Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the same bahviour Trump shows when he retweets racist stuff. Both are unacceptable. The difference being, The MP you mentioned is part of the minority, and she deleted and the retweet and ecused herself. The article also discribes the original tweet coming from "a parody account" from a journalist. So, you just confused the opposition, it is a Labour MP after all, with the government. And you totally ignored…
"Trump", "racist" all the signs of a well thought through and convincing argument.
YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
911–920 of 933 posts
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.
"Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#913Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't work. My kids are literally being assigned to watch specific YouTube videos on their Chromebooks and then answer questions as part of the ridiculous "distance learning" nonsense that the school district came up with. I can't review and approve each video. And downloaded videos won't be available on Chromebooks.
If you are up for it, you could host the videos on a computer on your network and serve them with Plex. Plex has a decent web-app for viewing your catalog. Chromebooks should have no problem with that setup provided they can get on the same network as the server.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#914Now think about all the conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be truth. MK ULTRA, Dark Alliance, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, COINTELPRO, PRISM, you name it. Would these be banned ("fact checked") from YouTube, Facebook or Twitter under these new rules? On the other hand, there is a clear evidence that authoritarian regimes (Russia) are weaponizing social media, using troll farms, puppet accounts and fake news,…
We're too concerned with edge cases to justify the absolute nightmare we are in with regards to information. For every "true" conspiracy theory there are millions of junk ones - of course some will be partially correct. We are so afraid of losing "one correct idea" that we allow orders of magnitude more bad ones to flourish and drown out good ideas anyway. Dealing with foreign powers abusing the system would be easy…
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real-world events such as elections, legislative votes, military ops, referenda, protests and gatherings are time-limited. The lie may have already had its desired effect by the time the truth comes out, if it ever does. Lies about, for example, the stab-in-the-back, tobacco and WMDs in Iraq got the liars what they wanted at the cost of millions of lives. The truth may never become as widely known as the lie due to t…
> The lie may have already had its desired effect by the time the truth comes out, if it ever does Yes, that's unfortunate. There is no way to consistently detect lies, which is also unfortunate for anyone arguing for censorship as then you cannot ascertain which claims should be censored and which should not. > Lies about, for example, the stab-in-the-back, tobacco and WMDs in Iraq got the liars what they wanted at…
The edge cases are where millions die because of lies perpetuated unchecked. "Freedom" is the ability to say whatever you want without the government getting involved, nothing else. If a private party doesn't like what you say, tough shit get off their property. Otherwise you're impinging on their freedom to keep anyone the hell they want off their property.
Speaking of high priests, it would be pretty funny if discussion boards required declarations of faith to join and being kicked off was akin to excommunication. In such an environment, moderation is just another name for "suppression of heresy within the religion". Surely the government wouldn't dare intervene in the free practice of religion, would they?
Overall, I find it hilarious in this whole discussion that conservatives appear to be arguing for more government interference in private property rights and freedom of expression.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#916Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed
"Dissent as long as a centralized authority permits it" doesn't sound great to me!
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#917Earlier 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.
Sure, arresting people for quoting Churchill seems like a potential definition of "working". [1] There's no way that arresting people for a twitter post [2] could be abused. Nobody needs free speech for reposting rap lyrics. [3] The road to hell is paved with good intentions. [1] https://thenewamerican.com/hate-speech-u-k-political-leader-... [2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-offensive-face... [3] htt…
"I hate indians! They are a beastly people with a beastly religion"
Or "the Hindus are a foul race"
It's highly believable that quoting Churchill can be considered hate speach. There's a lot of races he did not like
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your thesis is based on the notion that “society is unstable” more than ever before. How are you measuring that? Despite tons of noise in social media, real life up has been incredibly stable for the last couple of decades in the west. The least amount of violence, lowest extreme poverty, highest disposable income, etc etc. In the 70s (before social media), there were multiple bombings every year in the US. That is c…
> real life up has been incredibly stable for the last couple of decades in the west This isn't universally true in the US. Millions lost their homes in the great recession and never fully recovered, it's just easy to forget that the American economy doesn't work for everyone when it does work for you. Now millions more face eviction and starvation amidst a major public health crisis. > In the 70s (before social medi…
On a per capita basis, home ownership was at an all-time high during the 2000s before the crisis and crashed down to 90s levels after the crisis and has returned now to a level not ever seen during the 1900s. In the worst of the Great Recession more people still owned homes than during the 70s-80s.
Starvation is not a realistic outcome for anyone in the US who chooses to use social safety nets. Both government and private programs provide meals to people who need them and are available all across the country. What you might be thinking of is “food insecure” households, which are people that would need such programs.
WRT wealth inequality, that is mostly a meaningless statistic for actual lifestyle of the lower and middle class. All it tells you is that the wealth growth was faster at the top than at the bottom. Not that the bottom got worse or even stayed stagnant for that matter.
From the perspective of the data on violence, purchasing power, disposable income, home ownership, etc, society appears to be quite stable. From the perspective of shared stories on social media, I can see why you might be led to think otherwise.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Conversely, I believe there are a lot of people in the US walking around freely that deserve to be locked up.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#920Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If I say shitty racist things that others correctly perceive as shitty and racist people won't want to associate with me" isn't even remotely comparable to the state putting you in jail and it requires an incredibly easily bruised sense of self to suggest it.
Why do you instantly assume that anything said is "shitty and racist"? You seem to be doing the kind of thing that I am referring to - nothing in my comment was racist, but you are doing your best to imply that it is. And potentially loosing your job is quite a big deal for most people. That's what happened to James Damore for bringing up the wrong subject.
Not saying you think muslims are dangerous is at the same courtesy level as not telling your coworker his hair looks like shit every day. Nobody is going to (immediately) fire you for it, but people will definitely start avoiding you if you do it to an obnoxious degree.