31–40 of 87 posts
What we know already is that powerful organizations have secrets that they spend big money on protecting. The difference now is that with the internet the time for which a secret can be kept shortened significantly.
Our society is premised on the idea of free exchange of ideas. Some will freely choose to think/do/believe things we find insane (some cults/religions/jobs). The premise of this article is that these videos are going to brainwash/hypnotize poor fools into believing crazy things. Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice…
And social media giving these people what they want creates a vicious circle that does real damage to society as a whole.
A platitude like "free exchange of ideas" does not address this problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, first off, YouTube is a private corporation, not subject to free-speech laws. Second, while I agree that YouTube shouldn't ban people for believing in conspiratorial nonsense, even if I do think it's harmful, it's not unreasonable that their algorithm should bias things that are fact-based, or at least not contributing to a toxic platform. It's hard to argue that any good came from Alex Jones posting the addres…
> first off, YouTube is a private corporation So is the new york times. > not subject to free-speech laws Yes it is, same as the new york times.
The problem with online opinions is that while the "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one" adage is true, online nobody is there to tell you "stop watching this stupid thing". And we all know YT comments are a heap of garbage. Also YT/Instagram comments are fully moderated by the author, so removing all disagreements is easy. Easy to give the appearance of consensus.
And worse, once you watch one, YT's algos want to keep you watching so suddenly you are flooded with related vides.
This leads to a problem.
Conspiracy theories are fiction which is protected speech, it's interesting how newspapers are thumbing their noses at the first amendment and smearing competitors who also enjoy it's protection as perhaps they sense an opportunity at regaining gatekeeper status. It also can be said that "conspiracy theories" are part of internet culture as no one really believes the earth is flat, it's just attention seeking behavio…
It appears that dem party (and its mouthpiece NyTimes) has become a complete opposite of itself. Their obviously want to limit free speech to their liking.
Posting on YouTube =/ free speech. That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding you've got there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Posting on YouTube =/ free speech. That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding you've got there.
Free speech isn't something that was created by the US Constitution, it's a right that everyone has by default. It doesn't matter if it's a private company or a government, restricting what people are allowed to say is still restricting free speech.
They should be required to host it / anything?
Conspiracy theories are fiction which is protected speech, it's interesting how newspapers are thumbing their noses at the first amendment and smearing competitors who also enjoy it's protection as perhaps they sense an opportunity at regaining gatekeeper status. It also can be said that "conspiracy theories" are part of internet culture as no one really believes the earth is flat, it's just attention seeking behavio…
It's not even necessary to remove the flat earthers from youtube, all that would be required is to stop recommending them to people .