I mean, technically, disabling youtube comments is a kind of localized censorship, just like telling a a Jehova's Witness to go away because you don't want to hear what they have to say is a kind of censorship. It's kind of silly to think disabling comments on your own video is an affront to free speech. People are free to make their own videos, write blog posts, email, shout from rooftops their responses to her videos. All of which I'm sure have been done.

Here's what she is censoring:
a) people who just want to troll.
b) people who want to troll her with female-centric inflammatory language (rape threats/wishes, etc)
c) people who do A and B with intent to silence her because she said stuff they disagree with
d) people who want to have an actual discussion who foolishly only use YouTube for that activity.

The irony of group C is delicious no matter how small it may or may not be.

That said, we do to tend to associate Youtube with being able to <more directly give feedback, so it does give a very slight (and irrational) sense that she is stifling discussion. I also don't think she wants to have a discussion with people even on her own side, but not because the comments section is disabled.

Daystar Clarion:

Eleuthera:

Daystar Clarion:

Because that's what the English do.

We feed booze to models of extinct species.

Also robots.

All the English? Or just Ashleys?

Maybe it's just us Ashleys...

I might have to revisit this topic.

I can confirm that another Ashley does this.... (me)

Notsomuch:

Disabling comments is stupid from an uploader's perspective because from what I understand, the number of comments tie into how videos are rated and listed. More comments, good or bad, is good. Hence why people are always begging you to 'like comment subscribe'. She doesn't have to read the comments and for every comment (Good or bad) she receives it is basically money in the bank. If I see comments disabled on a video I'll just assume it's bad by default because why else would anyone do that unless they are a silly whiny baby who knows they are wrong and knows no one will like their videos?

-Comments have been disabled for this post-

Sure, except she's running her video series and website purely on donations. No ads on videos means all that doesn't really matter.

The OP is a gay faggot.

Good comic, I laughed.

Screwed up a quote thingy, please ignore

The Inquisitive Mug:

anthony87:
"Look at my video...just don't talk about it"

That's called television, and no one ever says that they're "silencing the debate" by not having a scrolling 1-800-OPINION line at the bottom of the screen.

No, that's called Youtube and if they're putting a public video up on a public website and disabling comments then yes, they're silencing discussion/debates/general nonsense about it.

anthony87:

The Inquisitive Mug:

anthony87:
"Look at my video...just don't talk about it"

That's called television, and no one ever says that they're "silencing the debate" by not having a scrolling 1-800-OPINION line at the bottom of the screen.

No, that's called Youtube and if they're putting a public video up on a public website and disabling comments then yes, they're silencing discussion/debates/general nonsense about it.

You missed the comparison. There is a network literally called Public Broadcasting System. You've probably heard of it; it's pretty famous. There's also CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX, to name a few, that are publicly broadcast and free to watch. Why aren't you holding them to the same scrutiny?

This might be funny if it wasn't so damned true.

But then answer me this, Youtube experts and Cory.

Why are RATINGS disabled as well? If people aren't allowed to comment, why can't they at least leave a simple "yay" or "nay" as an expression of agreement or disagreement?

I'll tell you why, because Anita is aware that most people disagree with her and she doesn't want to set off anyone's bullshit-alarms with a huge dislike bar (like so many shit Youtube videos). Call them "trolls" all you like, in the end they still fall into the pool of people who disagree.

Anita is afraid of criticism, plain and simple. ALL her methods involve giving monologues/speeches or sermon-style presentations with zero room to respond or debate, this video isn't the only example where she has shut off feedback.

Stop. Fucking. Defending. Her. Bullshit.

Can't believe an Escapist artist has jumped onto the bandwagon.

I advocate disabling comments. Why could that be?

1)Because your average youtuber rarely has anything of value to say.
2)Because two trolls using the comments section like a forum for an off-topic debate is inevitable.
3)Because I don't approve of the ability to rate comments. TGWTG got rid of theirs & the place is all the more polite for it.
4)Because I was raised on "if you can't say something nice, don;t say anything at all."
5)Because I also advocate censoring music. Who else will think of da childrenz? :p
6)Because if I uploaded videos, I'd be too lazy to approve of the comments one at a time, or deleting all of the spam & two-way conversations.

Freedom of speech & freedom of the press are great, in moderation. Does anyone else think that freedom of the press & freedom of privacy contradict eachother?

Xanadu84:
Thank GOD for posting this comic.

Malisteen:
disabling youtube comments isn't censorship. Not by any meaningful definition of the word. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to speak in someone else's private space. Youtube isn't obligated to provide comment space, and as long as youtube provides uploaders the option to turn comments off, neither are they. It's like a newspaper or magazine or any other publication, they may print letters to the editor, but they're in no way obligated to print every or even any letter they receive.

