671–680 of 933 posts
This primary source provides better details on YouTube's policy: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en . It includes concrete examples of content that is banned under this policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, then name the examples. It's not sufficient to say that examples exist without any further proof.
How about a case involving human rights law? https://reason.com/2019/07/23/jessica-yaniv-da-silva-brazili...
I assume the GGP is referring to the C-16 bill passed by the federal government of Canada in 2016, which added gender expression and identity to existing human rights laws on discrimination.
I have repeatedly seen a perhaps willful misinterpretation, popularly stemming from Jordan Petersen, that this bill criminalizes misgendering people when that's not the case.
https://factcheck.afp.com/no-canadians-cannot-be-jailed-or-f...
>"After Bill C-16 amended the Criminal Code, Canadian law prohibited hate propaganda against groups that can be identified based on gender identity or gender expression. The bill also allowed for more severe sentencing if it is proved that a particular offense was motivated by a bias or prejudice against a person's gender identity or gender expression. >
>However, experts say misusing a pronoun would not constitute hate propaganda, nor can it be used as >sole evidence of discrimination. >
>"If it's just the pronoun, not much is going to happen," explained Cheryl Milne, director of the Asper >Centre for Constitutional Rights at the University of Toronto told AFP."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW I think there is a major breakdown of The West underway that begun when China effectively ripped Western ideology apart after the end of the cold war. The Western ideology after WW2 was that liberal markets (eventually) implied (rise of) a democracy with civil liberties. China showed that this ideology is false by creating liberal-enough markets while retaining absolute state control (and the Chinese state has v…
Essentially, the international scope of the communications tools online has allowed for free-speech absolutism to be hacked by the propaganda methods refined via the Cold War. the NYT isn't highly likely to publish things that source to Russian propaganda ops, because they employ fact-checkers, care about pedigree of information, and change their editorial process in light of system failures. They get tripped from ti…
The people who lied us into Iraq?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in what way are YouTube, Twitter and Facebook qualified to determine what's bullshit and what isn't? What really happens is that those services just end up forcing their values/beliefs on their users.
You tried to twist my words. I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is. Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS.
I did not try to twist your words. If I did, it was entirely unintentional.
> I called the content bullshit and not one of those services say it is.
You said:
> I applaud YouTube, Twitter and FB primarily for trying to not facilitate distribution of bullshit all because free speech.
I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it sounded to me like you were happy these services were trying to filter out bullshit.
> Anything they ban is considered to be violation of their ToS. If you have a dispute with the determination, you can file a lawsuit against them and have a judge determine if it was a violation of their ToS.
I'm not claiming anything about the legality of what they're doing. Only that I disagree with filtering content based on an arbitrary definition of "bullshit". If that is not what you were arguing, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Try to discuss the surge in grenade attacks and many-fold increase in rape in Sweden. Why would you not be able to do that in Sweden? How is it limited?
"That's racist"
This would be great in a universe where it was possible to know the truth with absolute certainty. Scientists disagree about this stuff, so how is YouTube in a position to determine what's misinformation and what isn't? Why is censorship suddenly so in vogue now?
The article mentions specifically conspiracy theories saying covid vaccines will kill you or be used to implant tracking microchips. I don't think it takes a scientist to call that misinformation.
> I don't think it takes a scientist to call that misinformation.
Are you sure? If you haven't done the experiments, how do you know the safety of the vaccines and the likelihood of becoming infertile or dying?
I'm not saying most of that isn't misinformation, because I don't know. What I am saying is that I don't trust YouTube to make that determination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I would say the problem with censorship is that it rarely stops at a good place. It might start from good intentions, but eventually we're shushing people that go against the herd without actually knowing they're wrong. In this case, it seems pretty obvious that there aren't microchips in vaccines. I'm not even sure what those chips would do, or how they'd work. But what if some day the government really di…
Don't be fooled by the pro-censorship narrative (although that is course the point of censorship). Claiming people believe there are microchips physically inside vaccines is a major distortion of what these people think. In fact even the Reuters article doesn't say that. It's the age-old tactic of making up something ludicrous that sounds vaguely like a group's concerns and then claiming they all believe it so they s…
This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
Just like eating 'fads' lollies as a kid is not a slippery slope to drug addiction. Banning clear misinformation* is not a slippery slope to censorship. Just like drug addiction, each step along the path to censorship is a clear decisive act. I am way more concerned about the fast train to banning encryption than the baby step of banning misinformation. And by the way, let's also not lose sight of the fact that prese…
While presenting misinformation is a political act, it is a more 'neutral' political act. In that, since many people are able to put forward content, that doesn't stop ideas from either side. Yes, that doesn't mean that truth will automatically come from that mix, but it allows for the potential of truth to be found. When you have a massive company controlling so much of content, it has a large amount of ability to influence the people using the platform. As well, I think banning misinformation is a legitimate slippery slope. It increases people's willingness to have other's censored for their incorrect beliefs, which once you have gotten far enough will be the new normal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China and WHO confirmed human to human transmission on Jan 20, before any doctors died and before China closed Wuhan province. Anyone who says or implies otherwise are lying or misinformed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/20/coronavirus-sp...
And they were denying it a week earlier: https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳.
There is nothing false or misleading, and they updated the public as new information came to light.
I can't emphasis enough how correct this behaviour is for a scientific organisation.
And for the sceptics who will claim China was covering something up: why didn't they shut down Wuhan until 23 Jan?