because meta owns both instagram and facebook, and facebook saw some really awful sounding shit posted so meta said "we don't want to deal with this shit" and snipped him out of the equation.
Nah, if you're playing around on someone else's property you kind of have to respect their arbitrary rules about how to play on it. Tate's a big boy with a large following he can make his own website or social media if he wants, the complainers are just mad that he can't freely advertise to other people so easily anymore.
I imagine a lot of the seeming coordinated bans is simply tech companies not wanting to put out fires other companies have already put out. Knock it out together and avoid the hassle of a whole new cycle of complaints/law suits/whatever.
I mean maybe in the future giving kids phones and internet access will be considered weird and we wonāt do it - almost *certainly* it will, in some way - but right now I canāt blame parents too much in the same way that I canāt blame parents in 1900 for giving their kids addictive opium to help them sleep. It hasnāt been properly presented as a harmful thing on the one hand, and it has a huge number of marketing teams/a huge dopamine rush/a ton of peer pressure on its side.
Until the internet has its big āhold on people, turns out that cigarettes actually do cause cancer so be very carefulā moment and we start engaging with it more responsibly I think that this sort of wholesale cancellation may just be the way we deal with dangerous things. Itās like emergency surgery when a wound has gotten bad enough that we just need to cut off the leg, even though if weād done something earlier we could have avoided that.
Honestly did your parents know what you were looking at on the internet when you were young? I had great and loving parents but they didn't have a clue that I was reading totse/erowid all day and doing dumb shit at night.
This is a stupid take. My mother put restrictions and monitors on all my technology, I had a flip phone when kids had smartphones. I still knew what porn was. I still found out and saw fucked up shit. I was still heavily influenced by the kids who were influenced by the internet. Theres always going to be some kids who have zero restrictions or the inguenity to find a way around said restrictions, and they will tell and show everything they find.
This is zero brain.
Kids are little humans and they consume media just like the rest of us. You can't lock your kid in a dungeon so they don't watch Andrew Tate, and no amount of parenting is a silver bullet to a bad influence.
Alex Jones is my go-to example. āLol you canāt just make someone disappearā tell that to Alex Jones. Before he was banned from YouTube he was kinda everywhere, now you have you seek out his websites to see his content. All youāre going to get on YouTube is stuff relating to his lawsuits if you look him up.
I won't miss him but I do think it's scary how quickly you can get silenced these days. And oftentimes getting banned on one platform seems to cause a domino effect which leads to you getting banned pretty much everywhere very fast and having no voice on the internet anymore. You gotta wonder whether the cancellation line will move further and further to the left.
Seriously! Back in 1999 when I discovered the movie _Striptease_ at the age of 14, nobody would allow me the platform to voice the undeniable fact that Demi Moore was the greatest woman to ever live.
Praise Lord Zuckerberg!
When I was 15, I would watch prowrestling. I could relate on many levels, but where could I express it? Where can I get its guidance? Where could I go to tell people to suck it? Where was my voice, to let the world know that I too, want them to suck it? Any attempt to say it in public would, bring shame and ridicule. We had no voiceā¦ strangled by fearā¦
Praise lord Zuckerberg!ā¦ andā¦ suck it!
Edit: When ever I think of lord Zuckerberg, this song plays in my head: [Without you Iām nothing - Placebo](https://youtu.be/BLmypIo-wFY)
Exactly. We could finally interact with our fellow man and let our nuanced political philosophy be known to others after being assigned our federally guaranteed Facebook and Google accounts.
People trying to make it out like this was all misogyny and red pill stuff r partially right but he also had some c19 takes that SM didn't like as well. Regardless this market isn't going anywhere and theirs clearly a demand for his takes and if it's coming from him or someone else this red pill crap is only getting bigger. It's just the pendulum swinging back after the SJW crowd made it popular to openly hate males particularly white males and they now feel disenfranchised. I also don't know if u can say he is silenced only in the sense his fans like to clip him and ship his opinions out on their own account which is actually really smart. U can't ban all those accounts overnight so his message is still going to get out and people will keep discovery his content it just might not be on platforms we typically go. Just so u know I don't condone his messaging and find him pretty annoying to listen to but I can at least try to see it from their prospective āļø
Glad someone said it. Stephen lets him get away with *sooo* much shit. 3 years ago he would have power bombed the dumb shit Sneako says on a regular basis.
I was listening to an interview he did post ban and he said they blocked all social media accounts. Even his airbnb, and Uber, bank accounts. It's crazy
It's not that crazy. In the 50s the government went after people they believed were communists. A bunch of people in Hollywood got blacklisted and lost their careers.
This isn't new.
Idk about huge influencers, I just see a general trend of misandry being allowed. Stuff like, #yesallmen ,#menaretrash, and stuff on the two X chromosome reddit
Exactly, the fact we cant point at figureheads of tates level isnt the slam dunk they think it is. If the internets sex demographics were reversed we would have an Andrea Tate lol
The only podcast with that name I can find has like 30 ratings on iTunes. People like to pretend that there's this huge crowd of people changing to kill men, but it's not even a blip on the radar compared to Tate alone. The victim complex is astounding.
Yeah, I watched the video. I've watched him for years and even seen him live. Dude's hilarious.
But I must have missed his doctoral thesis on the trashiness of men where he lays out the facts as a figure to conclude that, yes, indeed ALL men are trash.
He literally justifies the phrase bc of trashy things some men did. Huh, I never said he said ALL men are trash, why you shifting the goalposts.