Thank GOD for posting this comment.

Thats the long and the short of it. Anita has no obligation to provide space on her channel so 3 reasonable responses can be washed away in comments about rapeing her. If anything, she did her opponents a great SERVICE by not giving them the rope to hang themselves with.

Yes, some people with reasonable responses won't be able to post a comment on youtube...oh no, where on earth can this person discuss something about video games ON THE INTERNET? Just imagine how much discussion has been had about the lack of discussion caused by her disabling comments. The point begins to look comically absurd. Saying that disabling youtube comments is stifling the debate is kind of like saying that spitting in the ocean is contributing to rising sea levels. And quite frankly, saying that she needs to grow a thicker skin and not be offended by assholes on the internet when said assholes are threatening rape and violence is dumb, naive, involves a psychopathic lack of empathy for fellow human beings. Her disabling comments did nothing except improve the quality of the debate.

... and allow her to claim ignorance when asked to respond to her legitimate detractors. How could she know what her legitimate detractors are saying when she doesn't allow responses at all?

Be honest. She's not debating. She's lecturing. She doesn't intend to foster conversation. She intends to tell us THE TRUTH!!!!!!!! No questions asked.

Also, how would we know what her comments would eventually look like? She's allowed comments on one video ever. And that just happened to be the video that had its existence broadcast on 4chan, of all places, for 3 days. I think her comments may have been disproportionately negative after something like that.

But then again, I'm using common sense. Weird, right?

tl,dr: She's a hack who does hackish stuff. Just because stupid, powerless, bad people said mean things to her on the internet after someone pulled her from obscurity to the front page of /b doesn't mean she's some sort of hero. She got some disgusting comments on YouTube. That does not make her Salmon Rushdie.

I don't particularly like Sarkeesian and I agree. As much as I dislike how she discusses the topics and is not the right person to be doing this type of project, she still manages to be far more eloquent, cogent, and tolerable than the vast majority of the people who waste their time in her comments. But that's a pretty low bar as it is.

Though from a practical stand point, it's not the best decision. I mean, from her position, it would be poetic justice to let the babies have their bottles in the comments as they end up inadvertently supporting her through their actions. After all, she's only this popular because of the controversial actions of some shitheads. Why not harvest that?

Yes, this comic has made my night. So much sarcasm and so much truth have melded together into something amazingly funny. This comic right here sums up most of my feeling towards what youtube comments are. Sad though, since they could be so much more, you do see occasional really good debates, but the vocal minority really like to be heard shouting about how much they hate stuff. Still, comic made my night to be sure, super funny!

Caiphus:

Yuuki:
But then answer me this, Youtube experts and Cory.

Why are RATINGS disabled as well? If people aren't allowed to comment, why can't they at least leave a simple "yay" or "nay" as an expression of agreement or disagreement?

I'll tell you why, because Anita is aware that most people disagree with her and she doesn't want to set off anyone's bullshit-alarms with a huge dislike bar (like so many shit Youtube videos). Call them "trolls" all you like, in the end they still fall into the pool of people who disagree.

Anita is afraid of criticism, plain and simple. ALL her methods involve giving monologues/speeches or sermon-style presentations with zero room to respond or debate, this video isn't the only example where she has shut off feedback.

Stop. Fucking. Defending. Her. Bullshit.

Can't believe an Escapist artist has jumped onto the bandwagon.

That's rather antagonistic, don't you think?

If every time I posted something relevant to my interests on youtube, an army of spiteful twits invariably materialised, well I'd probably disable feedback as well. In all forms. I just wouldn't want something that I'd made right next to a bunch of anonymous people calling me really rather terrible things. Maybe I'm scared of criticism, but I don't think so, I just don't think I'd like something I'd made used like that.

You might not think like this, you might have a stronger backbone than myself, and clearly Anita, and that's cool. But I think that there's no *obligation* to let people who have played no helpful role in shaping your content and who will have no role in shaping your content have a voice anywhere near your content. And clearly YouTube agrees; they let people disable comments.

You allow comments it if you like, and if the feedback is generally a pleasant echo chamber with some mild criticism most people will. If the feedback is 90% bile, then why bother? And why scold people when they don't bother? They're not performing censorship, not in any real sense. This is the internet, it's rather difficult to censor *anything* effectively. You can still have a perfectly good discussion about Anita's work on any other website (including this one) and those discussions are far more likely to be wholesome.

