The real problem here is that YouTube is a monopoly and needs to be anti-trusted down to allow competition.
The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
561–570 of 981 posts
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes. The increased amounts of pesticide run off the field and mess up the rest of the ecosystem. Now you're seeing herbicide-resistant weeds come up in these fields.
>Because it increases the amount of pesticides used (or incorporates them directly into the plant where they can't be rinsed off) Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Toxicol... >and pollutes the natural gene pool with artificial genes As opposed to the na…
> Does this argument work without the "all pesticides are bad" assumption? I searched up bt gene's use in pesticides[1] and it looks pretty safe.
Its referring to herbicide-resistant GMO crops where the pesticides are Roundup or Liberty. With regard to Bt, there's a big difference between topical application of Bt and GMO Bt corn (where the Bt is produced inside the plant so bugs are poisoned by the plant).
> "all pesticides are bad" assumption
Its more of a heuristic where we assume that things that are bad for biological organisms are bad for biological organisms because molecules don't make decisions about what to react with, they react with anything that forms the right molecular bonds. Since the biosphere has a lot of bimolecular pathways its not possible to categorically test everything and catalog all the possible reactions, we just know we can limit the amount of unwanted reactions by using the minimum amount of pesticide.
> As opposed to the natural gene pool being constantly polluted by spontaneous mutations?
They aren't in opposition because mutations don't stop when you start polluting the gene pool with GMO products.
> Or is that fine because of the naturalistic fallacy?
Its an application of the precautionary principle where we act in such a manner to create the least possibility of harm because the scope and extent of the effects are not known.
> AFAIK this is a non-issue except to the farmers.
Yes its a problem for the farmers because they can no longer rely on the herbicide to control those competitor organisms, which was the entire point of using a selective herbicide / GMO crop system.
With regard to the ecosystem disruption due to pesticide runoff, its an issue for anyone who is dependent on the biosphere because of the harmful effects on biodiversity.
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#563If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.
Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? We never had unrestricted free speech in this country. There is a whole Wikipedia article about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... In addition other democratic states have strict limits on free speech such as Singapore: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constituti... After all even “democracy” is nuanced here…
This is an extremely bizzare argument.
Firstly, the op like myself would have been against all those disasters of democracy as well.
Secondly, you're using things we deemed reprehensible enough to stop doing, outlaw, or repeal as an excuse to now do something in kind.
Op seems to have learned from those mistakes, why are you trying to use them to justify making new ones?
> Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments?
I very much agree. Why can't you understand that just because we've never had perfectly free speech, that maybe it's still worth fighting for most of the time. And that a few counter examples do not therefore equate to free speech being something unworthy of protecting.
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
>algorithms are too effective How effective are they? Just because social media keeps promoting people who promote those ideas doesn't mean they're actually widely and strongly held. If you really care about misinformation, you'd be more worried about Islam which is explicitly sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-science, and supremacist and those beliefs aren't just written in a book somewhere, they're held by mos…
We've asked you before not to do religious flamewar on HN. If you keep doing it we're going to have to ban you. It also looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle, which is exactly what the site is not for, and which destroys what it is for (thoughtful conversation on intellectually curious topics). We've warned you many times about this in the past. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinat…
[deleted]
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the most shallow and outright racist comments I've ever seen on this site.
Islam isn't a race. If you criticize Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or yes, even Islamism, you aren't being racist.
The poster meant bigoted. This is pedantic.
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#566If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.
It is not contradictory to be intolerant of the intolerant. To allow free speech for those who call for such repugnant lies is to tacitly accept them. Likewise, no government should allow for parties that would destroy itself - yet here America is, falling apart.
By that logic its not contradictory to be intolerant of people intolerant of intolerance. Or is it only valid logic with an even number of intolerances?
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#567If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.
Democracy is also intrinsically linked to freedom of association.
YouTube has chosen to deny associating itself with certain views, as is their right. It is no different than how Fox, CNN and others may choose what to broadcast.
Don't like that? Use BitChute or PeerTube or similar.
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You have a right to say whatever you want to whomever you want without fear of government retaliation, as long as it isn't "hate speech" in a fairly narrow legal sense. This is what "having free speech in society" has always meant Wrong twice. First of all, the United States doesn't have laws against hate speech. The US Supreme Court has said hate speech is protected by the first amendment. So, you're protected fro…
> the United States doesn't have laws against hate speech Interesting, thanks for enlightening me! Canada does have laws against hate speech and I'd mistakenly thought the US did as well. In any case, speech intended to incite lawbreaking, whether a hate crime or otherwise, is not protected under the first amendment. If you tell your Twitter followers to go burn down all the Jewish-owned business or whatever, and the…
> In any case, speech intended to incite lawbreaking,
The standard is "imminent lawless action." You can in fact advocate lawbreaking, including violent lawbreaking (e.g. people advocating punching all Nazis are protected).
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#569If you reject the idea that people are intelligent enough to think about politics for themselves then you reject the idea that they're intelligent enough to govern themselves. Democracy and free speech are intrinsically linked.
Democracy is also intrinsically linked to freedom of association. YouTube has chosen to deny associating itself with certain views, as is their right. It is no different than how Fox, CNN and others may choose what to broadcast. Don't like that? Use BitChute or PeerTube or similar.
YouTube isn't a broadcaster.
Don't confuse them.
Re: The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
Participants in controversial discourse have long said that the system wants to silence them -- banning such discourse actually makes that true. In the past, they said they were censored and there was a conspiracy against them, and we could all say, no there isn't, you are active on major online platforms and nobody is suppressing you. Now we can't say that anymore. Not only has the suppression they falsely alleged a…
>This is a total backfire because it makes it even harder to change people's minds by confirming what conspiracy theorists suspected all along. The question shouldn't be "will doing x help the antagonists", it's "will doing x result in a worse outcome for the antagonists". If they gain from either choice, we shouldn't be paralyzed in our response.
If they gain from either choice, we would be better off with the status quo.