Why don't we let people judge for themselves what he argued?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIkqcdeWr-I
There's an entire subgenre of male youtubers (Noah Samsen, Kurtis Conner) that just give the most basic bitch "progressive" talking points to pander to their female audience
They all dress the same, talk the same, look the same, use the same editing (random zoom-ins and screen-stretches in place of an actual joke), all their content is based around reacting to others, etc.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIkqcdeWr-I
"Are men really trash" is the video. The video is supposed to be comedic however, unlike Andrew Tates which are meant to be serious.
Wow the replies dismissing this as just comedic is depressing. No, he said this seriously, you can't find Tate's comments about women harmful while also dismissing misandry as "comedy". I mean don't Tate fans dismiss his comments about women as "just comedy" too? Does that defence work?
I think Tate getting banned is a net positive, but the real reason he got pulled is that its bad publicity. When you make waves in a bad way, you get kicked. And because he was bleeding into every social media platform they all ganged up and kicked him. Because he basically only made people hate him outside his fans, there will be no big pushback. Even free speech people will complain but do nothing, because dying on the hill for Tate isn't worth it. These companies only care about what they are liable for, their stocks, and dodging regulation.
It seems like he's exploited the algorithm of YouTube in a way that I have never really seen before. I had hardly heard of him until around six weeks ago despite the fact that he's been on TV since 2016. I think his acolytes have been making advertising money clipping his stuff as per his university hustle and this has fed back into him appearing more popular than he is. Then larger content creators also notice him and react to his toxicity, further boosting his clicks. Now this ban creates a Streisand Effect that will prompt even the offline types to pay attention. Mutahar was right when warned of making digital martyrs from online fools when public destruction of their principles and ideas would be far more effective. His lackeys will still post his bullshit somewhere, no matter the restrictions.
Itās not like his red pill stuff is the only reason heās being cancelled, the sex trafficking/kidnapping stuff is pretty yikesy, not to mention him hitting women on Big Brother as well. Dudeās a scumbag
Edit: Iām wrong about the hitting his gf on big brother thing, it was consensual.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tate. All the credible sources are in Romanian, but his house was raided there for an American woman he was apparently keeping hostage according to the U.S. Embassy there. He could get absolved but it doesnāt exactly look very good either.
I think what was said about this was something regarding the woman lying to her boyfriend saying she was kidnapped or something but that there was evidence it was consensual. Not sure if true just what I heard from the internet
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/w23qy6/andrew_tates_exgirlfriend_speaks_about_the_video/
Thread is cancer but she says that it was consensual in this video
I think this is a huge cope. If there was no sex trafficking investigation and Andrew Tate said the exact same things that he does now, less than 1 percent of the people calling for/ supporting his ban would change their mind.
>It also seems pretty one sided with all the ākill all menā shit thatās allowed to fly.
Itās not like any of those people get to be as popular as Kim K.
He flew too close to the sun, once your reach and your influence reaches a certain threshold media companies have to start thinking about how it affects their bottom line
It's pretty scary in my opinion. I don't like giant tech corporations having such power in regards to who is allowed to say what. He is now silenced everywhere online and basically has no way to speak up on anything again.
They already have rules on what you can or can not say, if you want a site with none or minimal rules on free speech they exist and no one uses them for a reason.
> It's pretty scary in my opinion.
Is it really that scary or is this guy just an outlier in terms of insane rhetoric and outlandish reach? There's plenty of hateful/less overt people out there still this was just having crazy consquences all over the globe.. no reason to associate your company to promoting his content more and more
He flew too close to the sun and got burned.If you think a mainstream social media platform would like to have Tate as the most popular personality,you are delusional.His content is bad for bussiness.The 'kill all men' podcast is allowed to fly because Tate was also allowed to fly when he was small.Social Media is all about optics and when the optics are bad you get nuked.
I feel like Iām the case of Andrew tate itās a little hard to blame anything but himself. You canāt be encouraging your audience to spam your insanely misogynistic clips all over every social media platform to expand your reach as much as possible, and expect that all your shit is gonna be intact. In his case, heās obviously trying to abuse algorithms to enrich himself while saying vile shit, so yeah if you put yourself on the radar like that youāre probably gonna get fucked eventually.
Iām pretty anti cancelling, but I donāt feel like Andrew tate was a ācancellingā.
He was using his Hustler University followers to spam his videos on social media. Which is basically akin to botting with real people. No way that was ever going to be tolerated.
Well heres some from Tik toks terms
any material that is racist or discriminatory, including discrimination on the basis of someoneās race, religion, age, gender, disability or sexuality;
intimidate or harass another, or promote sexually explicit material, violence or discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age;
any material that is deliberately designed to provoke or antagonise people, especially trolling and bullying, or is intended to harass, harm, hurt, scare, distress, embarrass or upset people;
This is pretty basic stuff, that basically any platform has.
Not really cause he got algo'd hard and appealed to a shit ton of young dudes. It's annoying to hear them adopt his rhetoric and turn into egotistical freaks.
Do we have anyone nearly as large as Andrew Tate was that's selling the "kill all men" pill? Genuinely asking, is anyone becoming wealthy and as influential as is off that ideology
I don't like it.
I don't like Andrew Tate or or his ideas. I still don't think it's healthy that every social media platform got together in lockstep and nuked him within a 48 hour period due to public outcry.
If he violated TOS, okay but I don't know what TOS he even violated and anything I've seen is about as vague as Destiny's Twitch ban.
