4 ms·

One thing all the conspiracy nut circles have in common, is that it's always YouTube videos that they use to try to convince the non-believers of their preferre

One thing all the conspiracy nut circles have in common, is that it's always YouTube videos that they use to try to convince the non-believers of their preferred kind of crazy. So I wonder what role YouTube monetization plays in this. How much money can you make grifting the gullible off of YouTube ads? As for q-anon, there's plenty of characters straight up selling merchandise, which should clue you in to what kind of operation it actually is. It wasn't that long ago that YouTube decided to de-monetize all antivaxx videos. Has that had a noticeable outcome? If amoral grifters can't make money peddling bullshit ideas, do they do it less? Are there fewer antivaxx videos being made today, than a year ago? Are fewer people being sucked into that particular conspiracy bullshit today, than a year ago?

chrisco255 7y ago
How much do the major news networks make overhyping and overplaying headlines that take things completely out of context, like the oceans running out of oxygen or some other bullshit? How many decades did we hear cholesterol and fat were bad for us before that was flat out debunked? You act like there are good guys and bad guys here and not 5000 shades of grey and that it's easy or desirable for Google to be an arbiter of truth.
- andrepd 7y ago
  >cholesterol and fat were bad for us [...] was flat out debunked That's a new one. Besides, isn't this how science is supposed to work? Improving accuracy, discarding what doesn't work?
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    The point is that consensus was one thing for decades and then it was later overturned. But if "the platform" backs the consensus then you don't get opinions that challenge status quo in the first place. I don't want to live in a society like that. Might as well be in China.
Chris_Chambers 7y ago
You typed all those words just to say you personally hate antivaxxers. What a useless comment.

chrisco255 7y ago

How much do the major news networks make overhyping and overplaying headlines that take things completely out of context, like the oceans running out of oxygen or some other bullshit? How many decades did we hear cholesterol and fat were bad for us before that was flat out debunked? You act like there are good guys and bad guys here and not 5000 shades of grey and that it's easy or desirable for Google to be an arbiter of truth.

andrepd 7y ago
>cholesterol and fat were bad for us [...] was flat out debunked That's a new one. Besides, isn't this how science is supposed to work? Improving accuracy, discarding what doesn't work?
- chrisco255 7y ago
  The point is that consensus was one thing for decades and then it was later overturned. But if "the platform" backs the consensus then you don't get opinions that challenge status quo in the first place. I don't want to live in a society like that. Might as well be in China.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago

You typed all those words just to say you personally hate antivaxxers. What a useless comment.