The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire

Post by totony » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:35 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #390

totony wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should you be free to make (acknowledged) sub-optimal decisions for yourself that adversely affect others? Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. Optimal-ness of decisions does not matter. There are some things we agreed as a society are not only suboptimal, but harmful enough to warrant restricting some of that freedom. Note the enough, we hold freedom above (or at least used to hold it) some consequences tha…

>Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others? I'm not familiar with that being a part of any philosophy.

Post by brandonmenc » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:37 AM UTC

xnyan wrote: post #217

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are making normative arguments, not legal arguments. We are aware that this is legal, just like it used to be legal to discriminate in hiring practices against black people. Taibbi is suggesting that if you can't trust the people not to post error and lies, how can you trust the oligarchs and officials? Especially if your access to alternative perspectives is limited. Read for yourself: >> Cutting down the pub…

Should you be forced to publish and host things that you think are terrible lies? If so, why? If not, why should YouTube? Not making a comment on the validity of their claims, just trying to understand what you are saying - a private organization should be legally compelled to spend money to host ideas that they think are harmful? How does that work in practical terms?

Post by throwmehaweh » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:39 AM UTC

phailhaus wrote: post #303

The author theorizes that this ban will inflame tensions, but I don't believe that's true. Look at Reddit's ban on toxic subreddits. They found that banning toxic subreddits reduced the toxicity in the website as a whole, and that "post-ban, hate speech by the same users was reduced by as much as 80-90 percent." [1] Reddit is just a closed system of communities; YouTube is one such community in the larger system of s…

Post by jstgord » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:41 AM UTC

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #87

jstgord wrote: post #74

This is a solved problem : don't BAN, but FLAG conspiracy theories and dangerous memes with a notice citing links to facts. I've enjoyed the somewhat balanced weekly covid discussions of youtuber Dr Chris Martenson / PeakProsperity. He generally backs up his opinions with links to science studies and data, but has been censored by youtube for mentioning controversially that "HCQ has some efficacy as a prophylactic be…

This is very, very, very far from a solved problem. It is not at all clear that flagging posts does anything to limit the spread of false information. Even when we know that the information we are reading is false, we can still end up believing it, especially if we are distracted or under time pressure [1]. Yesterday, the Lawfare podcast did an interview with a researcher studying misinformation, disinformation, and…

Post by brandonmenc » Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:42 AM UTC

seppin wrote: post #400

olefoo wrote: post #150

This is all the result of confusing 1st amendment rights with the right to access the audience that gathers at a particular URL. What Taibbi is asking for is that the guy who tells you that drinking rat poison is good for you should be allowed an audience and that even putting a warning alongside the video would be an infringement on his rights. Looking at the comments here I have to conclude that HN is no longer on…

> Taibbi Also this guy is not the same author some might have known a few years ago, he himself has been relegated to the regressive left Glenn Greenwald corner of the internet. Take his narrative with the proper grain of salt.