3 ms·
The channels in question aren't accused of containing false/misleading videos, they're accused of containing disallowed facts. Noone disputes that modafinil pro
by kristofferR 9y ago
The channels in question aren't accused of containing false/misleading videos, they're accused of containing disallowed facts. Noone disputes that modafinil promotes wakefulness or that magnesium makes many sleepy.
- atomical 9y agoFacts, lies, or unproven?
- joew42k 9y agoWebsites have always been allowed to decide which facts to allow on their site. Right now, if I visited an anti-vaxxer forum, and posted "vaccines don't cause autism" in the comments, I'm sure it would be removed. So why is youtube any different?
- kristofferR 9y agoOf course YouTube have a right to remove every pro vaccination video from their site, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that they shouldn't.
- joew42k 9y agoI agree with you. They shouldn't. I'm playing devils advocate to make a point. You can't expect websites to treat all opinions as equal. Even 4chan has moderators. Youtube only differs from other websites in scale. They are moderating content as we see fit. We can disagree with their reasoning behind moderation. But it's silly to act like they didn't have this right all along (And that's what I see in this comment section. Comments like "why should youtube say what I can and can't watch?" I'm pointing out that those arguments are a dead end.)
- JamesBarney 9y agoBecause youtube has a de-facto monopoly on online video viewing.
- wnoise 9y ago"Works just like an antivax website" is not a glowing endorsement of either youtube or the rules under which it is working.