5 ms·

May not be a popular opinion but I'll share it anyway. I believe anti-vaxxers are nuts. I believe they are dangerous. I believe YouTube is a private company

• rhizome 8y ago
  The plug isn't pulled on them, the videos are still accessible. Are you saying that people who post on YT have a right to monetization?
• goldenchrome 8y ago
  I would agree with you if this was a subjective matter. But it's not subjective in the slightest. It's not an opinion. People who are anti-vax are spreading incredibly dangerous lies and it's already starting to cause outbreaks around the world. This is a clearcut case where people are dying because of misinformation.
  • monochromatic 8y ago
    YouTube has a tendency to demonetize videos with a conservative viewpoint too. Is that subjective enough?
    • Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
      Now hold on... Are they really being demonetized being conservative? Or are they being demonetized for being racist, bigoted, transphobic, etc?
      • monochromatic 8y ago
        Your bias is showing... but it’s actually both.
  • TamDenholm 8y ago
    Its all a matter of line drawing, and where you draw that line is also an opinion. I do agree with you that Anti-Vaxxers are actively causing harm to the world, because i understand what science and facts are. What about Flat Earthers? Again, science and fact obviously prove they are wrong but are they causing any harm by sharing their non-fact based opinion? What about religion? Christianity? Islam? Scientology? What about abortion? I do agree with you but i also agree with the parent comment, the underlying issue is, do you trust Google to know where to draw the line?
  • Guest10928391 8y ago
    What happens if YouTube demonetizes channels with people smoking or vaping, because it's unhealthy, and encourages young people to take up the habit when their favorite YouTubers are doing or recommending it? It's not subjective, smoking is deadly, addictive, and it affects others in close proximity, so why should someone be able to recommend their favorite vaping accessories and be monetized? I'm not saying YouTube made the right or wrong decision, but is it that much of a stretch to go from demonetizing anti-vax channels to smoking or alcohol channels, and if not, at what point do they stop?
    • idDriven 8y ago
      Hey no, don't drag vape into this. World Health Organization estimates are at least 95% less harmful than smoking. That's harm reduction. Don't get me started on the studies that are skewed though, there are a ton of those. Like other than no-name china e-juice you won't find manufacturers purposefully adding diacetyl. Also you won't find users heating their coils to 900-degrees-F
    • amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      Wherever they want to. It's their platform. If you don't like it, stop using it. This is really easy.
• batbomb 8y ago
  It's not often that a horrible opinion can lead to a budding public health crisis, but this one has. If there wasn't a budding public health crisis, I'd agree with you. The flip side of this is that it's terrible PR for YouTube if they _do_ let it continue, at which point it turns into a "YouTube is supporting anti-vaxxers during a budding health crisis" headline.
  • wolco 8y ago
    If your kids are upto date then there will be no health crisis. The concern is everyone will start following this advice and then everyone will get sick. In the worst case evolution will wipe out this population.
    • EvanAnderson 8y ago
      Even if you or your children are vaccinated you still benefit from herd immunity. Not all vaccines are effective in everyone.
    • fzeroracer 8y ago
      In turn, anti-vaxxers are killing people whose immune system is compromised by a variety of circumstances (cancer treatment, vaccine allergies, diseases etc). It also doesn't stop the fact that viruses are not some static class. They can mutate, which makes this line of thinking especially dangerous if they start mutating to get around the original vaccine. This is before we even talk about vaccine efficiency. In the worst case scenario, evolution means we start wiping out vast amounts of the human population because of a growth in previously preventable diseases.
      • UncleMeat 8y ago
        I would expect videos that specifically lie and say that cigarettes aren't bad for you to be demonetized.
    • stevenpetryk 8y ago
      There are many people who cannot receive vaccinations because they are immunocompromised. Herd immunity protects them. Anti-vaxxers threaten them. The concern is not merely that people start becoming anti-vax
• haldean 8y ago
  But they haven't robbed the anti-vaxxers of their platform: they've let them keep their platform, but have decided to not give them their money. They aren't silencing the group at all. That feels like a good way to walk the line (and I'm usually the last person to compliment Google).
  • freeflight 8y ago
    With the way many people are making a career out of Youtube these days, they might as well have "robbed them of their platform". While in this particular case it might be "justified", imho it still sets a very problematic precedent. Because now YouTube has pretty much ascended itself as some kind of arbiter to decide as to what constitutes as "monetizable opinions" and "unmonetizable opinions". The potential long-term consequences coming out of this are not that difficult to imagine and quite scary.
    • amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      So they can move to a different platform, if they can find somebody else willing to pay them for it. If they can't, then, so what? I doubt I could find somebody willing to pay me for expressing my opinions either. If the line for free speech has moved from "you must be allowed to speak" to "somebody must pay you for your speech", I just don't know what to say.
      • freeflight 8y ago
        The "move to a different platform" is a cop-out excuse because YouTube's dominance in the sector is so extreme that you will have difficulties finding a "different platform" with a similar reach. The closest probably being Twitch but that's a tad bit a different of an audience and comes with its own set of issues. > If the line for free speech has moved from "you must be allowed to speak" to "somebody must pay you for your speech", I just don't know what to say. I never said anything like that, that's just assuming bad faith on your part. I'm merely pointing out that this sets a very troublesome precedent. Particularly in the context of how dominant these companies are: For the vast majority of people Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter ARE the Internet. Giving this position even more power, without acknowledging it even exists, is a very dangerous thing to do. I don't need nor do I want these companies to define factual reality, just because their stance, in this case, aligns with what's sensible, does not mean that will always be the case. Because this will already further play into this "Silicon Valley censoring conservatives" narrative that's even peddled by the US president himself [0] Note: I'm not saying that's actually happening, I'm merely pointing out it's a thing and how this will very likely further feed this notion. [0] http://nrb.org/news-room/articles/ft/ifw/president-trump-denounces-silicon-valley-censorship/ http://nrb.org/news-room/articles/ft/ifw/president-trump-den...
• wolco 8y ago
  Allowing free speach is more important than any one side of the debate. You can't defuse in a closed society.
• fossuser 8y ago
  Reminds me of the discussion of Schelling fences in this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-fences-on-slippery-slopes https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-... Given that holocaust denial is illegal in some European countries and there are already some legal restrictions on speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater) it's possible for reasonable exceptions to exist without the entire thing collapsing. This is probably even more true when the organization making the decision is a company and not a government.
• txru 8y ago
  It seems to me that public health concerns are a pretty reasonable line to draw. Flat earthers are weird, but they affect no one outside of themselves (how can anyone act on living on a flat earth?). More generally, effects that have the ability to meaningfully and physically compound among both children and adults seem pretty obvious targets. Ideas that can compound in adults are ok, because they're rational actors under the law, but for example teaching kids to teach other kids pro-anorexia propaganda is not, because it compounds to a public health problem that they never could have consented to deal with.
  • crashedsnow 8y ago
    I've been down the flat earth rabbit hole a few times, and find it equal parts hilarious and disturbing. I'm not sure it doesn't affect anyone though.. Critical thought and actively avoiding confirmation bias are real issues and when adults present arguments [e.g. to children] that effectively abandon these objectives, well.. that might be generally bad. I'd love to have a "crazy tinfoil hat" filter I could turn on or off.
• meowface 8y ago
  I agree with you, but they demonetized them, they didn't ban them. If they disallowed the videos, it'd be different.
  • pgrote 8y ago
    > If they disallowed the videos, it'd be different. How so? It is a private service. These are the video types not allowed on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guidelines https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guideli...
    • meowface 8y ago
      Yes, and one can have their own subjective judgments about whether they should or shouldn't disallow certain kinds of content. My subjective judgment is that it would be wrong for YouTube to disallow/remove antivax content, despite also personally thinking antivax rhetoric is unfounded and extremely dangerous. But everyone's going to have their own opinion about it.
• henrikschroder 8y ago
  They're not pulling the plug, you can still watch the videos, they will still be recommended as related videos if you're going down that rabbit-hole, etc. But, YouTube has a huge problem with thoughtless monetization, there's the grotesque "for kids" videos that seem to be algorithmically generated, unscrupulous people make videos about whatever, not really caring about the content, as long as it gets views and makes them a buck. By removing the monetization, a lot of actors will disappear, and the only people left will be the true believers who want to spread their misguided word, and that's fine. If they can't make money off of their shit, that's a good thing. They're not being censored in any way shape or form.
• enraged_camel 8y ago
  I don’t see anything complex about it. In my eyes, the case is pretty clear-cut: anti-vaxxers cause demonstrable harm not just to their own children, but also to those of others. Therefore, the censorship is justified. Is there a risk that someday in the future these tech giants will censor a “good” thing? Maybe. But those types of slippery slope arguments aren’t very convincing, in my opinion. It’s way more pragmatic to take the “we will cross that bridge when we get there” stance, rather than getting paralyzed by over-analyzing.
