First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Should PewDiePie sue the Wall Street Journal...?
8086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / USA
Online
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/17/17
He can joke about whatever he likes but that doesn't mean his sponsors have to stick by him if they don't like it. Did WSJ put some extra spin on it to get attention and clicks? I didn't read the article but I'm sure they did, that's modus operandi now for most news. Could someone have watched the videos and gotten the impression he was anti-semitic? I think so, people interpret things differently.

Free speech and the right to say things doesn't really come into play here. Free speech is protection from the government acting against you for expressing something. He's not being charged, he is losing sponsors who backed him financially because he has a huge following and it would be an advantage for their brand. If public perception of him changes negatively they're not getting any value from backing him anymore, in fact it could hurt their brand so they dropped him. If you're a public figure making money via sponsors and advertisers there are certain lines you have to toe if you want them to stick around.

Personally I'm not sure whether he has anti-semitic sentiments or not but the experiment was in poor taste and he really didn't think it through. He has a large enough following that he'll likely be able to stay afloat and bounce back after this blows over.
1837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Azeroth
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/17/17
Ahh, okay did some "research" now. Yes, this guy is a troll. Yes, the WSJ is technically accurate in its reporting. No, there is no case to be filed against, as such would be frivolous at that.


Furthermore, I don't get why people watch this guy. His stuff is pretty retarded to say the least; else, very hostile towards civilization otherwise. A very "primitive intelligence", as it were. By time he blows through his money, he gonna wish he had finished college.

And Swedish, too. So many problems...
1302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
Disney/Maker and Youtube both have personal conduct clauses in their contracts the video's in question clearly crossed a line in their eyes so he was let go. You can say it was a joke only in his defense but making videos is his job, Disney and Youtube both pay him from ad's etc on his videos. You don't walk into work one day start calling everyone racial slurs or jokes in bad taste then go to HR and say "It was just a joke" and it'll all be alright. You'll be fired on the spot from the job. When it's your job you have to be a professional he crossed a line and was fired simple as that. He's doing fine anyhow if you look at his networth I'm sure he'll have enough to buy and eat as many gas station hot dogs as he wants.
7022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/17/17

octorockandroll wrote:

From what I can see all wsj did was point out publicly available and pertinent information. Are we gonna sue journalists for actually doing their jobs now?


Publicly available sure, but completely edited in such a manner as to not give a single bit of fucking context. In no way was he actually being Anti Semitic. In the video in which they edited their video footage from, he states that the media would take things out of context, saying that if they did all people would see was that. They literally went to a video that was saying the media edits and makes stories completely out of context and put it out of context.
mxdan 
11943 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:

From what I can see all wsj did was point out publicly available and pertinent information. Are we gonna sue journalists for actually doing their jobs now?


No, of course not, but I think it can also be said that they are characterizing felix into something he's not in this article. The article does something that I think the world does as a whole today (that I absolutely hate); Which is find a correlation and make a claim without full knowledge. It's like a large portion of the world no longer operates with a 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality.

We've returned to the salem witch trials. The person who yells the loudest about 'justice' is the one who is right.
47496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

qwueri wrote:

Funny thing, he's perfectly free to joke about whatever he wants without government intervention, up until it incites violence or harm at least. That doesn't make him free from disagreement or companies pulling their endorsements because they don't agree with him, nor is anyone obligated to give him a free platform to say whatever he wants. 'Free speech' is not a right to impose opinions or jokes upon others with no discourse.


I know that companies have the right to choose who they conduct business with or without and that a business doesn't have to host a service for someone to use as a free speech platform if they don't agree with their views regarding certain topics. But what's your point?

Oh and free speech is about having the right to say anything without being censored and if that means you impose someone's beliefs then so be it. But when imposing someones opinion you open yourself up to getting your views challenged by people of other opinions.

"I may disagree with what you say but i will defend your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
28396 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
He lost a sponsor but is gaining more people going to his page every second not sure he is losing anything its all about likes on a page in the end
47496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:

From what I can see all wsj did was point out publicly available and pertinent information. Are we gonna sue journalists for actually doing their jobs now?


You know that wasn't journalism in any form of the word as they edited his videos to make it look like he had opinions he didn't have. All they did was produce something that would bring in clicks and money/subscribers at his cost, that's down right slander. Go watch H3H3''s video about it
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

From what I can see all wsj did was point out publicly available and pertinent information. Are we gonna sue journalists for actually doing their jobs now?


You know that wasn't journalism in any form of the word as they edited his videos to make it look like he had opinions he didn't have. All they did was produce something that would bring in clicks and money/subscribers at his cost, that's down right slander. Go watch H3H3''s video about it


"Journalism: the activity or profession of writing for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or preparing news to be broadcast."

