5 ms·
If "Sandy Hook is not fake" is an echo chamber to you, either your definition of echo chamber is wrong, or I'd rather not have you in my "chamber".
by yzmtf2008 8y ago
If "Sandy Hook is not fake" is an echo chamber to you, either your definition of echo chamber is wrong, or I'd rather not have you in my "chamber".
- CryoLogic 8y agoEven if they are wrong they should not be censored. Clearly state what is allowed and what is not. Do not pick sides and change rules on a case by case basis. Do what you say you are going to do. That's how businesses used to earn trust. Now integrity in business is a thing of the past. I'd rather have a bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the web than being selectively removed due to a couple's persons opinions on what is right especially when it is not written in stone and enforced sitewide on all accounts.
- yzmtf2008 8y agoNah, I'd rather not have the bunch of crazy people expressing themselves on the website that I use. Youtube is not all of web. Youtube has no obligation to give you a platform to express whatever you want. If you want to say Sandy Hooks is fake, go to your own corner, like 127.0.0.1.
- ac4tw 8y agoIt seems like a good solution to CryoLogic and your discussion might be for services to allow you to choose what you would like censored. For instance 'yzmtf2008' could simply say, don't show me content like this. Obviously there are some challenges in the 'like this' part, but it seems like it might scale better and be less prone to centralized censorship problems than the current mechanism. The sad part is that 'yzmtf2008' will exist inside of a vacuum and will miss out on things that appear crazy and may actually be true, but perhaps the upside is that this person may be more productive in other areas of life by defocusing on distractions.
- nl 8y agoI agreed with that until I found some people on HN who thought PizzaGate was a real thing. Even then I was open to the idea, but when someone turned up with a gun at Comet Pizza and started shooting I decided individual decisions about conspiracy theories are insufficient. The big problem is that there is no valid counter argument to conspiracy theorist. That means all conventional means of combating them are useless.
- im3w1l 8y agoSo it's not just you wanting high quality content? You also want to stop others from reading content you disagree with? Seems like a pretty drastic solution to a pretty small problem. You want to suspend democracy over an event where no one was even injured.
- nl 8y agoI don’t want to suspend democracy. I don’t want to stop others reading content I disagree with.
- ofj28 8y agoGoogle is doing what the social contract allows. Not to get all John Stuart Mill, but the town idiot is not above social censure. The government isn’t doing it. And right-wing speech, IMO nonsense, is all over the web itself. Stop believing “Big Corp should be fair.” That’s a complete fabrication on your part.
- nl 8y agoEven if they are wrong they should not be censored. I don't agree that keeping conspiracy theorists off a platform is censorship. It's more akin to removing spam. Jones himself argued (in his divorce hearing) that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him. I think in that case it is hard to argue it is political speech.