151–160 of 223 posts
I would love to see almost a Wikipedia version of YouTube, where videos could be submitted by anyone and facts/references could be linked at any point of the video.
I 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…
One way to think about it is guilt vs shame. Guilt is where you feel bad because you've violated your own standards. Shame is where you feel bad because somebody of standing has called you out. Platforms generally feel shame but not guilt, so most of their actual improvements in anti-abuse and TOS enforcement come from PR messes and other things that trigger shame. But when the heat is off and it's just you reporting something, they're not going to be particularly bothered.
>> monopoly speech platforms are also sloppily banning any form of science that doesn’t come from ‘ordained’ sources. It's not just that. The real message is that individuals are not able to make decisions or do things for themselves. This is why any medical treatment that doesn't involve surgery or prescriptions is thrown in with homeopathy and general quackery. It's not just companies either, individuals will look…
This causes me to never be able to tell if I'm reading genuine frustration with the process of science or indeed just general quackery.
Maybe it would be good to list specifically what frustrations you have with what medical treatments and why. At this point I can only be sure it's not homeopathy.
But, you know, of course it's not homeopathy...
...energy stones though, that shit is legit.
I 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 a legitimately hard problem. It's also something that they would rather not deal with and don't make any money from. Plus, it's basically unregulated and platforms mostly don't disclose any stats on how they're doing, so there's no real accountability. One way to think about it is guilt vs shame. Guilt is where you feel bad because you've violated your own standards. Shame is where you feel bad because somebody…
"Platforms," feel nothing.
I 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…
Back when I had a Facebook account, I just started reporting all ads as sexually explicit. They always came back with "no it isn't" but it took a while. And I stopped seeing ads.
Promoting experimental (biohacked) treatments and guiding people through administering them is not compatible with the currently accepted ethical framework for protection of human subjects, _especially_ if it's done with intent of generating scientific knowledge.
That, I think, is a large factor in why government and corporate entities do not wish do be seen as supporting, even tacitly, biohacking on humans. If you do biohacking on yourself quietly, no one will really care, but publishing what you learned makes it scientific research, and if it was done to a human it's human subjects research. So yes, the root of the conflict probably is a lack of acceptance by the "official science cult", but this conflict does not seem arbitrary or frivolous. Extension of current approaches to human subjects research to accommodate a public DIY biology / biohacking community may be possible but seems tricky to do without accidentally deregulating the whole field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't get the impression the author alleged YouTube had any obligation to let him broadcast his material. He even mentioned understanding why YouTube would be wary of his content, and mostly was unhappy that YouTube did not put some of their profits into being able to discriminate between home-made science and the quacks exploiting the vulnerable. But none of this article made me even think the author believed You…
Exactly. I read this as a much broader critique of the scientific community. As YouTube is seen as a mass media company, it's not hard to accept their content decisions. He didn't fight it. I also believe any company that markets themselves as tech industry should not be this cagey about their relationship to science. It's an ethical question not a legal one. Jumping to the legal aspect seems like a big misunderstand…
I think it's a valid one. Humans are really bad at fully separating and understanding our influences, never mind selectively ignoring some them.
Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates, I think it's reasonable to bring up. Now to be fair, most any YouTuber that's likely to be a topic of discussion has almost certainly moved far past the point of actually being that 'pure' ideological advocate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a legitimately hard problem. It's also something that they would rather not deal with and don't make any money from. Plus, it's basically unregulated and platforms mostly don't disclose any stats on how they're doing, so there's no real accountability. One way to think about it is guilt vs shame. Guilt is where you feel bad because you've violated your own standards. Shame is where you feel bad because somebody…
Guilt, and shame, are both *human emotions*. "Platforms," feel nothing.
But you are right in a sense, that is is a large enough group that it's momentum will crush any feelings of individuals in the team.
Biohacking in the sense of making E. coli grow on a different substrate, like in the ODIN kit, is pretty tame and unobjectionable. Promoting the manufacture and administration of homemade vaccines, though, is human subjects research, or _very_ close to it. The current manner in which society handles human subjects research came about through reaction to specific offenses, the main ones being Nazi experiments, governm…
> Extension of current approaches to human subjects research to accommodate a public DIY biology / biohacking community may be possible but seems tricky to do without accidentally deregulating the whole field.
This is incorrect. The ethical framework and laws surrounding human subjects research pertain to institutions, not to individuals. In the US, there is no human subjects research board for unaffiliated scientists/hobbyists that could approve or deny their research based on ethical considerations, as there is for institutions. The Belmont Report that established IRBs was specifically motivated by institutional abuse of the kind you mention, not general quackery. Marketing of quackery falls under the purview of the US FDA. There is no regulator for independent science. If you are independent and including others in your research, you are only bound by general medical ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I read this as a much broader critique of the scientific community. As YouTube is seen as a mass media company, it's not hard to accept their content decisions. He didn't fight it. I also believe any company that markets themselves as tech industry should not be this cagey about their relationship to science. It's an ethical question not a legal one. Jumping to the legal aspect seems like a big misunderstand…
I don't think the financial incentives question was so much a sincere question as it was bringing up a concern about other influences on his position. I think it's a valid one. Humans are really bad at fully separating and understanding our influences, never mind selectively ignoring some them. Given the perception of many YouTubers as being more 'pure' ideological advocates, I think it's reasonable to bring up. Now…