Wrong, what happened is entirely within the definition of journalism. And by the way, using h3h3 to back you up doesn't inspire much confidence from me or most others.
CronoT 
9686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
I'm glad this thread is getting the responses it is. Taking something out of context has been a sore point of debate for longer than most of us have been alive.

My favorite method of pointing out how context can affect everything is a thought experiment from the movie Bambi. Taking in the whole movie, we can see how children can learn to grow up & deal with adversity. Taking just one scene out of context, ie, the one where Bambi's mother is shot & killed by the hunter, could be interpreted as a means of psychological torture of children.
27091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17
You know, the punchline was, "Subscribe to Keemstar", and I find that a hilarious reference to another Youtuber accused of the same thing. I also read the article by WSJ. It is complete garbage.

Anyhoo, what is up with this fucking kangaroo court of political correctness? I do not blame Disney and other advertisers, but none of their drops of support would be possible in a lot of circumstances without the mob of opinion we got going on.

I mean, Disney? Sure, they're are a pretty family friendly company. I can see that as relatively inevitable unless the US is Nazi Germany. Others? Call me skeptical about the claim that they would have dropped Pewdiepie anyway.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

tg14xslayerx wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

From what I can see all wsj did was point out publicly available and pertinent information. Are we gonna sue journalists for actually doing their jobs now?


Publicly available sure, but completely edited in such a manner as to not give a single bit of fucking context. In no way was he actually being Anti Semitic. In the video in which they edited their video footage from, he states that the media would take things out of context, saying that if they did all people would see was that. They literally went to a video that was saying the media edits and makes stories completely out of context and put it out of context.


How does that make it better exactly? Someone did something with the exact purpose of being inflammatory and I should feel bad because people took his purposefully inflammatory stuff in an inflammatory manner? I don't think so. And as I recall it was far from just one video, it was something supported through many examples.

I don't see how WSJ did anything wrong at all here and I really don't feel bad about him losing his contract with Disney seeing as I wouldn't want my children being entertained by anti-semitic "humour" whether the person doing it was an anti-semite or not.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

You know, the punchline was, "Subscribe to Keemstar", and I find that a hilarious reference to another Youtuber accused of the same thing. I also read the article by WSJ. It is complete garbage.

Anyhoo, what is up with this fucking kangaroo court of political correctness? I do not blame Disney and other advertisers, but none of their drops of support would be possible in a lot of circumstances without the mob of opinion we got going on.

I mean, Disney? Sure, they're are a pretty family friendly company. I can see that as relatively inevitable unless the US is Nazi Germany. Others? Call me skeptical about the claim that they would have dropped Pewdiepie anyway.


I would guess by how quickly they did it that they were already considering or possibly even planning to do it. It's not like Pewds makes them all that much money anyway.
27091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

octorockandroll wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

You know, the punchline was, "Subscribe to Keemstar", and I find that a hilarious reference to another Youtuber accused of the same thing. I also read the article by WSJ. It is complete garbage.

Anyhoo, what is up with this fucking kangaroo court of political correctness? I do not blame Disney and other advertisers, but none of their drops of support would be possible in a lot of circumstances without the mob of opinion we got going on.

I mean, Disney? Sure, they're are a pretty family friendly company. I can see that as relatively inevitable unless the US is Nazi Germany. Others? Call me skeptical about the claim that they would have dropped Pewdiepie anyway.


I would guess by how quickly they did it that they were already considering or possibly even planning to do it. It's not like Pewds makes them all that much money anyway.


That is true as well, this deal would have made Pewdiepie perhaps another few million. Of course, an unshattered reputation is better, but I do not blame Disney for being cautious.


I blame everyone else, mainly the mob on social medias and certain media outlets.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 2/16/17 , edited 2/16/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

You know, the punchline was, "Subscribe to Keemstar", and I find that a hilarious reference to another Youtuber accused of the same thing. I also read the article by WSJ. It is complete garbage.

Anyhoo, what is up with this fucking kangaroo court of political correctness? I do not blame Disney and other advertisers, but none of their drops of support would be possible in a lot of circumstances without the mob of opinion we got going on.

I mean, Disney? Sure, they're are a pretty family friendly company. I can see that as relatively inevitable unless the US is Nazi Germany. Others? Call me skeptical about the claim that they would have dropped Pewdiepie anyway.


I would guess by how quickly they did it that they were already considering or possibly even planning to do it. It's not like Pewds makes them all that much money anyway.


That is true as well, this deal would have made Pewdiepie perhaps another few million. Of course, an unshattered reputation is better, but I do not blame Disney for being cautious.


I blame everyone else, mainly the mob on social medias and certain media outlets.


I wouldn't blame anyone but Pewds himself. I believe he said he did this to get a negative reaction and he got it, simple as that.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.