911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't target poor, uneducated masses. He targeted the most educated people in his society, the clerics of the Catholic church.
He translated the new testament from Greek to German. That helped the poor more than anybody else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is Youtube actually in the right here? Are you saying he got banned for this? I feel like you left something out in your comment.
One of the things that's important when we discuss any kind of censorship and freedom of speech is what we call "Chilling Effects". If you know taking a political position is going to result in your family being arrested and put in prison, then your speech is being curbed even without being punished and it's one of the insidious wrongs of censorship. When a grown man who was in the marines for several years is afraid…
Now the conversation is drifting away from the original point so I want to be sure
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people would like freedom to discuss the coronavirus without being oppressed. They can't on YouTube if this policy takes hold. The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one; they predicted a problem early and tended to pre-empt the WHO on upcoming problems. This was also expected , because the WHO only advises stuff that is already obvious to everyone. Interested parties can offer be…
> freedom to discuss the coronavirus Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading that far and wide over allowing for every dangerous and wrong opinion. The complete and total censorship you fear never emerges, Youtube if anything is far too lenient on allowing terrible opinions to linger on their platform. They never do away with anything besides the most harmful…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the things that's important when we discuss any kind of censorship and freedom of speech is what we call "Chilling Effects". If you know taking a political position is going to result in your family being arrested and put in prison, then your speech is being curbed even without being punished and it's one of the insidious wrongs of censorship. When a grown man who was in the marines for several years is afraid…
Has anyone been demonetized for simply mentioning Coronavirus or is this just their precaution? Now the conversation is drifting away from the original point so I want to be sure
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not arguing that youtube is doing a good job, or that youtube's brand of corona-related censorship is in any way making a positive impact. I'm arguing against the parent comment that essentially makes the argument that _all forms_ of censorship/moderation are bad and inherently lead to oppression. If you instead want to argue that youtube's specific policies regarding coronavirus are bad/harmful/etc, go ahead, I…
Hn is a moderated community, and it's value partially comes from it's moderation. It's restricted to a set of topics, and if things get too out of hand whether it's a personal attack or just insanity, the comment is going to get removed. Except you can view the dead comments. You can still see the removed stories. You have to opt-in to that, but it's just a checkbox in your profile. HN is moderated, but there is no c…
> The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down videos about Free HK.
I fail to see how this property, if it exists, is any less present in a "moderated but without explicit censhorship" system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hn is a moderated community, and it's value partially comes from it's moderation. It's restricted to a set of topics, and if things get too out of hand whether it's a personal attack or just insanity, the comment is going to get removed. Except you can view the dead comments. You can still see the removed stories. You have to opt-in to that, but it's just a checkbox in your profile. HN is moderated, but there is no c…
This is the same with your example though? Anyone can upload a video talking about the coronavirus, they just might not receive money for it (they'll be demonetized). Youtube only seems to be taking an active 'censorship' approach for comments spreading bad information about the virus. Whether or not "against WHO advice" is a good metric for this is debatable, but the goal seems worthwhile. > The issue with censorshi…
If your employer threatened to not pay you because you took a political position that would be abhorrent and oppressive treatment. Youtube is not a direct employee and it's more of a business partner, but it's wielding it's power to control speech - which is oppressive.
I do find the "censorship by private companies" discussions particularly interesting as a number of comments seem to overlook that we're conversing this very topic on a heavily censored and moderated forum that tailors its permitted content either directly (moderators) or indirectly (users downvoting). Its content, moderation, and selection are the primary reasons we enjoy visiting this site and having discussions. A…
Weekly? Try daily or hourly. I routinely read HN starting at https://news.ycombinator.com/active which shows flagged stories and I have showdead switched on, exactly because I don't trust the moderation here. All kinds of interesting and useful stories get flagged for no obvious reason at all. HN's own guidelines are very vague and contradictory. I'm sure the mods just erase stuff outright too, but unfortunately ther…
That said, publicmodlogs are a boon for subreddit transparency and is certainly a move in the right direction to counter conscious and unconscious biasing in online forums. It's a bright spot in the murky world of volunteer reddit moderation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of weird slippery slope argument that banning obviously bad advice somehow leads to youtube becoming a "horrible oppressor" doesn't pass the smell test. By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?
Moderation is not necessarily censorship. It is only censorship if the content is removed based on the content itself. For example, shutting down a flamewar for simply being aggressive is not censorship, as long as the same discussion would have been permitted if held in good spirit. Censoring "wrong" content likely has bad outcomes, the worst being that with only "good" content, critical thinking may get even sloppi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that would only be contradictory if the WHO advice said strictly don't wear a mask otherwise. In this case you're still free to choose to wear a mask even if the WHO doesn't say you should, or if local laws require it so it's not a contradiction even though it's not the exact same advice/requirement.
Do the WHO tell you not to drink disinfectant? I guess that means it would be fine to release a video saying that this will provide you with protection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of weird slippery slope argument that banning obviously bad advice somehow leads to youtube becoming a "horrible oppressor" doesn't pass the smell test. By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?
I think there is a big difference between content moderation (based on published and reasonably objective rules) and an outright ban on contradicting the stance of an organisation that is highly political. If this rule was implemented earlier, you’d be banned for saying there is human-to-human transmission, proposing flight restrictions, or advocating for the general public to use masks. The W.H.O. has explicitly adv…