91–100 of 933 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And, while at it, also think how to thread the needle of keeping these platforms as less scammy etc. as possible, so that the people won't stop using the platforms. Why should anyone care about these platforms' engagement metrics? What about these platforms necessitates their survival? The assumption that Youtube is an unalloyed good for the world is a very controversial one.
People like them. They wouldn't survive if they didn't.
This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
Platforms like YouTube, Google Search, Twitter, Facebook and all have a problem of amplification through algorithms that don't promote well proven, high quality, trusted content. You could almost see these platforms themselves as a kind of censorship through obscuring and creating noise around quality information.
I think because of the way content is amplified on such platforms, that's why they need policies like this, to limit the possible damage and liability they might face if they'd promote something that caused a lot of damages.
This is very different from someone choosing to host their own content which is equally accessible to all other content. But as soon as you rank content, as soon as you have an algorithm pick and choose content to shown you, in what order to show it to you and all that, you actually have a propaganda problem, because you become a propaganda machine, and that's really what these platforms have become.
This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
Please don't wear a mask. Please don't take vaccines. Please congregate in closed spaces for long periods of time
Do your part to achieve heard immunity.
Just don't say they might suffer the consequences of their actions, the deniers don't like it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zzzz. Yeah that's a problem, but come back with a proposal about how to deal with the existing misinformation and bad faith problem.
More freedom of speech is the answer to misinformation because then it can be challenged. Censorship allows convenient mistruths to spread unchallenged.
This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
I think I disagree with that statement. Censorship would prevent the information from being accessible, make it illegal, come with repercussions for those who publish it, or other such things. Platforms like YouTube, Google Search, Twitter, Facebook and all have a problem of amplification through algorithms that don't promote well proven, high quality, trusted content. You could almost see these platforms themselves…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zzzz. Yeah that's a problem, but come back with a proposal about how to deal with the existing misinformation and bad faith problem.
More freedom of speech is the answer to misinformation because then it can be challenged. Censorship allows convenient mistruths to spread unchallenged.
Do we have any evidence that it's true? Anecdotally, it seems that the more the internet has expanded our ability to communicate, the more widespread misinformation has gotten.
I see the moral and anti-authoritarian arguments against censorship, but only in the context of accepting the costs. This "have your cake and eat it" argument feels hollow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will take short term damage over long term tyranny
A Samuel Adams quote posted by Naval today on twitter I’ve been thinking about: > If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! Feeling hungry for change, wha…