Talk:DLive

Accusing Dlive of supporting right-wing extremism is paramount to circulating fake news.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A diverse community of fact-driven content creators has begun to flourish at https://dlive.tv/ , but in this modern digital landscape smear campaigns can utterly destroy alternative distribution websites. It has been YEARS since I've seen a journalist risk their health to perform a live broadcast, and that is because mainstream media outlets have surrendered journalistic integrity preferring instead to fear costly repercussions. Now that any average person can grab a device, and tell the world what's happening platforms are being slandered. Anyone who viewed that day on dlive saw police letting people through the barriers, Americans snapping selfies, folks staying within the velvet ropes, and respectful actions taken by a majority of protestors. Yes some people went into Nancy Pelosi's office and pointed out that her email was open, while someone else stole her podium but there are criminals in every crowd, so condemning the majority only serves to oppress the masses.

People who read this article need to remember that wikipedia does NOT contain verified facts, and even the sources given to argue against dlive are questionably vague/based at best. Go to dlive and check out their browse section: you'll find books, art, gaming, baking lessons, DIY shopcraft, plus gaming and BALANCED news sources! Not all streamers involved with the website approved of a purchase by TRON, and since then have considered the "lemon" system more of a token than a currency. Claims that people made a profit off the Capitol Hill event are mostly baseless, and even if it's true content creators have spent nearly two decades trying to earn a living through online interactions; would you criminalize an artist who doesn't want their work stolen, and seeks to earn reasonable wages for their contribution to society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.229.41 (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dlive is a mostly a gamer site, not what you say it is.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whoever has been editing this article doesn't know the first things about dlive. They missed the most dominate group on dlive and that is the gamers, most of the gamers are simply just playing games and showcasing their craft. Dlive also has a thriving IRL/chatting section showcasing wildlife, animals and nature. No where in this article do it talk about the cool features that dlive has that other streaming platform don't like lemons, and stickers. To suggest that dlive is a racist platform is like saying youtube is a racist platform for having racist post videos. The failure to mention the most basic information about this being a gaming site, and instead focusing on the few racists, shows a bias on the part of the editors of this article? Xdrfirefly (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad, uninformative, and very incomplete article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article on the subject of DLive is in serious need of improvement and expansion. I find it rather absurd that almost the entirety of this two paragraph article is cherry picking the types of people that use create content on there. White supremacists, racists, and anti-semites are present on virtually every form of social media including the big ones that everyone uses. It is not fair to single out a smaller newer site for having the same problem. Reading this article would have one believe that DLive is no different than sites like "the daily stormer" or "TheRightStuff.biz" when in reality if you actually visit the site it is not like that at all. It's just people streaming gaming footage. I am convinced that the person(s) involved in writing this terrible article are doing so on behest of the other social media companies since no one would have any real reason to write such a terrible hit piece for such a site unless their expressed goal was to enable the larger established tech sites to destroy a potential competitor. Furthermore I would not consider the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a reliable source. D. Royevich (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)D.Royevich

Wikipedia summarizes reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dlive is a mostly a gamer site, not what you say it is. (yet again a 4th user thinks your sources are compeltely NOT legit)

I am posting as a 4th person who thinks the admin here clearly has a bias, or a political tie to smear this DLive website. The description which now is grabbed by google searching for DLive, is 100% obviously lies, and UNTRUE. Look at the actual website, and stop claiming your sources are legit, grow up and admit you are wrong, i am the 4th person clearly pointing out Dlive is a gaming website. You all need to grow up, whoever is modding.. I am about to report you for obvious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.40.141.252 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the article: "The top earners on the platform [were] white nationalist Nick Fuentes and 'alt-right' entertainer Owen Benjamin." DLive made a lot of money off of white nationalists, and reliable sources have reported that fact. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources with an emphasis on independent sources, so Wikipedia merely follows sources. Your dislike of conclusions made by sources doesn't make them biased, nor does being biased make them unreliable. Your first-hand observations about the site are original research, and are not independent of the site. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, therefore, asking us to look at the actual website is unhelpful. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Name

DLive/dlive, does the name "mean" anything? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

All lives matter

@Willbb234: Regarding this edit, the added source doesn't mention DLive, making it's use for this point WP:SYNTH. Further, "controversial" is vague to the point of being euphemistic. This article is not the place to discuss why the phrase is right-wing, nor why it's misleading and evasive, as the Standard source explains. Any discussion of how this phrase is contextualized should start with how reliable sources contextualize it for this specific issue. Grayfell (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No. The clause "All Lives Matter", a right-wing slogan used to oppose the Black Lives Matter movement. is clearly pointing to the phrase's use in general and thus it should be treated that way. I searched, but I couldn't find any mention of it being right-wing in any other sources. In fact, the article All Lives Matter has no mention of "right-wing", "far-right", "extremist", or even "conservative" for that matter. The sentence in this article is completely inappropriate. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Re the Time source, a look at the author's articles here shows that she seems a bit trigger happy when labelling things 'far-right'. Please bear this in mind. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Your opinions on the author's willingness to use a phrase to describe specific behaviors and beliefs has no bearing on that source's reliability. Your opinion on whether or nor these things are actually far-right or not also has no bearing on this discussion.