You know there is a reason I asked my main question in BOLD right? You didn't answer it in the slightest, you're just telling me the same thing everyone else in this thread is chanting - why she disabled comments. I KNOW why she disabled comments.

I'm not talking about comments, I'm talking about ratings. There is no room for trolling or hurtful comments in a rating - only an indicator of how people feel about the video.

Answer the bolded question.

Zachary Amaranth:

sethisjimmy:
Doubly so when trying to debate a complicated, delicate issue in under 500 characters.

This is what kills me about the idea of Youtube "discussion."

Darth_Payn:
Oh, you guys want to see moronic comments on something? Go too any Yahoo!News article and read THEIR comments section. It's where conspiracy theories are born.

Why? Why would you wish that upon people?

I didn't mean to do that, I was warning against reading the comments on YahoO!News articles. in fact, don't read them at all. They'll just angry up the blood.

anthony87:

No, that's called Youtube and if they're putting a public video up on a public website and disabling comments then yes, they're silencing discussion/debates/general nonsense about it.

But they are not doing that, no attempt is made to infringe on the rights or space of others, there is nobody who has been stopped from saying what they wish to.

It always annoys me when comments are disabled, the worst part is you can't even write a complaint about it in the comments because the comments are disabled.

Also, reading other peoples' comments on youtube makes me feel more intelligent.

Evil Smurf:
The OP is a gay faggot.

Good comic, I laughed.

So, you're saying this is Grey?

:D Great Comic. Keep up the good work!

Imp Emissary:

Evil Smurf:
The OP is a gay faggot.

Good comic, I laughed.

So, you're saying this is Grey?

A Gay FaggotPHA+QSBIYXBweSBDaWdhcmV0dGUuPGJyIC8+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9pbWFnZXNoYWNrLnVzL2EvaW1nMTkxLzIyNDEvMjE2MDMwNTkuanBnIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==

:/ Well, he is British, so I guess that makes sense.

:D Great Comic. Keep up the good work!

I was thinking more a bundle of sticks

You're not wrong in that people should not have to feel compelled to open the comments section for the sake of debate due to harassment etc. But that wasn't the reason why AS disabled the comments in some of her videos.

1337mokro:

Some people will argue that youtube comments are anonymous and therefore carry no weight because the shit people say would never be said to someone's face. They can easily be ignored because the majority will be shit. This attitude will eventually result in stifling actual debates that might pop up or simply silencing dissenting voices. Oh sure it's easy to crap on youtube but the same can be said for the escapist or any other forum or site where despite the rules of conduct there is still a large amount of crap.

Think back to for example the early Jimquisition days where the majority of the responses were hateful, vulgar, stupid, unintelligible, unintelligent or spam and they weren't just turned off. What if they had been turned off? What if those 1/10 posts that actually offered suggestions, explanation and analyses of the flaws were ignored all for the sake of not having to read the other 9/10 comments that read something like:

"Who is this fat stupid fuck and why is he on this site with his crappy show regurgitating whatever the community says?"

We wouldn't have our Wednesday poetry jam or our Monday show because the people that didn't talk with their posts would have talked with their views and nobody would have gained anything because nobody would know why the views went down.

Just because you don't want to hear someone tell you that you should be raped is no justification to also silence the person that would tell you why he disagrees with you in a well thought out argument. That is just the excuse for you to avoid any dissenting comments.

The difference for me is moderation. If after watching Jim's first episode, I commented with "Get raped Jim!" I would be banned or at least given a warning. So the next time, I wouldn't be there to add irrelevant comments. Freedom of speech or a lack of censorship doesn't mean a freedom from consequences.

Besides, I always have the right to say something and walk away. Why can't I have that option on youtube? Not even the default setting. Gosh knows I use that setting all the time in League. There was a Zilean 2 days ago pretending to be an Islamic Bomber... I hit the mute option.

Xanex:
Anita doesn't know what she is talking about. Poor research and biased conculsions.

I know I am right, because I am. So I am going to turn off comments and ratings to ths post because there is nothing to say. I am right.

Now after that let me say. Anita markets herself and her approach to this subject as academic. As another youtuber said "In acadimia peer review is a essential part of the academic proccess". Without it all she is doing is presenting her opinion.

I can still however send you a private message, start a thread in which I write about your opinion and why I think it's wrong, I can make a blogpost, a Video reply or post on reddit or a similar platform: basically every form of communication available on the internet that requires more thought than writing "lol, aspie fag" in a box at the bottom of the page.
Additionally, for peer review to work, there needs to be a certain level of competence present in the reviewing peers which is more likely to be true for chimpanzees than the average youtube commenter.