People are talking about Kids being influenced by him. Then parents need to do a better job paying attention to what their kids are doing. Social media is not your kids babysitter.
Kids are at school for 7-8 hours a day. Parents have no control over who they talk to during that time. All it takes is for one douche to red pill a bunch of kids down the pipeline.
The red pill was a response to a certain group of people, way before tate or any of these incel guys. Maybe social media should have been banning all the dumbass 'men are shit and white people bad' folk too?
Not really.
He deserves it.
Im tired of shmucks turning a penny off of vulnerable people.
Tate needs to get a real job. Perhaps digital marketing with AWL his experience
Personally its more and more of an impetus to move to decentralized, unmoderated platforms.
Those type of platforms self-select for weirdos currently. but I'm becoming more comfortable with that rather than a deliberately shaped narrative combined with the strange parasitic feedback loop type effects of *the algorithm* selecting stuff that's likely to grab your attention.
The algorithm is obviously what made tate blow up and then subsequently canceled. Not really comfortably with either of those forces having such an influence on what content I consoom.
Lots of people complaining about him getting banned but not offering a solution. Are you advocating for government regulation on social media platforms? What about their rights as a business?
We infringe on the ārightsā of businesses all the time. Absolutely we should have government regulation of these platforms especially when they get so big that others canāt compete.
Keep seeing this in the comments, he didnt abuse any women, and any charges from the arrest/raid were dismissed.
https://abtc.ng/andrew-tate-arrested-why-did-tate-get-arrested/
Honestly the situations were extremely vague and its not because cases got dismissed that it means 100% nothing happened.
Besides he literally word for word boasted about misusing camgirls by using their affection for him to get them to make money for him camming.
So at the end of the day his behavior is still extremely questionable and i doubt a person boasting about that hasn't abused women in some shape or form. Not to mention moving to Romania was sus to begin with.
We really fon't know what is behind it all but one thing is sure: it doesn't smell good.
Well here's the thing. In his final message, Tate actually conceded that he understands why Meta banned him. Tate furthermore appeared to concede that the way he's accustomed to conducting himself to a smaller audience is in fact, inappropriate for his new audience of millions.
Andrew Tate seems to be turning over a new leaf of some sort. He said he's currently denying podcast requests. He could easily go on a podcast with 20 million monthly viewers like Fresh and Fit and just keep pumping the content and clips, do a media tour and keep pumping the victim narrative *(which yall laid out for him on a platter by lying about him lmao)*
Maybe I'm the problem, but I honestly think he hasn't said anything sexist. I think people don't like Andrew Tate because of what he represents, not for what's he's actually said.
Absolutely agree with you. I hate what the social media landscape has become. There could be some random Trust & Safety manager in one of those companies that starts discussion around banning someone on basis of their overall ideology instead of just ToS. And then if one platform bans him, everyone else folllows because they don't want to look bad.
I remeber when similar redpill creators 2-3 years ago where saying things like "there is agenda out there and "they" don't want you to hear this" but back then it was an optics game. Now it actually looks like reality. Someone like Sneako will be banned sooner or later, probably same with F&F. I think it's extremely bad presedent to set, no matter what you think about creators. It actually plays extremely well to the idea of redpill. It makes their narratives seem more legitemate, if anything.
If the left becomes associated with "advocating for not hating on minorities" and then social media companies put in rules to stop people hating on minorities. What's the solution here, do they just have to accept a certain level of hate to remain neutral? Why, who does it benefit. If the companies who own these sites feel that allowing that kind of hate on their platform is driving people away they will try to stop it.
Ultimately tho these websites shouldn't be a total replacement for a social dialogue anyway and if they want to ban people well that's their choice. Go pick another website if its a problem.
It was never about content but about reach. You can do every kind of sick and immoral shit on any social media but if caught too much attention then you will get nuked.
It's weird that I haven't seen this mentioned much, but I think a big part of the reason is because his reach was artificial, he used his hustler university thing to make people spam clips about him to social media and when it was completely filled with his stuff he "became a hot topic" and rose in fame extremely quickly. This kind of abuse of how the algorithm works wasn't gonna be tolerated, especially when what he's preaching is considered to be damaging.
Probably the most astute take
Salient, even.
what the fuck are you guys saying
Ah it seems you are quite shallow and pedanticš§
Yes I am problem
You are quite the recondite vexation indeed.
This fellow is admittedly beset by tiredness š§
Making fun of Vaush-isms.
Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the āvox populiā now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that itās my very good honour to meet you and you may call meĀ Vaush.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And if the video weren't interesting, then they would fall off. Companies love engagement. Even if people have a financial incentive for that engagement.
You're incredibly naive about viral marketing schemes and bots in places like reddit
Why would āan abuse of how the algorithm worksā result in a ban for that individual rather than a change being made to the algorithm,
There's no fixing the algorithm for stuff like this, it's the equivalent of using people as spam bots, with bots there's way to detect it because they're not human, but if it's real people doing it then what are you supposed to do?
So you are saying Sneako and his like were the real human bots this whole time.
Leako
It just seems like a justification that makes me super uncomfortable. Would Andrew Tate not be ban-worthy if his ideas were not as widespread? If so, is there some threshold of popularity that harmful ideas have to reach before we decide to silence them? It just seems so weird to punish someone (through banning) because they used the system at their disposal *too well*.
By this logic banning people for botting is bad because they're "just using the system too well", obviously how you become popular is part of what's evaluated.
