[deleted]
The Crime of Curiosity
41–50 of 223 posts
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#42I wonder if the video had prominent "Don't try this at home" warnings?
The whole point of his video and work is to democratize science. He sells kits to let you do genetics science at home. Ie, a disclaimer would not make sense considering his objective
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the whole "censoring" stuff ratcheted up really fast. Kinda crazy.
It's scary. Imagine the US five years from now, with Team Trump in charge of the censoring.
Banning Trump from Twitter...the pendulum will indeed swing the other way. How long do we have.
The clock is ticking on open source, decentralized solutions. Nothing else is relevant.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#44The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
Funny I replied to you saying that you’re false about the mask statement and HN censored me! Real free speech platform you guys have here. The irony considering what I was replying to!!
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#45Also covered by Reason (whose reporting on Zayner was likewise censored),
https://reason.com/2021/06/16/why-did-youtube-remove-this-re... ("Why Did YouTube Remove This Reason Video?")
edit: Here's a complete transcript of the censored material, post by Eugene Volokh
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/17/youtube-removes-march-2...
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has to use YouTube. There are many other video hosting/watching platforms. None of them are especially popular because they get filled with a lot of junk, because they attract the people who can't host their content on YouTube. In a way, this dynamic is an effective, natural check on moderation. If moderation primarily removes stuff that most people think is junk, then alternatives competing on reduced moderat…
Nonsense. A monopoly does not conform to the rules a "normal" company does. Rumble does not compete with YouTube, because a generation of uploaders have put essentially every piece of TV, music, movies, conference proceedings, and every other form of media on YouTube. If you're wondering if something unusual is online, you would always look on YouTube first. And then stay there.
I disagree. You’re confusing network effects with monopoly. YouTube is not a monopoly.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#47I don't understand this social platforms. Covid stuff and fake news aside, I reported maybe 20 times obvious scam videos, or posts with extreme hatred and threats of violence against a group of people and similar stuff where 99.99999% of us would agree that it should be removed without question, and only once they did remove it. All the other times I get a message that they reviewed my complaint, that it does not go…
It's the same way ADHD is both under- and over- diagnosed. If you're bad enough at your job, you can both miss the majority of content that is harmful, and wind up taking down significantly more false positives than truly harmful material.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#48The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
Yeah the whole "censoring" stuff ratcheted up really fast. Kinda crazy.
HackerNews is notorious for censoring anything that falls outside its groupthink or threatens a portfolio company. It's actually one of the more aggressive censors on the internet.
Case in point from this very thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28558254
There is no free speech here.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#49The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
>"The Crime of Curiosity" is a great way to put it, because we're already banned from questioning a lot of areas of science on most major tech platforms.
I think the keyword that, in my mind, justifies the censorship here is "on most major tech platforms". Nobody is banning the discussion of these ideas in academic journals or HN or other places where curious people can go to discuss things - it's just making sure unverified, potentially dangerous theories aren't spreading like wildfire amongst the general population who _aren't_ curious and will assume whatever they're reading is absolute truth.
Re: The Crime of Curiosity
#50The potential costs of systemically removing correct but controversial/fringe content are extremely detrimental to scientific progress in general. Sure, we remove thousands of obviously false and likely harmful posts, and there are cases to be made for why that may be good, but sometimes hidden within those thousands of posts was something that may have had a tremendously positive effect, but yet could not be separat…
[deleted]