As I said, using a source about the phrase in general, which doesn't directly or indirectly mention DLive at all, is WP:SYNTH. DLive's use of the phrase in this context was not "controversial" in a meaningful way, because "controversial" is almost as evasive misleading as the phrase itself.

The context offered by the source is that the phrase is used by DLive, and that this use is one of several things which demonstrates a right-wing shift.

By June 2020, DLive seemed to be openly cultivating a right-of-center audience. On Twitter, it briefly changed its bio to read “All Lives Matter,” a right-wing rallying cry in response to Black Lives Matter. The site has increasingly become a haven for fanaticism, says Joan Donovan, the research director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center. “Before, on YouTube, some of these people would do a dance with the terms of service,” she tells TIME. “But on DLive, the gloves are off, and it’s just full white-supremacist content with very few caveats.”[1]

Since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this summary of the source is more neutral than leaving it our or euphemistically calling it "controversial".

Other articles will have other sources, and therefor provide different context. Further, as I assume you already know, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, per WP:CIRC. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Other than the Time opinion piece, can you provide any reliable source which says 'All Lives Matter' is a "right wing slogan"? Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How is it, that when DLive uses "All Lives Matter", it suddenly becomes right-wing? Is it that they said it different? Is it that they are somehow different and so when they use it it suddenly changes meaning? No, it's because the source isn't reliable and all of the other reliable sources say it isn't right-wing. We need to be consistent here. Just because it says right-wing in this source it doesn't mean the phrase is right-wing. The author has no evidence to offer and it's just some opinion. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

As already explained, Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. Your opinion that the source isn't reliable because you disagree with its conclusions is inappropriate. As has been discussed countless times on Wikipedia, sources are the "proof", not editors. It is not up to you to decide that sources are wrong based on your own interpretation of the facts, and therefore they are unreliable. Per WP:BRD, the burden is on you to gain consensus for this change, which you have not done. I suggest you find a reliable source about DLIve as a next step. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I used other reliable sources to determine that this source is wrong. I never 'decided' simply from my own opinion it was unreliable. I have already provided a reliable source which you removed. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You have not cited any sources which dispute this description, and more importantly, the source doesn't dispute this description in this specific context. The Time source is using this as context to explain a specific point regarding DLive. The point being discussed by Time is about politics. The Evening Standard source doesn't really discuss any specific ideology. Since the cited source considers this ideology important context, the article should also reflect that context. Other sources, such as the ES one, may or may not reflect this context, but they would have to be discussing this as it relates to DLive to be usable. It would not be difficult to find sources describing "all lives matter" as right-wing, but as I've said, the source would have to discuss this as it relates to DLive.

It may be helpful to view this source, which proposes that the term "all lives matter" is a reaction to the widespread myth of postracialism originating in Barack Obama's presidency. A phrase that originates as a rejection of a liberal or left-wing politician would, obviously, become associated with the right-wing. I'm putting this here merely for clarity, since this talk page is not the place to discuss this in detail. Still, it hopefully indicates why the cited source cannot be trivially dismissed as "wrong". Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton, right-wing activist in disguise? Jennifer Lopez covering up her right-wing beliefs? Or is it that all lives matter isn't actually right-wing? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Figures show that 64% of black people in the USA support a right-wing movement. To show how absurd the claim that all lives matter is right-wing is. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, it would not be difficult to find sources describing "all lives matter" as right-wing, but as I've said, the source would have to discuss this as it relates to DLive. Two of your sources do not directly says anything about "right-wing" or "left-wing" at all, so their use here is, once again, a form of WP:SYNTH. The 2015 survey still indicates that the phrase was, at that time, significantly more popular with the right than the left, while the two sources from 2016 both explain why the phrase's use by celebrities was widely condemned as inappropriate. Its use by Clinton was explicitly condemned because of its political connotations; why else would it have been noteworthy enough to report on? Neither of the celebrities mentioned in the Huffington Post article are politicians, and both deleted their tweets. If you are claiming that Jennifer Lopez is somehow representative of American politics in the same way as Clinton or Obama, you are not arguing in good faith.