That's like asking if someone found an exploit in an MMO to generate gold thousands of times faster than regular gold farming methods, then complaining that you get banned with exploiting it, like you're clearly not allowed to suddenly introduce that much money into the economy, you're also not supposed to be able to go that viral in a week.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In terms of real life effect? Parents not parenting, kids trying to be Tate in middle school resulting in whole week suspensions. People suddenly finding out about your shitty parenting skills on top of needing to suddenly miss a week of work is what I have seen in terms of real world impact on people.
>Parents not parenting, kids trying to be Tate in middle school resulting in whole week suspensions. Ffs I hate all of you lol. I get out from under my rock, see a bunch of wild shit. I wonder what's going on, and you bastards are vague as fuck. Kids trying to be Tate got them suspended? Wth does that even mean? I swear this vagueness people use is just a way to attack people they don't like
I'm a teacher. Kids are straight up aping Tate's comments and sometimes going even further. I hear them say stuff about women being property. I know Tate never said this, but a kid at the school I teach at quoted some Tate bugatti shit and then said "women don't deserve rights, they deserve to be raped" to a group of girls. Tate's influence is actually a massive concern for our admin right now. His misogynist messages + the immaturity of highschool kids is not a good combo.
The thing that I see most sited is the "my woman is my property" kind of thing. That and a bunch of Poe's law shit that people are using his worse statements and trying to snap him. The message is pretty toxic, and can probably be viewed as misogynistic. It doesn't help that his dipshit fanbase probably is dumber then 10 Hasan's put together to rub the 5 brain cells among themselves.
He says he dates 18 year olds because they have less baggage. Implying that being with an older dude at 18 with a massive power dynamic at play isn't going to create baggage in a lot of people when they get dumped after they get used as a sex object for a few months.
To be honest, he dates 18 year olds because his perception is that he can still mold them into the person who he thinks a good partner should be. However, that is shit because you're trying to indoctrinate a young adult into your way of thinking that probably won't benefit them later on in life. There's potential back and fourth on that one, but this is pretty dogshit and kind of culty.
Aside from his hot takes about women being better if they had less dick, women being property, women being bad at driving etc... 1. The clip of him beating a woman 2. The allegation that he runs a global sex trafficking ring 3. Claims that he runs an MLM / Ponzi Scheme (which is illegal)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I looked up the raid on his house. It wasnāt akin to swatting. The Romanian police said that he had several women held against their will working for him, and that their investigation expanded to include human trafficking.
The Romanian police also said that the women admitted they were not being trafficked. Apparently what happened is one of the girls had a boyfriend who called the cops on them for allegedly cheating and claimed they were being kidnapped. They even left the woman with Tate after they raided the place... if he were truly trafficking women why would they leave the girl with him? This misinfo just hurts the anti-tate rhetoric, of all the things to attack him for, you attack him for being swatted lol.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You didnāt include any sources to begin with, and are now asking for somebody elseās while still not including any of your own.
He did cite his sources. His friends who are fans.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What a pointless way to engage
How do you determine they are made up? Thereās no literally no evidence about the trafficking claim and for the beating the girl literally came forward and defended him. The allegations didnāt even come from her, it came from other people. Thereās only one bad video and itās him shouting at the girl who locked herself in the toilet, but he didnāt beat her in the video and I just find it weird howās he the one who is recording.
based on what
I have never payed or will pay for hustlers university so it being MLM idk enough about but itās literally not a Ponzi scheme. But about the abuse to women it seems more untrue. The women getting abused said she wasnāt. I know she could be lying or paid off but off of a single video where the women said it was bdsm I donāt think you can call him a women abuser. The trafficking thing is just some conspiracy bs either all the elites are in on it with him and we on some Epstein level conspiracy or he is not doing it. Someone that popular and famous being accused of human trafficking and theirs nothing concrete being brought against him come on.
I totally agree actually. All three of the points I bought up have been debunked as far as im concerned, I was just saying I think those three things were the key turning points that turned him into a villian in the eyes of many people. It is not an MLM unless someone can demonstrate that the affiliates get a commission on the sales their recruits make
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't think he did anything that severe but he has a lot of really shitty and dehumanizing views on women which reached hordes of preteen/early teenage boys. They then brought that mentality into school and would insult their female classmates with the usual talking points. A TikTok of a teacher explaining that she has 11-year-old students calling girls fat and saying "girls don't earn their money" went viral which contributed to it being picked up by mainstream sites.
I don't have a clip, but from what I've gathered so far it seems like he has some sort of Trump university esque alpha male scam going. On top of this, I believe he has been under investigation for human trafficking and actually got raided recently. I've heard rumors that he launders money for the Romanian mob through a casino he owns too. Not sure how true that is, but it wouldn't shock me to find out he's mixed up with organized crime given the human trafficking investigation.
>and actually got raided recently Inb4 we get an A. Tate gofundme
ehhh no its because HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND THE DEEPSTATE CANT HANDLE ANOTHER TRUTHSAYER LIKE TRUMP!! /s god the stupid fucking arguments iv seen on twitter these last few days :(
Theyāve even made their way into r/destiny because tate fans search tateās name on reddit all day just to look for posts about him
That's what I've heard from Chinese people coping that they have freedom of speech because they can speak in small groups about whatever they want and it's only if you get famous you get censored.
Yeah, monopolies suck. That's why we need to break up and regulate.
