691–700 of 714 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't like it ... feel free to discuss about it on hacker news. Regardless, would you say the same if someone was banned from a super market over being gay?
According to the current interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, you would not be able to prevent them from shopping
But the question is not if it is legal or not, but if it is moral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't like it ... feel free to discuss about it on hacker news. Regardless, would you say the same if someone was banned from a super market over being gay?
No, because there are laws against discriminating protected classes (although sexuality is not quite a protected class per se and laws can vary between states). There are no laws against discriminating bigoted content or propaganda, these aren't protected classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wojcicki seems substantially quoted here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some implication you're attempting to make, would you like to clarify? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586
Sure, I didn't express myself clearly enough sorry. That WHO quote is hers and therefore that of Youtube. But it was a general remark made before the removal or even the creation of this video. The article in this submission however [and to some extent the comment above] seems to imply that her WHO remark gives the reason for the removal. Now it can of course still be that the WHO reasoning will at a later time be of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"People should be able to see all the opinions of various experts; doctors in NYC, doctors in Minnesota. Just them on their merits and examine the evidence." Most people are not qualified to "examine the evidence" and make public health policy decisions. This is why we rely upon the experts. Otherwise you have measles outbreaks in Beverly Hills.
So doctors aren't experts in health now. That's what it's come to? Do you think epidemiologists are? The people who have apparently never predicted a disease outbreak successfully, ever? Why are they experts but not these doctors? And what makes YouTube employees believe they're qualified to decide who's right? They're experts in HTML5 video serving, not health.
Even doctors generally recognize that public health (of which epidemiology is only a part) is a separate domain of expertise. There are doctors who specialize in infectious disease who need some public-health training, but there's no reason to expect that e.g. a oncologist or trauma surgeon would know more than the average scientifically-literate person about a different profession.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is it with people and willingly accept argument from authority just because there is a PhD or MD next to the name? Because this is how it worked for literally hundreds of years and it seemed to work just fine, and only NOW does it seem we have a problem
That´s pure kaka. That´s how it has worked for the past 50 years at most and this revisionist history in favor of some high and mighty self-serving position is a no-go for me.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1191141
Or let's go back even further to the bubonic plague:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/04/bubonic-p...
In all these cases, the medical experts were right and trustworthy, and the politicians and public were WRONG AND MISLEADING, and that resulted in more deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're begging the question. Overwhelming market leader means nothing -- it doesn't automatically create any new obligations or responsibilities. You actually have to make the argument that an overwhelming market leader in an otherwise niche market requires them to give up their free speech, marketing ability, hosting limits, income, etc. Even having a monopoly isn't illegal; a company actually has to be convicted of…
Sure it does. It's called a 'trust', and its well-covered in corporate law. And no, I don't have to prove anything. Just that a reasonable congress should have oversight over the single most watched communications channel on the planet. This is just dead obvious. I can't believe there's any good faith in this discussion any more. Signing off.
What do you mean by that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has nothing to do with cheap. Anybody can register a domain name and buy a web server and buy a building to put it in and internet service to host it with and post all their videos and they'll get zero page views even after spending all of that money because nobody can find them. The thing YouTube has that isn't available to the average Joe isn't web servers, it's all the glue that comes from being a part of Googl…
> Anybody can register a domain name and buy a web server Until they kick you out. The only solution would be to use tor but then you would get even less views.
This generation is obsessed with prospect of “getting lots of views” to the point where it becomes the only metric of success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think either side wants to help people, other than their donors.
I guess if you go through life with your eyes closed, or only listening to one side, then I can see how you'd think that. There's no place to start with someone as ignorant as you. Literally, I could list all of the ways the US left has helped improved the quality of living, and all the ways the US right has actively hurt people and you'd shrug and still spout the same ignorant comments. So all I have left for you an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Free speech" is not speech without consequences This is literally what free speech is. "You can speak your mind or I will kill you" or "You can speak your mind but if I disagree with you I will make sure that nobody can hear you again (by de-platforming you)" is not very free speech-y. > but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard You should certainly have the right to be heard by these that want to hear…
It's more like 'I have the right to choose which voices get heard on my private platform'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Free speech" is not speech without consequences This is literally what free speech is. "You can speak your mind or I will kill you" or "You can speak your mind but if I disagree with you I will make sure that nobody can hear you again (by de-platforming you)" is not very free speech-y. > but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard You should certainly have the right to be heard by these that want to hear…
If you post a sign on my front lawn, I have the right to remove it. It's my lawn. That's my freedom of expression to remove it. It seems like you just want it one way.