If spreading misinformation is a valid means to shut down a channel then why do channels like Spirit Science remain? They got about 900k subs and spend the whole time spouting the most insane claims you could possibly think of with absolutely no evidence to back it up and yet they continue to remain.
YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
101–110 of 923 posts
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. If the cockroaches want to crawl under the fridge there's not much you can do to stop them but you can stop them from breeding on the table.
As everyone knows, nobody propagated strange conspiracy theories before the invention of YouTube and Twitter.
Oh, yes, those lunatics claiming Earth is circling the Sun, and claiming thousands of worlds are out there, similar to our God-chosen . Heretics, society is better without them spreading their nonsense ; deny them their voice, or burn them at stake
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#103I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
> I don't believe in fighting "bad ideas" by suppressing them, I believe in shining a light on them. Let the truth fight for itself.
I used to think this too, but I think the decentralised nature of the internet has broken this notion. There is no universal “light” shining on disinformation because there’s no universal anything. You can spend your entire online life in a very strict filter bubble that means the disinformation you consume never gets corrected (Facebook and YouTube have implemented algorithms that opt people into these bubbles without them even being aware). The only way it gets fixed is if people actively try to find information that disagrees with their preconceived notions, and very, very few people are interested in doing that.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#104I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
There's no free speech if the guy is lying on purpose on public issues. You're entering propaganda territory.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. Actually, no it hasn't. And for anyone that holds such a viewpoint, I'd strongly suggest reading J. S. Mill's classic, On Liberty [1] -- a foundational document of Western political thought. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.…
What's Mill's position on filter bubbles?
The very idea of a "filter bubble" is definitionally impossible given a Millian open market of ideas. IMO, it's an ideal worth striving for. Maybe it's easy to draw the line with crazy racists or flat-Earthers, but what about complex social issues: abortion, euthanasia, religions values?
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#106Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. This will just shift this extremist content to other unregulated and unmonitored platforms that will not engage in debate, but blindly accept such things. After all, if people believe this kinda stuff, cutting of the head won't stop them believing, just shifts the problem out of the public glare, at least on the surface.
It's not a binary. The more places extremists can find like-minded people, the more their worldview is normalized and validated. The fewer places, the higher the probability that they realize (or be continuously confronted by) how far out their views are, and the less extremist a position they'll end up taking. I genuinely don't think universal free speech is the answer, because people aren't confronted with the coun…
Agreed it is a hard balance, all gets down to how responsible the average person is and working around that aspect.
Universal free speech as it stands, allows racism and with that, you are not wrong. Free speech within some moral boundaries, though free debate, that is the aspect of free speech to provide balance that is equally important.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#107Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. This will just shift this extremist content to other unregulated and unmonitored platforms that will not engage in debate, but blindly accept such things. After all, if people believe this kinda stuff, cutting of the head won't stop them believing, just shifts the problem out of the public glare, at least on the surface.
>Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. Well yes, at least partially. Studies of bans on hate communities on reddit have shown effectiveness not only in reducing the total hate, but also, and this is important, changing the behaviour of individual users who were active in the hate communities as they moved towards more moderate, diverse communities. [...] "What they found was…
The studies show that it reduced the amount of overt hate speech on reddit. That's not the same thing as reducing hate speech on reddit nor is it the same thing as reducing hate speech total. The people who left might've ended up creating seeds elsewhere. We don't know that.
Furthermore, overt hate speech isn't necessarily the problem for society. It matters more for society what beliefs someone holds than what they are willing to express. The Soviet Union is an example of that - people outwardly expressed agreement with the government, but secretly were against it.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#108IMO censorship is wrong. To quote someone smarter than me: > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
If you hold this absolutest view of free speech, does that mean you don't believe that fraud should be a crime? I am allowed to just blatantly lie about anything under the cover of free speech, right? What about libel or slander? Can I say that brenden2 is a murderer, and make a website with photoshopped pictures of you killing people? Free speech has limits, and telling blatant lies meant to mislead people is one of…
If you follow your line of thought then David Icke should be prosecuted. And then YouTube is still wrong here, acting as a judge, jury and executioner vigilante.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#109I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
Private institutions should be bound by the first amendment once they've reached a critical mass. The reason I say this is that, if a small number of entities control the flow of information, and they get away with picking and choosing who has the opportunity to be heard, then the first amendment is effectively made meaningless. I want to be able to choose what comments to allow on my block and, at the same time, I w…
The big problem with this argument is that youtube is the platform that "recommend" videos based on a hidden algorithm, leading to filter bubbles.
Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Some people, after being exposed to misi…
"Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?" We have a myriad of evidence that societies that suppress the truth for "the public good" don't go in a desirable direction or end well.
That isn’t an answer to the question the OP posed, though. And it’s an important question.