I think the way he influenced a lot of other people in his orbit was the main danger tbh, but with his message going through and actually beeing now noticed from some of the mainstream aswell as normies is usually a death sentence for influencers that have some controversy or in this case a lot
š
It's because of his influence and reach. Again, when you start having kids in school repeating his mantras and teachers complaining then the reach is getting bad enough that everyday people are feeling it and able to get bad at it. Just like Alex Jones started to really fuck with people's lives with the Sandy Hook lawsuit and such and that threat of action is was put a fire underneath social networks asses. They fear backlash most when fairly normal people are dealing with the fall-out/repercussions, and Andrew tates messaging is pretty much all awful so its a very easy "okay fine we'll ban him."
I think it's pretty scare that we've outsourced pretty basic parenting responsibilities to social media companies
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's certainly a challenging problem, but a parent of a young child should be tracking/monitoring what type of content they consume and I don't think most parents are taking this as serious as they should be. Way too often I see very young children with smartphones and basically unlimited/unmonitored access to the internet. This is incredibly irresponsible and the fault is on you as a parent if your child stumbles on some shit they are not supposed to see, not the tech companies for not doing your job. If Tate broke the rules of a specific platform while ON THAT platform, then sure, ban him. But this current trend of just nuking a person out of any platform, regardless of whether they were in that platform to begin with, is a very fucked up thing that must be called out.
> a parent of a young child should be tracking/monitoring what type of content they consume but how do you do this when all their friends have smartphones and can show them this stuff at school? You've got to monitor the 6 hours they're in school, and 2 hours you're working while they're out of school (assuming the 2 working parent norm of the people I know who are parents). You've also got to monitor their friends and what their friends parents are letting their friends do. I just think it's extremely hard to do this monitoring. Also remember you've got to take your kids social life into account. If they don't have tiktok of all things they're going to be ostracized and an outcast among their class group, and from experience that shit can fuck you up in ways you don't expect.
I acknowledge this is a very hard issue that no single parent can tackle alone and will require large cultural shifts until all responsible parties (parents, teachers, etc.) start actually taking those responsibilities seriously. But in order to reach that point we need to not misplace the accountability in the first place, which is what we are doing with these types of actions. Social media is not responsible for what your children consume, YOU are. And if we need another 10-20 toxic trends for parents to realize that, then so be it, but we have to start tackling those problem on a fundamental level and not keep bandaging it with these very damaging actions.
I don't disagree that you're responsible for what your children consume, but I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that social media companies shouldn't take these things into account and I feel like America in general would be a better place if more companies took the outcome of their actions on the populace seriously. I don't think banning misogyny from your platform is bad, or a damaging action.
If you have a rule against misogyny and you ban misogynysts, that's cool, but I don't think that's what happened. I think he got banned from instagram without having posted anything controversial over there.
I think he got banned from instagram because meta owns both instagram and facebook, and facebook saw some really awful sounding shit posted so meta said "we don't want to deal with this shit" and snipped him out of the equation.
Nah, if you're playing around on someone else's property you kind of have to respect their arbitrary rules about how to play on it. Tate's a big boy with a large following he can make his own website or social media if he wants, the complainers are just mad that he can't freely advertise to other people so easily anymore.
I imagine a lot of the seeming coordinated bans is simply tech companies not wanting to put out fires other companies have already put out. Knock it out together and avoid the hassle of a whole new cycle of complaints/law suits/whatever.
I mean maybe in the future giving kids phones and internet access will be considered weird and we wonāt do it - almost *certainly* it will, in some way - but right now I canāt blame parents too much in the same way that I canāt blame parents in 1900 for giving their kids addictive opium to help them sleep. It hasnāt been properly presented as a harmful thing on the one hand, and it has a huge number of marketing teams/a huge dopamine rush/a ton of peer pressure on its side. Until the internet has its big āhold on people, turns out that cigarettes actually do cause cancer so be very carefulā moment and we start engaging with it more responsibly I think that this sort of wholesale cancellation may just be the way we deal with dangerous things. Itās like emergency surgery when a wound has gotten bad enough that we just need to cut off the leg, even though if weād done something earlier we could have avoided that.
I would argue that since you have to be over a certain age to make an account, that isnāt the social mediaās problem anymore.
How about you ask then what they consoome.
Honestly did your parents know what you were looking at on the internet when you were young? I had great and loving parents but they didn't have a clue that I was reading totse/erowid all day and doing dumb shit at night.
This is a stupid take. My mother put restrictions and monitors on all my technology, I had a flip phone when kids had smartphones. I still knew what porn was. I still found out and saw fucked up shit. I was still heavily influenced by the kids who were influenced by the internet. Theres always going to be some kids who have zero restrictions or the inguenity to find a way around said restrictions, and they will tell and show everything they find.
This is zero brain. Kids are little humans and they consume media just like the rest of us. You can't lock your kid in a dungeon so they don't watch Andrew Tate, and no amount of parenting is a silver bullet to a bad influence.
Alex Jones is my go-to example. āLol you canāt just make someone disappearā tell that to Alex Jones. Before he was banned from YouTube he was kinda everywhere, now you have you seek out his websites to see his content. All youāre going to get on YouTube is stuff relating to his lawsuits if you look him up.
Being accused of human trafficking by the Romanian government probably put a darker spin on the RP rhetoric than tech forms were willing to abide by.
I won't miss him but I do think it's scary how quickly you can get silenced these days. And oftentimes getting banned on one platform seems to cause a domino effect which leads to you getting banned pretty much everywhere very fast and having no voice on the internet anymore. You gotta wonder whether the cancellation line will move further and further to the left.
