Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I am pointing out is the hypocrisy and false statements CF and others make. CF's actions are much different from their words. They say they need to allow dangerous terrorists because of free speech but then ban other speech which they don't like. > you might contact your local elected officials and request regulation Voicing my opinion on a public forum is one way to do that.
Why is everyone downvoting comments without even explaining?
YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
521–530 of 596 posts
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boiling a frog slowly is a sound argument against any form of heating even while you are freezing to death. Existing platforms could be misused by private actors in a way that negatively effects the populace. Arguably most of the people presently concerned are either a majority of bad actors or a minority of idealists concerned about future potential. To the worthy minority I would suggest that difficult to censor pl…
> the massive risk remains censorship by state actors the state actors are to an extent, elected by the people. The big corporates have no accountability. > I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy You say that because in this narrow issue, you agree with youtube. What is the short term? Have you thought through all the consequences? and still, things will happen that…
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#523Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. Platforms like Youtube are beyond ubiquitous and we all depend on them. The companies behind them have more money than countries. That, combined with the tax free private foundations their founders nearly all have, is taking us down some very bad roads. Of course, those…
On top of that, you have to realize that these countries (YT, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are completely obedient to the government of China. Not because it's their biggest market, but because China will shut them out if they don't toe the line. Whereas the US and Europe have never indicated a willingness to sanction these companies no matter what. It's a tyranny of the minority.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem we face is that social media is about echoing information, not validity, which is how misinformation spreads so rapidly, because it sounds like what people want to hear. There is no precedent in human history in such a thing. A private entity which controls so much public understanding and opinion. Making YouTube liable for content would go a long way in helping keep YT content honest, and solve the moder…
For what it's worth, I do not think people in the past were more informed than people today. If anything, more people are more informed today than at any time in history. What we're seeing is the breakdown of consolidated narratives. It used to be that people's beliefs were all wrong in the same way. You'll note that this looks basically identical to everyone being well informed. Now that we've moved into a regime of…
Quantity and access to information is only one side of the equation. The other side is relevance and the meaning that information affords us. If it doesn’t help us orient ourselves better in the world, if we can’t make sense of it, that information is useless, or even harmful. Decohered is the right word, but I don’t think it is only a product of the drastic increase in virality of memes. It is also our sense-making apparatus being broken or hugely behind the information influx that is created by the platform. This like informational obesity, influx of calories that can’t be translated into nutrition. Right now youtube’s policy layer and recommendation algorithms are the only machinery for deciding relevance and sense making on this exponential transfer of information happening. A black box machinery built for maximizing ad revenue, will naturally fall short on making us wiser, relevant or coherent. In fact, it is more natural for ad revenue maximizing to align better with us being more consumptive, polarized and addicted.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#525Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google deleted / censored CSPAN video of a Senator on the floor of the Senate[0]. [0] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/c-span-video-of-ran...
That article is about a Tweet being taken down, not about Google. Also that article says > It is not clear whether C-SPAN or Twitter took down the video.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/13/rand-paul-blasts-y...
It's widely known that Google/Youtube took down any videos where the name of the supposed whistleblower were being mentioned, at least according to a lot of regular content creators who had videos deleted or shadow banned.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is censorship and government censorship. Both are real and people can have valid opinions on both. I like it when the government censors child pornography, but I don't like it when they censor political speech. I like it when corporations censors child pornography, not not when they censor minority opinions on covid policy
Ok but then how are we to distinguish Corporate Censorship from Corporation Chooses Not To Publish My Opinion? If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count? If it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to publish on…
>If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count?
Censorship does not have to be universal. For example, some speech is banned in churches but permissible in public.
>f it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to publish on my universally accessible blog?
In your example. if the New York Times normally allowed the public to post gallery reviews, but refused yours specifically because it fell into a category they want to suppressed, this would be considered censorship.
>If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and you go to jail.”
I agree that many places enforce censorship with severe punishments, but punishment is not central to the idea of censorship. For example, an effort could be made to destroy all evidence of Oscar Wilde's Homosexuality. This would certainly be an act of censorship, even if Wilde is not harmed, or even if those who resist are not punished.
>If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me.
Wikipedia has a decent summary of different types of censorship if you scroll past the political section [1]. Some examples of corporate, religious, and self censorship. This utilization of the word is not new and consistent with what I have said.
I think that the idea that censorship can only be imposed by a state under threat of punishment is an inaccurate and restrive view. That said, if you feel strongly that this is the wrong definition, you can just substitute the word censor with suppress when whenever you read it.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#527I don’t agree with the interview contents, nor think professorship alone gives sufficient credibility in the face of a novel pandemic, data of which is in the process of emerging. That said, I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not. They don’t have in-house experts on these domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the “facts”. They are good at writing web se…
Maybe the people working at YouTube still have a moral and ethical responsibility to minimize the spread of disinformation.
In more modern times, suggesting that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was misrepresented would be "disinformation". Suggesting that we didn't need to invade Iraq to prevent another 9/11 would be "disinformation". Sometimes yesterday's "harmful disinformation" is simply today's "information".
I think the ethical question you presented is multifaceted. On another axis, do the people who control the most prolific video platform also have a moral responsibility to ensure a free society has the tools to ask difficult questions?
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact there is a global pandemic going on that requires the cooperation of virtually everyone is important context here. Meanwhile, YouTube does little moderation of zany philosophical, conspiratorial, or otherwise disruptive, unconventional content. The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooper…
>The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash their hands before they eat." (...) Jesus called the crowd to Him and sa…
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard enough of these machine learning buzzword bingos every week when things like this happen. The thing is, I don't care. I just want things like this to never happen again.
This is akin to saying "I've heard enough of these NHTSA reports every week when car accidents happen. The thing is, I don't care. I just want things like this to never happen again." A 0% error rate is a great aspirational target. But it's also important to acknowledge that a complex system may never be perfect. Insisting otherwise is ignoring reality.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact there is a global pandemic going on that requires the cooperation of virtually everyone is important context here. Meanwhile, YouTube does little moderation of zany philosophical, conspiratorial, or otherwise disruptive, unconventional content. The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooper…
> That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis. I think the figures running the Inquisition and the counter-reformation at the time of Galileo might have disagreed. Remember the 30 Years War was also ongoing from 1618-1648 during the whole time, a Catholic-Protestant religious conflict that engulfed all of Europe and resulted in 8…
> Bucking the authority of the Church/inquisition at that time was seen as a serious issue against social order in a way that’s hard for us to understand from a modern perspective.
Exactly my point. You can criticize the powers and be and the social order today with impunity on YouTube.