Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.
"Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed
Almost free speech isn't acceptable.
YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
871–880 of 933 posts
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#872Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you say it is naive to raise the idea that free speech alone will solve all issues, that is quite reasonable — but I would raise that is just as naive to think that a carefully administered censorship is an effective remedy, either. The only possible remedy in the end is to build our societies, our law, and our culture to be resilient against those cases when people are wrong, because they often will be.
There are countless examples in history where the majority believed medical facts that were utter nonsense, such as bloodletting, lobotomies, electric shock therapy, radioactive dinnerware, etc. It seems naive to think that somehow human nature has changed and the propensity of mobs to correctly determine what is factual or not is different in the 21st century.
There are countless examples in history where speech was suppressed by the general society as the main hindrance to enlightenment. And it was these times that brought such practices about.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#873Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's naive to say that laissez faire speech is going to solve all issues The arguments for free speech are fundamentally the same arguments for democracy itself. If people can't decide the value of information, why again are we trusting in the decision-making value of each and every voter? If we filter speech, maybe we should just cut to the chase and filter out voters by testing of some sort?
Do you think we should filter out astroturfers and Russian bots? What about human written Russian propaganda crafted to harm our society? What about a US citizen who crafts propaganda to spread intentional misinformation and harm society but benefit themselves? We don't let non-citizens vote. We don't allow free political speech nor the right to assembly at polling places. We have independent election observers. We h…
The Russian bot angle has just recently been uses as an election campaign, so it would be difficult to ban people on that suspicion if you think a bit about it. Worse, it has been used by unaccountable intelligence agencies to frame innocents.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#874Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regularily see shady ads as well. This is the actual outrage IMO. Before going off and create a corporate censorship network, they should at least apply some "standars" to what they let through on the ad side. But I guess it is all too late. The Circle proofs to be a pretty prophetic book.
I subscribe to Youtube Premium. It's handy if you use Youtube a lot and dislike ads.
Using this threads sidearm to promote YouTube Premium is pretty much beside the point. I wasn't trying to emphasis my particular dislike for ads. In fact, if the ad is haflway decent, or even interesting, I dont mind getting the occassional ad, especially since I see it as a way of supporting the actual channel owners. What I object to, and in particular in the context of this posting, is that I regularily see ads which never would make it through on more local media. Some of these are outright scams. And I wonder, what is the difference between someone spreading "misinformation" on their channel, and someone else paying YouTube to spread "information" which will ultimately be used to scam the user.
Also, YouTube has channel which upwards of 1 mio subscribers which only consist of pirated content. I truely wonder how these slip through the cracks.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#875Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree that social media is not the root problem, I cannot grasp why a disquisition about Intellectual Property could help us to understand what is going on.
Ok I'll take the bait. What do you see? What's high(er) on the priority list for you?
It wasn't a bait. Is just that I cannot connect Intellectual Property issues with social media issues.
> Social media is currently poisoning our country
What IP has to do with a kid joining extreme right (or left) groups, higher rates of teenager suicides and people believing anything you put in front of them?
All these happen because of social media, at least in part, and I do believe there is another kind of problem at the root. But I cannot associate it with IP. That's it.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#876Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so everyone should be allowed to broadcast, promote and advertise: "all white people are inherently evil and criminal and should all be exterminated, go out and shoot every and kill every white person you see!"?
In my view: yes. You can say whatever you want, and if you say stupid things people will think you are stupid.
Then a hundred years after you were burnt at the stake, it turns out you may have had a point.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#877Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok I'll take the bait. What do you see? What's high(er) on the priority list for you?
It wasn't a bait. Is just that I cannot connect Intellectual Property issues with social media issues. > Social media is currently poisoning our country What IP has to do with a kid joining extreme right (or left) groups, higher rates of teenager suicides and people believing anything you put in front of them? All these happen because of social media, at least in part, and I do believe there is another kind of proble…
> I do believe there is another kind of problem at the root
It's a bit boring when you say you disagree but put forth no alternative argument.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#878Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "misinformation" is indistinguishable from "thinks I think are false" which in turn is hard to distinguish from "things I disagree with". Only if you believe the post-modern claim that there's no objectively verifiable truth and that all narratives are equally valid. There is a huge difference between "vaccines contain microchips" and "water retains the essence of homeopathic ingredients" on the one hand and "COVID…
If the billionaire controllers of the tech giants (advertising based services!) aren't doing it, they are simply delegating this to other billionaires who are paying the bills. Like it's often said, 'if you're not paying for it you are the product'. Social media consumers are the target, not the ones directing the narrative. In the absence of the tech giants choosing what's permissible, you get different other billio…
Can't both things be true simultaneously?
a. there is objective truth
b. it's not a good thing for billionaires to determine what is censored
To me, there isn't an inherent conflict.
I think we (the collective) keep dancing around the issue. Essentially, perhaps it is time for advertising agencies and corporate users of social media to be regulated like news publishers. At least there, there's some expectation that they don't misrepresent facts. One could argue news regulation is also on the decline.
The next step is asking ourselves whether social media made everyone a "journalist" of sorts, and how that should be regulated. After all, taking on corporate entities alone wouldn't have stopped QAnon.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
#879Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conversations about Muslim integration are sensitive enough that you wouldn't mention them in your workplace in fear of being labelled racist and possible repercussions. Not quite illegal, but its going that direction.
"If I say shitty racist things that others correctly perceive as shitty and racist people won't want to associate with me" isn't even remotely comparable to the state putting you in jail and it requires an incredibly easily bruised sense of self to suggest it.
Why do you instantly assume that anything said is "shitty and racist"? You seem to be doing the kind of thing that I am referring to - nothing in my comment was racist, but you are doing your best to imply that it is.
And potentially loosing your job is quite a big deal for most people. That's what happened to James Damore for bringing up the wrong subject.