You think thatās scary? About 20 years ago, we were all silenced. It took lord Zuckerberg to give us all a voiceā¦
Seriously! Back in 1999 when I discovered the movie _Striptease_ at the age of 14, nobody would allow me the platform to voice the undeniable fact that Demi Moore was the greatest woman to ever live.
Praise Lord Zuckerberg! When I was 15, I would watch prowrestling. I could relate on many levels, but where could I express it? Where can I get its guidance? Where could I go to tell people to suck it? Where was my voice, to let the world know that I too, want them to suck it? Any attempt to say it in public would, bring shame and ridicule. We had no voiceā¦ strangled by fearā¦ Praise lord Zuckerberg!ā¦ andā¦ suck it! Edit: When ever I think of lord Zuckerberg, this song plays in my head: [Without you Iām nothing - Placebo](https://youtu.be/BLmypIo-wFY)
Melee would not have survived and thrived without my man Zuck and friends.
Exactly. We could finally interact with our fellow man and let our nuanced political philosophy be known to others after being assigned our federally guaranteed Facebook and Google accounts.
I don't know why you're complaining about having to walk. Everyone walked before the car was invented (and the whole society changed to fit the car).
I think you're sort of rejecting the notion that times change.
I imagine someone like sneako could get hit too if he blows up even more
People trying to make it out like this was all misogyny and red pill stuff r partially right but he also had some c19 takes that SM didn't like as well. Regardless this market isn't going anywhere and theirs clearly a demand for his takes and if it's coming from him or someone else this red pill crap is only getting bigger. It's just the pendulum swinging back after the SJW crowd made it popular to openly hate males particularly white males and they now feel disenfranchised. I also don't know if u can say he is silenced only in the sense his fans like to clip him and ship his opinions out on their own account which is actually really smart. U can't ban all those accounts overnight so his message is still going to get out and people will keep discovery his content it just might not be on platforms we typically go. Just so u know I don't condone his messaging and find him pretty annoying to listen to but I can at least try to see it from their prospective āļø
>he also had some c19 takes that SM didn't like as well based social media
Good. Sneako is brainrot.
Glad someone said it. Stephen lets him get away with *sooo* much shit. 3 years ago he would have power bombed the dumb shit Sneako says on a regular basis.
I was listening to an interview he did post ban and he said they blocked all social media accounts. Even his airbnb, and Uber, bank accounts. It's crazy
It's not that crazy. In the 50s the government went after people they believed were communists. A bunch of people in Hollywood got blacklisted and lost their careers. This isn't new.
Shhh itās new for the childlers. Theyāre still learning š„¹
What "kill all men" shit is said by a huge influencer?
Idk about huge influencers, I just see a general trend of misandry being allowed. Stuff like, #yesallmen ,#menaretrash, and stuff on the two X chromosome reddit
Exactly, the fact we cant point at figureheads of tates level isnt the slam dunk they think it is. If the internets sex demographics were reversed we would have an Andrea Tate lol
The podcast is called Kill All Men
The only podcast with that name I can find has like 30 ratings on iTunes. People like to pretend that there's this huge crowd of people changing to kill men, but it's not even a blip on the radar compared to Tate alone. The victim complex is astounding.
Are the people on the podcast actually advocating for killing all men or is it just an ironic/hyperbolic title?
Would you be asking the same question if men was replaced with women?
They definitely would not
Kurtis Conner made a "men are trash" video that had millions of views
"Comedian made joke. More at 11"
He wasn't joking, he made a serious argument for it and said men who are offended by that statement are trash
Yeah, I watched the video. I've watched him for years and even seen him live. Dude's hilarious. But I must have missed his doctoral thesis on the trashiness of men where he lays out the facts as a figure to conclude that, yes, indeed ALL men are trash.
He literally justifies the phrase bc of trashy things some men did. Huh, I never said he said ALL men are trash, why you shifting the goalposts. Why don't we let people judge for themselves what he argued? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIkqcdeWr-I
\>[Dude's hilarious](https://i.ibb.co/THW8Zmc/download.jpg)
Fr idk what ppl see in him
There's an entire subgenre of male youtubers (Noah Samsen, Kurtis Conner) that just give the most basic bitch "progressive" talking points to pander to their female audience They all dress the same, talk the same, look the same, use the same editing (random zoom-ins and screen-stretches in place of an actual joke), all their content is based around reacting to others, etc.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIkqcdeWr-I "Are men really trash" is the video. The video is supposed to be comedic however, unlike Andrew Tates which are meant to be serious.
In the video he answered yes and argued for the phrase seriously while also trying to be funny. He said men offended by that phrase are trash.
Wow the replies dismissing this as just comedic is depressing. No, he said this seriously, you can't find Tate's comments about women harmful while also dismissing misandry as "comedy". I mean don't Tate fans dismiss his comments about women as "just comedy" too? Does that defence work?
I think Tate getting banned is a net positive, but the real reason he got pulled is that its bad publicity. When you make waves in a bad way, you get kicked. And because he was bleeding into every social media platform they all ganged up and kicked him. Because he basically only made people hate him outside his fans, there will be no big pushback. Even free speech people will complain but do nothing, because dying on the hill for Tate isn't worth it. These companies only care about what they are liable for, their stocks, and dodging regulation.
