Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Video: Louder Lies with Crowder
Not to be outdone by Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder shares his own misunderstanding of (or intentionally flawed arguments on) net neutrality. However, while Shapiro uses a series of arguments which are demonstrably false on their face, and exposes himself as a bit of an ignoramus to anyone who actually understands the internet, Crowder uses a blend of non-sequiturs and lies by omission. So unless one has dig in beyond the surface, they might actually fall for Crowder’s nonsense, especially if their confirmation bias inclines them so. The YouTuber known as “Scott Hunt” (who also dissected Ben Shapiro’s net neutrality nonsense) did a recent takedown of Crowder. Progressive Voice has also done a few short takedowns. They are worth watching.
Steven Crowder on Net Neutrality: Non Sequiturs and Lies by Omission
One example of Crowder using a non sequitur is where he hypoetchically applies Title II to content providers like YouTube. Content providers are allowed to flag content on their own platforms because it’s their platform that’s being accessed. If YouTube decides that a video uploaded to its own servers is too offensive or violates copyright law, it’s YouTube’s prerogative to remove the video. When you connect to YouTube, you’re doing so with the understanding that you’re accessing content hosted on YouTube. Furthermore, you have the option of using a different website and accessing their content instead.
This is not how it works with ISP’s. You don’t connect to an ISP to access the ISP’s content . You connect through an ISP to connect to someone else’s content (YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, Huff Po, DisInfo Wars, etc). If an ISP decides to curate what you can access then they are deciding whose content you can access, not which of their own content you can access. Furthermore, since the ISP is likely your only high speed pipe to the internet, you don’t have much in the way of market competition.
In an attempt to “address” Comcast’s throttling of Netflix, Crowder claims that this was fixed due to consumer reaction, as people started dropping their plans (in other words “the market solved this like it solves everything!!!!”). Not surprisingly, he provides no source or numbers. However, his sidekick (or whoever this is in the picture below) gleefully states “the market was PISSED!!!!” *I’ve noticed time and again how Libertarians/Conservatives treat the word market as if it has magic powers.
Meanwhile, here are Comcast’s year over year internet subscribers. Finding the effects of “consumer outrage” feels like a game of Where’s Waldo.
Steven Crowder vs Old Man Union Worker
Given Crowder’s history of intentionally misleading his viewers, it’s more likely that he aware that he’s weaving a false narrative as opposed to simply being naively incorrect. To see just how far Crowder will go to do so, we need only look at this instance where he gets into it with an old union worker at a rally, then claimed to have been assaulted by him. He subsequently issues a public challenge to an MMA fight to the elderly gentlemen. However, it becomes clear that his his footage of the incident was edited. When presented from another angle, it seems almost certain that it was Crowder who began the physical scuffle, and then edited the tape to make it look otherwise. TJ Kirk/Amazing Atheist did an expose on this.
In the picture below, Crowder is looking down at the man and holding his hands up as if to prove he didn’t do anything. It’s just after this that the man gets up and throws a haymaker at Crowder. As you can probably guess, Crowder omits this portion of the video and cuts to where the man is throwing the punch. Having watched yet another video of this, and seeing that Crowder actually grabs the old man’s jacket before he ends up bent over with the old man on the ground, I’m 99% sure that Crowder actually Uchimata’d (or performed a similar Judo throw on) the old man.
- You’ll notice fiscal conservative/libertarian types often use the word “market” in a forced and awkward manner in a way you’d never see an actual economist use the word. The reason for this is simple: generally these types don’t actually understand how a market economy works. Their only interest in the concept is to use it as an alternative to any proposed government regulation. Hence, instead of actually understanding how (or more to the point, WHY)markets function they simply assume that market signals are somehow the answer to everything (not just most things). It’s actually quite similar to how creationists sound when they try and discuss geology.