More importantly, none of these sources support your proposed change. They do not dispute that the phrase is right-wing as used by DLive, especially not in 2020, when DLive used it. DLive's use is after the Unite the Right rally in 2017, by which time the term mutated into "white lives matter", and it is also after the widespread use of "all lives matter" by far-right trolls like Baked Alaska, who used the term for trolling on DLive itself by 2019 (if not earlier)[2] This usage began several months before DLive's added the phrase to its Twitter bio. As this article explains, Baked Alaska wasn't banned from DLive until shortly after he participated in the illegal storming of the capitol earlier this year.

If you want to argue that the phrase used to be politically neutral, you've got your work cut out for you, but this isn't the page for that. At best, by 2019, the phrase had been strongly associated with right-wing and far-right ideologies. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The sentence In June 2020, amidst the George Floyd protests, DLive changed its Twitter profile to "All Lives Matter", a right-wing slogan used to oppose the Black Lives Matter movement. can be split into two parts. By removing the final clause, the sentence becomes In June 2020, amidst the George Floyd protests, DLive changed its Twitter profile to "All Lives Matter". which makes perfect sense. The final statement is a clause and is separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. As the sentence makes sense without the clause, this clause is an 'add on' and defines All Lives Matter in the general sense and outside of the context of DLive (or at least it should as this is how the sentence is structured).

Therefore, it would not be considered a synthesis of sources to place the correct definition, relating to the general use of the phrase, into the sentence. Per WP:SYNTH If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. As the sentence is clearly split into A and B we can change B without affecting A and thus implying a conclusion C. For example, the Time magazine source states A and we provide the correct All Lives Matter definition as B, we are not implying C as A and B are separated as explained above. Therefore, we should use reliable sources to conclude the definition of All Lives Matter in the general context and not specifically relating to DLive.

Therefore, I believe we must seek the correct general definition of All Lives Matter at around the time that the phrase was added to the Twitter profile (June 2020). The sources I could find are here: [3], [4], [5]. There is no consensus as to the reliability of the National Review and thus this should be used with caution (WP:RSP). However, what these sources show is that there isn't any mention that the phrase is right-wing or far-right and there is even a source which shows supporters denying this. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to call All Lives Matter right-wing as the majority of sources deny this view. Once again, just to repeat, we are not looking at All Lives Matter in relation to DLive as the sentence clearly indicates that this is not the case.

Thank you for providing this book [6]. However, I cannot view beyond page 12 and considering that page 23 is where All Lives Matter is defined, we can't use that book to come to any definitive conclusion of the definition of All Lives Matter. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be synth. A brief definition is provided by the source, and this definition is specifically used for context to indicate why it is relevant to the topic. Inserting a broader definition which was used in a completely different context would be synth. This is made worse by the fact that this differing definition doesn't, in any way, contradict the relevant definition. It is, obviously, possible for something to be both right-wing and controversial. None of the proposed sources can be used to challenge that in this context. It is presumptuous and misguided to claim there can only be one "correct general definition". All words must be judged in context, that's just how living languages work.

As for the claims of some of the Bristol protestors that they are "not far-right", first, that doesn't mean they are not "right-wing", and second, they are not reliable for this in general anyway, and third they are not neutral sources for this term per WP:MANDY. And yet again, nowhere does this mention DLive, making it's use in this article more synth. Looking into that incident closer, some sources do, in fact, point out that this was overtly political and opposed to lazy stereotypes that hold up Bristol as a liberal-left utopia.[7] Oh, and also this gem: “They call us far right, well then we’re fucking acting like far right.” Despite holding signs saying “not far right”.[8] This is why I keep emphasizing context. You cannot just cherry-pick sources without looking closer. Context really is vitally important.

Further, DLive is an American website, so American English usage takes precedent. The term "right-wing" has different implications in different locations (especially as contrasted with "conservative") but Wikipedia doesn't presume that one version is more correct than another. Citing British news sources for an American website, in response to protests in America, about a phrase that was coined in America, fails WP:ENGVAR.

As I said about the book it was for your convenience to clear up some misconceptions you had about the term. Since it doesn't mention DLive, we agree it should not be used here, but whether or not you, personally, can view it makes no difference. This is important, and is something all experienced editors should know. Offline sources are still reliable on Wikipedia. WP:OFFLINE explains this, but FUTON bias also helps explain why this is important even outside of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Inciting and biased

Gamer streaming site. Freedom cuts all ways not hijacked by the right or left in anyway. 81.107.204.35 (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues

@Nxbit:, I opposed your recent changes to the article, and urge you to self-revert instead of edit-warring to force your changes. On the procedure: I encourage you to read and follow WP:BRD.

On the content: your edit removed well-sourced descriptors of the platform's users (e.g. "white nationalist") and exchanged many uses of "far-right" with "alt-right" or just "right wing". Why is this an improvement? Picking out one example, the prior descriptor of those who participated in and streamed the US Capitol attack was "far-right", which is the wording used in the NYT source. What justifies "right-wing", or your change from "US Capitol attack" to "US Capitol election protests"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)