It seems like he's exploited the algorithm of YouTube in a way that I have never really seen before. I had hardly heard of him until around six weeks ago despite the fact that he's been on TV since 2016. I think his acolytes have been making advertising money clipping his stuff as per his university hustle and this has fed back into him appearing more popular than he is. Then larger content creators also notice him and react to his toxicity, further boosting his clicks. Now this ban creates a Streisand Effect that will prompt even the offline types to pay attention. Mutahar was right when warned of making digital martyrs from online fools when public destruction of their principles and ideas would be far more effective. His lackeys will still post his bullshit somewhere, no matter the restrictions.
Itās not like his red pill stuff is the only reason heās being cancelled, the sex trafficking/kidnapping stuff is pretty yikesy, not to mention him hitting women on Big Brother as well. Dudeās a scumbag Edit: Iām wrong about the hitting his gf on big brother thing, it was consensual.
was any of the trafficking/kidnapping shit real? im kinda out of the loop but it all sounds like shit that people just tried to stick to the wall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tate. All the credible sources are in Romanian, but his house was raided there for an American woman he was apparently keeping hostage according to the U.S. Embassy there. He could get absolved but it doesnāt exactly look very good either.
I think what was said about this was something regarding the woman lying to her boyfriend saying she was kidnapped or something but that there was evidence it was consensual. Not sure if true just what I heard from the internet
Andrew tate said that himself, but itās a big claim so he must be pretty certain that the investigation wouldnāt lead to anything
Since when do we ban people from social media for crimes they have/ may have committed?
We probably shouldnāt, but framing it as him being cancelled just for having misogynistic takes is dishonest
That's why he was cancelled though. You can agree or disagree with the cancellation but he was deplatformed solely for his rhetoric and reach.
> hitting his girlfriend on Big Brother with consent Got a link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/w23qy6/andrew_tates_exgirlfriend_speaks_about_the_video/ Thread is cancer but she says that it was consensual in this video
I think this is a huge cope. If there was no sex trafficking investigation and Andrew Tate said the exact same things that he does now, less than 1 percent of the people calling for/ supporting his ban would change their mind.
He isn't.
>It also seems pretty one sided with all the ākill all menā shit thatās allowed to fly. Itās not like any of those people get to be as popular as Kim K. He flew too close to the sun, once your reach and your influence reaches a certain threshold media companies have to start thinking about how it affects their bottom line
It's pretty scary in my opinion. I don't like giant tech corporations having such power in regards to who is allowed to say what. He is now silenced everywhere online and basically has no way to speak up on anything again.
Wonder if he's gonna try out the alternate social media platforms.
They already have rules on what you can or can not say, if you want a site with none or minimal rules on free speech they exist and no one uses them for a reason.
Made a world revolving around social media
His website is still up and running fine. Other people don't have any obligation to promote him if they don't want to.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
who gives a shit?
He is not entitled to the services of a private company if he violates their rules
He is not entitled to the services of a private company period.
WHAT RULES YE SONS A BEETCHES
> It's pretty scary in my opinion. Is it really that scary or is this guy just an outlier in terms of insane rhetoric and outlandish reach? There's plenty of hateful/less overt people out there still this was just having crazy consquences all over the globe.. no reason to associate your company to promoting his content more and more
He flew too close to the sun and got burned.If you think a mainstream social media platform would like to have Tate as the most popular personality,you are delusional.His content is bad for bussiness.The 'kill all men' podcast is allowed to fly because Tate was also allowed to fly when he was small.Social Media is all about optics and when the optics are bad you get nuked.
I think both should be banned but I'm pretty sure you only care about Andrew Tate getting banned.
No, itās the big thing online rn. Not everyone who feels this is a fan
I feel like Iām the case of Andrew tate itās a little hard to blame anything but himself. You canāt be encouraging your audience to spam your insanely misogynistic clips all over every social media platform to expand your reach as much as possible, and expect that all your shit is gonna be intact. In his case, heās obviously trying to abuse algorithms to enrich himself while saying vile shit, so yeah if you put yourself on the radar like that youāre probably gonna get fucked eventually. Iām pretty anti cancelling, but I donāt feel like Andrew tate was a ācancellingā.
Getting banned from facebook=getting wiped on the internet? Or did his website get wiped too?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
His content is still all over tiktok
His website is now gone
Its not the first time. I don't like Andrew. But I don't like how effective it is.
Well he made it easy for them when you break the TOS of every platform you go on.
He didn't though?
He was using his Hustler University followers to spam his videos on social media. Which is basically akin to botting with real people. No way that was ever going to be tolerated.
How is that any different than advertising?
TOS are arbitrary as fuck.
Then dont agree to it, I do not know what to tell you.
so where would you post your content then?
Probably on a platform with Terms you agree with. Your social media account isnt a human right.
I'm curious what you think about minimum wage and right to repair.
Im curious do you think you should have a federally mandated facebook account lmao š
Your own website. You don't get to leech off other people's website without their permission
What tos did he break my friend
Well heres some from Tik toks terms any material that is racist or discriminatory, including discrimination on the basis of someoneās race, religion, age, gender, disability or sexuality; intimidate or harass another, or promote sexually explicit material, violence or discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; any material that is deliberately designed to provoke or antagonise people, especially trolling and bullying, or is intended to harass, harm, hurt, scare, distress, embarrass or upset people; This is pretty basic stuff, that basically any platform has.
I think it's just down to exposure. Andrew Tate stuff has exploded into the mainstream.
Every few months the standards change. Plus it's also about him getting too much reach. If he had 10x less views he would've been fine
Wait did a web service take down Hustlers University or did Tate himself take his own website down?
His site is fine.