  • wolco 8y ago
    Censorship has shaped you and changed you in ways you will not understand. The slippery slope concept has played out many times throughout history and the idea that history keeps repeating has as well. Not moving in that direction is the only thing stopping the slide down. This decision will shape future decisions and force youtube to make decisions based on popular opinion. Youtube one day will ban any videos with waterbottles or sugary drinks or something else you deem acceptable ytoday that could fall out of fashion tomorrow.
• pgrote 8y ago
  >I believe YouTube is a private company who can do what they want with their company. This is what it always comes down to with me. It is a free service that can change anything they want at anytime. If there is concern they will stifle someone trying to do good or have an unpopular opinion, there are other options. They might not be as easy. They might not offer the eyeballs. As the laws are written today, services like Youtube are free to do whatever they want in terms of what is on their site. I understand the bad taste in your mouth, but I have learned services I do not pay for owe me nothing. It used to upset me, but I get it now.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• CobrastanJorji 8y ago
  I aboslutely see your point, but is the opposite equally unsettling? Today's headline could just have well have been "YouTube makes millions in advertising promoting anti-vax views," and we'd all dutifully gather for a group hate on Youtube. Heck, I think it was just 2 days ago that the headline was "Facebook allows ads to target people with interest in Nazis." Same idea.
• everdev 8y ago
  > What happens when they decide to silence or stifle a group that's actually trying to help the good of the people? It's amazing to me how angry people get at people who choose not to vaccinate. Throughout history there are countless examples of medicine and medical practices that were deemed safe that turned out not to be. And the published reaction rate for vaccines is not 0. So, while completely rejecting conspiracy theories or vaccines as a cause of autism or ADHD, I don't think it's fair to demonize people who choose not to put something into their body that they don't fully understand or trust. Just calling them names or stupid isn't going to help. A little more empathy and less anger might actually help adoption. But the last time I checked aggressively guilt tripping someone into a health decision usually creates more resistance than adoption.
  • idDriven 8y ago
    OK, so the major issue that I see here is that the average person doesn't have the education to make an informed health benefit/risk decision. Would every member of the population who is uncertain about stuff be willing to go through a RN-level course to make an informed decision? Because only at an RN level in medicine is there an understanding level capable of independent decision making. I would like to see free education for all, maybe we can work towards that.
  • SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    The published reaction rate for vaccines is not 0, but we also have qualitative, hard studies that show the incredible benefits of eradicating preventable diseases via vaccine. Being afraid of vaccines and choosing not to vaccinate is choosing to put infants under the vaccination age, immunocompromised people, those allergic to vaccines, all in danger of diseases with often horrific consequences. The measles is a disease preventable by vaccination which causes hearing damage in one in 10 children, which is much higher than the rate of complications from the measles vaccine. Horror and anguish is perhaps one of the most reasonable responses to anti vaccination movement getting any sort of momentum.
    • everdev 8y ago
      I'm not debating the safety of vaccines, but I am debating the technique of horror and anguish. When had that worked in history? I only know of it creating more conflict and more deeply entrenched positions. Until you can understand and empathize with who you're talking to, trying to convince them off anything is going to do more harm than good.
• munk-a 8y ago
  It is leaving a bad taste in your mouth (IMO) because youtube and facebook have shifted positions in our society and are approaching being forms to express speech in. They should start being considered communication carriers and subjected to laws that effect other communication carriers. That said, though, it shouldn't leave a bad taste in your mouth. A lot of us were raised to be very sensitive to the restriction of free speech but not all speech is protected. A news caster that intentionally misinforms with mal-intent in an effort to cause harm (i.e. advising people to take a highway that they are aware is dangerous to traverse while dissuading them from taking a safe route) is unprotected speech. I believe anti-vaxxers are either at, or approaching, presenting the same sort of danger to society and action is required to protect individuals.
• mullingitover 8y ago
  Let's save the concern trolling for another day. This needed to happen.
• krapp 8y ago
  It's not that complex an issue. They're one website, they only have control over the content on their platform, they can't censor the entire internet. >What happens when they decide to silence or stifle a group that's actually trying to help the good of the people? They're not even deleting these videos, they're demonetizing them. No one is getting silenced or stifled. Videos that probably weren't attractive to advertisers to begin with, can't get advertising revenue. And if Youtube did "stifle" a group actually trying to do good.. their reputation would suffer and the Streisand effect would raise the visibility of that group and they would move their content elsewhere. There's no slippery slope towards a boot stomping on our faces forever, here. Youtube's influence is not absolute and not unassailable, they're not a government, they aren't backed up by a monopoly on force, and their ability to control or censor information doesn't extend to society as a whole.