I feel like nobody is addressing the elephant in the room: If you're getting your information about anything from Youtube, you're part of the problem.
YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
541–550 of 933 posts
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obliterating email and whatsapp would probably put a lot of people out of business permanently, far more so than the pandemic. "But I didn't mean those!" OK, fine, now we need to define social media. Clearly everybody wants to count Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. But some of the major incidents come from memetic circulation of fake news and racial hatred propaganda etc on Whatsapp. The Christchurch shooter (and ot…
You raise a good point. Is the problem "social media", or is it simply democratized publishing? Would a "fediverse" of distributed blogs really be more resistant to misinformation, or would it just be harder to censor? Is this simply a problem inherent to the internet?
In the old days, the number of available channels for mass-distribution of opinions was low, and people were in general restricted to face-to-face communication with a crowd, or possibly calling a radio show or sending a letter to a newspaper. This made it easy to control the spread when someone voiced opinions or information that were disruptive to society. Today, many people around the Globe have considerably stronger protections of their free speech compared to 50 or 100 years ago, and this combined with the fact that channels for mass-distribution of opinions is now a commodity, freely available to billions of people.
Seen in that perspective, social media could be considered a part of the problem simply for being a way for people to voice their opinions, but as you wrote, a "fediverse" would not be more resistant to disruptive opinions. It will be a problem as long a people have a variety of ways to communicate with lots of people.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. The almost free speech on the other side of the ocean seems to be working pretty well. You get to say anything that isn’t actively harmful to others, but you won’t be able to advertise bleach as a way to get Corona out of your system.
Nonsense. Almost free speech is censorship by another name. Working "pretty well?" Sure, unless one tries to talk about things that really matter and strays outside the dotted lines of permissibility. Some topics are verboten. When you say "other side of the ocean," I assume you're talking about Europe. Try to discuss the muslim rape gangs in the UK. Try to discuss the surge in grenade attacks and many-fold increase…
Put another way, almost free speech works great for those with power, and badly for everyone else.
When people advocate censorship of any kind, they're really saying, "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#544I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…
> Banning obvious bullshit, albeit akin to censorship, is NARCAN. I'll agree with your plan for banning "obvious bullshit" so long as I get to decide what constitutes "obvious bullshit". Don't like that idea? Then why should I like it when you get to decide? Or when some Google policy goon gets to decide? I never voted for you or for that policy goon. Whenever you give anyone power to censor b"obvious bullshit", it t…
[deleted]
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#545I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…
> things are going to need to be sacrificed I say this for emphasis, not to personally attack you: Whenever I read or hear this it makes me extremely suspicious, because it often doesn't come from those who will do the sacrifice themselves. Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. Perpetrators of lies will even hide behind this, and create a false image of rebellious heroi…
> Perpetrators of lies will even hide behind this, and create a false image of rebellious heroism, instead of facing public discourse and the consequences thereof.
Unfortunately, I think it's a bit of a classical liberal ideal that "the truth will come through and those who were wrong will see the error of their ways".
To some, the truth is a tool. If it's not a useful tool, it will be discarded. Probably a more useful tool, like hyperbole, decontextualization, gross mis-interpretation, or just adding "new facts" will be used.
I think it's naive to say that laissez faire speech is going to solve all issues, just like it'd be naive to say that peaceful protests would be a viable path to democracy in North Korea.
(Personally, I'd like to see bias recognition, propaganda recognition, and the ability to shift perspectives taught. A dumb, noncritical society is going to do and say dumb things)
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
> things are going to need to be sacrificed I say this for emphasis, not to personally attack you: Whenever I read or hear this it makes me extremely suspicious, because it often doesn't come from those who will do the sacrifice themselves. Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. Perpetrators of lies will even hide behind this, and create a false image of rebellious heroi…
> Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. The almost free speech on the other side of the ocean seems to be working pretty well. You get to say anything that isn’t actively harmful to others, but you won’t be able to advertise bleach as a way to get Corona out of your system.
Speech that is controversial is the only speech that needs protecting. You don't need free speech to protect your cat pictures or tweets about a salad you ate.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear people say free speech is "a threat to our democracy" often these days. I've never understood, can you clarify what you mean? Is it an actual threat to your right to vote? Or is it just a threat to people voting the way you like? In which case isn't the answer just to put out equally salacious information in the opposite direction? That seems like the democratic option to me.
i suggest asking yourself a theoretical question: is a vote to end democracy democratic? then look up cases in history when such a vote took place. free speech here is used as a tool to convince people to vote against democracy (and/or free speech itself).
Do you have any examples of anyone encouraging we give up democracy?
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the correct solution here, that I don't know. I know, ban what is fundamentally rooted in bullshit. Homeopathy, "all and every vaccine is bad", "these essential oils will cure your cancer", "5G causes corona", "earth is flat". Done, there's no collateral damage, but helluva lot less lying.
> ban what is fundamentally rooted in bullshit A noble sentiment, but the problem lies in who gets to decide what is and what isn't bullshit.
Some things aren't decidable.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can use this argument to say nothing should ever be forbidden/punished to say ever. Yes!
Ok, so everyone should be allowed to broadcast, promote and advertise: "all white people are inherently evil and criminal and should all be exterminated, go out and shoot every and kill every white person you see!"?
With speech, obviously there’s going to be a line after which you descend into madness and that line is legally speaking usually drawn at directly inciting violence. That’s what is considered “spreading a harmful message”. But by censoring COVID, Youtube is moving this line quite a bit, to a point where we’re talking nowhere near as harmful messages. The point is that unlike with someone saying “kill people”, here it’s not that obvious whether an idea is “wrong” or “right”.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is from the top of my head but there are certainly other people who have smarter ideas that don't involve straight up censorship. So what can you conclude about the private intent of key decision makers? I find that imputing malign intent often improves my ability to forecast outcomes. Whether there is actual bad faith almost doesn't matter if the assumption improves forecasts.
I agree. The thing that makes me suspicious is an absolute demand that things have to be taken at, and discussed at, face value. The existence of malign intent is hardly mysterious. It's like the Firesign Theater skit with a political guy declaring, "And you can believe me. Because I never lie. And I'm always right." Part of the gag is that the guy picked to read the line is capable of delivering it really, really co…
[deleted]