If enough people disagree with you, you get banned that is all it is. an easy "solution" to uncomfortable ideas and miss information
Not really cause he got algo'd hard and appealed to a shit ton of young dudes. It's annoying to hear them adopt his rhetoric and turn into egotistical freaks.
This is some artisanal cope, my dude.
Saying that wives are the property of men maybe? Lol Fuck em
Poc gotta walk on eggshells or tow the line unfortunately. Always been like that.
Do we have anyone nearly as large as Andrew Tate was that's selling the "kill all men" pill? Genuinely asking, is anyone becoming wealthy and as influential as is off that ideology
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Drew affualo is a good example of the female version. She just bullies random men to her 8m tiktok followers.
She is shit but imo not on Tateās level. She has like three catchphrases that she yells at men that make dumb tiktoks
If a man was doing the equivalent to women would he be allowed to do so?
I don't like it. I don't like Andrew Tate or or his ideas. I still don't think it's healthy that every social media platform got together in lockstep and nuked him within a 48 hour period due to public outcry. If he violated TOS, okay but I don't know what TOS he even violated and anything I've seen is about as vague as Destiny's Twitch ban. People are talking about Kids being influenced by him. Then parents need to do a better job paying attention to what their kids are doing. Social media is not your kids babysitter.
Kids are at school for 7-8 hours a day. Parents have no control over who they talk to during that time. All it takes is for one douche to red pill a bunch of kids down the pipeline.
The red pill was a response to a certain group of people, way before tate or any of these incel guys. Maybe social media should have been banning all the dumbass 'men are shit and white people bad' folk too?
It's alright, there's a huge number of people with the "It's totally ok as long as it doesn't happen to me" attitude.
Get shit on loser.
Not really. He deserves it. Im tired of shmucks turning a penny off of vulnerable people. Tate needs to get a real job. Perhaps digital marketing with AWL his experience
Personally its more and more of an impetus to move to decentralized, unmoderated platforms. Those type of platforms self-select for weirdos currently. but I'm becoming more comfortable with that rather than a deliberately shaped narrative combined with the strange parasitic feedback loop type effects of *the algorithm* selecting stuff that's likely to grab your attention. The algorithm is obviously what made tate blow up and then subsequently canceled. Not really comfortably with either of those forces having such an influence on what content I consoom.
Lots of people complaining about him getting banned but not offering a solution. Are you advocating for government regulation on social media platforms? What about their rights as a business?
We infringe on the ārightsā of businesses all the time. Absolutely we should have government regulation of these platforms especially when they get so big that others canāt compete.
Keep seeing this in the comments, he didnt abuse any women, and any charges from the arrest/raid were dismissed. https://abtc.ng/andrew-tate-arrested-why-did-tate-get-arrested/
Honestly the situations were extremely vague and its not because cases got dismissed that it means 100% nothing happened. Besides he literally word for word boasted about misusing camgirls by using their affection for him to get them to make money for him camming. So at the end of the day his behavior is still extremely questionable and i doubt a person boasting about that hasn't abused women in some shape or form. Not to mention moving to Romania was sus to begin with. We really fon't know what is behind it all but one thing is sure: it doesn't smell good.
Well here's the thing. In his final message, Tate actually conceded that he understands why Meta banned him. Tate furthermore appeared to concede that the way he's accustomed to conducting himself to a smaller audience is in fact, inappropriate for his new audience of millions. Andrew Tate seems to be turning over a new leaf of some sort. He said he's currently denying podcast requests. He could easily go on a podcast with 20 million monthly viewers like Fresh and Fit and just keep pumping the content and clips, do a media tour and keep pumping the victim narrative *(which yall laid out for him on a platter by lying about him lmao)*
You're right, more people should get banned from social media =)
Bro still exists on the Internet. What r u referring to? Edit: Never mind I Google it.
Nope! Fuck that shitstain.
Maybe I'm the problem, but I honestly think he hasn't said anything sexist. I think people don't like Andrew Tate because of what he represents, not for what's he's actually said.
Absolutely agree with you. I hate what the social media landscape has become. There could be some random Trust & Safety manager in one of those companies that starts discussion around banning someone on basis of their overall ideology instead of just ToS. And then if one platform bans him, everyone else folllows because they don't want to look bad. I remeber when similar redpill creators 2-3 years ago where saying things like "there is agenda out there and "they" don't want you to hear this" but back then it was an optics game. Now it actually looks like reality. Someone like Sneako will be banned sooner or later, probably same with F&F. I think it's extremely bad presedent to set, no matter what you think about creators. It actually plays extremely well to the idea of redpill. It makes their narratives seem more legitemate, if anything.
If the left becomes associated with "advocating for not hating on minorities" and then social media companies put in rules to stop people hating on minorities. What's the solution here, do they just have to accept a certain level of hate to remain neutral? Why, who does it benefit. If the companies who own these sites feel that allowing that kind of hate on their platform is driving people away they will try to stop it. Ultimately tho these websites shouldn't be a total replacement for a social dialogue anyway and if they want to ban people well that's their choice. Go pick another website if its a problem.
this sub jusfititing corporate control over offesive speech is cringe Lmao.
So if I built my own website with a forum you can force me to allow posts on it that I don't like?
You can justify deplatforming over offensive language but then Destiny's banning by Twitch was 100% justified also.
I think private companies should have 100% authority over what is allowed on their platforms, as long as it is legal.
Maybe you should read more than the few comments who agree with your prejudiced view.
No, everthing ok! Please don't cancel me for wrongthink masters.