16. april 2020

Venstreradikal fik Youtuber Lars Andersen ‘demonetized’, og blev vært på licensmediet Radio Loud

Jeg har tidligere blogget om Kevin Shakir, der ikke mere er tilknyttet Enhedslisten, men freelancer som ekspert i højreradikalisme. Han har dog også fået fast ansættelse hos den nye licensfinansierede DAB-kanal Radio Loud. “Min kanal har 5,5 gange så mange views som Radio Loud – Til 0,1% af deres budget”, fortæller Lars Andersen i en kommentar på Youtube. Han er blevet ‘demonetized’ efter kritik fra Shakir, der efterfølgende klagede sin nød til Politiken, og i dag er han så radiovært for licensfinansierede Radio Loud. Fra Politiken – Efter to uger i æteren: Ingen gider lytte til Loud.

“Lyttertallene for ungdomsradioen Radio Loud er så lave, at det ikke er til at sige, præcis hvor få, der faktisk har haft Danmarks nye radiostemmer i højttalerne siden opstarten 1. april.

I den seneste måling fra Kantar/Gallup, er kanalen slet ikke med i oversigten, hvor det laveste lyttertal er 9.000 om ugen hos DAB-kanalen Mix 7.

Kantar/Gallup har oplyst til Journalisten, at ‘der helt konkret er visse dage, hvor instituttet ikke har kunne måle nogen lyttere, og derfor var deres tal for kanalen for usikre til at offentliggøre’.

(Loud-værten Kevin Shakir på Twitter, 2020)

“… jeg blev udsat for chikane, tilsvininger og dødstrusler, efter at jeg blev hængt ud af den højreradikale YouTuber Lars Kragh Andersen. Det skete, efter jeg på Twitter havde stillet spørgsmålstegn ved at Google i første omgang tillod en video hvor han diskuterer intelligensniveauer imellem forskellige folkeslag. Google fjernede videoen…

Efter mit tweet om Lars Kragh Andersens, slettede YouTube tre af hans videoer som de betegnede som ‘hate speech’. Efter nogle dage bliver hans kanal demonetized. Han får altså ikke længere annonceindtægter for sine videoer på platformen. (Kevin Shakir, , 2019)

Oploadet Kl. 01:06 af Kim Møller — Direkte link30 kommentarer


4. januar 2020

Matt Ridley: “Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time.”

Jo mere man hører venstrefløjen tale om klimaet, jo tydeligere bliver det, at det handler om alt andet. Ligesom ulighedsdagsordenen skal booste økonomisk omfordeling (Læs: brandbeskatning), er klimakamp blot en ny front i kampen for den revolution de aldrig fik. Jeg har tidligere nævnt historiker Asser Amdissen, men kunne også have nævnt Loud-redaktøren Chris Pedersen, der ser tidens mange hashtag-kampagner som ungdommelige oprør mod ‘den borgerlige nødvendighed’ (mine ord) – en måde at stille spørgsmålstegn ‘til kapitalismen’.

For nogle uger siden aktionerede klima-revolutionære Extinction Rebellion i Klimaministeriet mod fossile brændstoffer med parolen ‘Olie dræber!’. ‘Men de har jo ikke noget tøj på’, sagde ingen i de mange statsmedier, nogensinde. Befriende oprids af 10’erne af Matt Ridley i The Spectator – We’ve just had the best decade in human history. Seriously.

Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time. We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 per cent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 per cent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.

Little of this made the news, because good news is no news. But I’ve been watching it all closely. Ever since I wrote The Rational Optimist in 2010, I’ve been faced with ‘what about…’ questions: what about the great recession, the euro crisis, Syria, Ukraine, Donald Trump? How can I possibly say that things are getting better, given all that? The answer is: because bad things happen while the world still gets better. Yet get better it does, and it has done so over the course of this decade at a rate that has astonished even starry-eyed me.

Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint of human activity is probably shrinking’ and ‘we are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet’. That is to say: our population and economy would grow, but we’d learn how to reduce what we take from the planet. And so it has proved. An MIT scientist, Andrew McAfee, recently documented this in a book called More from Less, showing how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. Not just in proportion to productivity: less stuff overall.

This does not quite fit with what the Extinction Rebellion lot are telling us.

(Collage: Extinction Rebellion på Facebook, 18. november 2019)

… If this doesn’t seem to make sense, then think about your own home. Mobile phones have the computing power of room-sized computers of the 1970s. I use mine instead of a camera, radio, torch, compass, map, calendar, watch, CD player, newspaper and pack of cards. LED light bulbs consume about a quarter as much electricity as incandescent bulbs for the same light. Modern buildings generally contain less steel and more of it is recycled. Offices are not yet paperless, but they use much less paper.

… Land-sparing is the reason that forests are expanding, especially in rich countries. In 2006 Ausubel worked out that no reasonably wealthy country had a falling stock of forest, in terms of both tree density and acreage. Large animals are returning in abundance in rich countries; populations of wolves, deer, beavers, lynx, seals, sea eagles and bald eagles are all increasing; and now even tiger numbers are slowly climbing.

… A modern irony is that many green policies advocated now would actually reverse the trend towards using less stuff. A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions. Organic farming uses more land than conventional. Technology has put us on a path to a cleaner, greener planet. We don’t need to veer off in a new direction. If we do, we risk retarding progress.

As we enter the third decade of this century, I’ll make a prediction: by the end of it, we will see less poverty, less child mortality, less land devoted to agriculture in the world. There will be more tigers, whales, forests and nature reserves. Britons will be richer, and each of us will use fewer resources. The global political future may be uncertain, but the environmental and technological trends are pretty clear — and pointing in the right direction.

Oploadet Kl. 18:27 af Kim Møller — Direkte link26 kommentarer
Denne weblog er læst af siden 22. juni 2003.

 



 

Vælg selv beløb



Blogs


Meta
RSS 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
Valid XHTML
WP






MediaCreeper