Will this include all videos talking of the Russia collusion?
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-p...
131–140 of 1001 posts
Will this include all videos talking of the Russia collusion?
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-p...
Regardless of what you believe to be 'The Truth', has suppression or censorship ever worked to quench dissonance or convince skeptical people, again, whether right or wrong, that there really is 'nothing to see here'.
I'm pretty anti-censorship; specifically I believe that sunshine/debate is the best disinfectant. However, we aren't having a healthy debate right now because the election fraud conspiratorialists are shouting their message without regard for the rebuttals. I think there's something to be said for bringing the volume down to manageable levels so that we can actually have a debate. That said, I'm not remotely convince…
It assumes that people are rational actors, and have good critical thinking skills, and care to apply those skills. None of those is true of Americans en masse.
Doesn't this just feed into people's fears about conspiracies? I can't understand why people are signing off on this. Let the Like/Dislike button do its job.
HNers really are clowns - there's a chorus of people acting like this is oppression. When the most powerful people in the United States are constantly spreading lies to destabilize the fundamentals of the country for years to come. Downvote me all you want - it's just proof that SV is full of assclowns. Such a shame that I probably work with some of you idiots.
The state of Texas is suing other states in the supreme court and alledging fraud. Youtube's new policy basically is saying that the state of Texas is not allowed to discuss the supreme court case on their platform.
Will this include all videos talking of the Russia collusion?
For God's sakes ... What underpins this need for social media companies to virtue signal about protecting 'election integrity' is the false notion that 2016 was stolen from Hillary by the Russians - a claim that had no evidential support (and no, that some trolls bought a minuscule amount of Facebook ads does not raise this claim to that level) but the entire Democratic party, with media allies, promulgated for the l…
The problem is the "regular open discussion", which has turned into a cesspool of fact-free ranting, and has created serious societal virality and negative impact. You can rant against the mainstream media, but at least there is a modicum of fact checking and research there -- how many independent YouTube sources do the same?
Factually correct speech has its place. But when you're making Youtube videos, podcasts, writing comments, talking with friends, you don't need to be factual. That's not a necessary ingredient to a good conversation.
I have a Youtube channel where I sometimes talk about Space and Biology. I'm not educated in these subjects. No doubt a lot of what I say is factually incorrect. That doesn't mean my speech is misinformation, deceitful, or dangerous.
Regardless of what you believe to be 'The Truth', has suppression or censorship ever worked to quench dissonance or convince skeptical people, again, whether right or wrong, that there really is 'nothing to see here'.
To make it against the rules to look at the evidence and have a wrong opinion on what conclusions can be drawn from it is very dangerous. Think about how a policy like this would have been used in the past or how it can be used now and in the future.
"We will remove anything alleging that The President Donald Trump colluded with russia"
"We will remove anything alleging that the Chinese government is interning Uyghurs."
"We will remove anything alleging that the CIA has conducted experiments on American Citizens"
"We will remove anything alleging that President Bill Clinton had sex with anyone other than his wife"
"We will remove anything alleging that Jeffery Epstein did not commit suicide"