5 ms·

> The mere word "denialism" is a scary sign of the times we live in. Is the idea that anything that goes against the current "consensus" be removed? And is this

> The mere word "denialism" is a scary sign of the times we live in. Is the idea that anything that goes against the current "consensus" be removed? And is this just regarding climate change or does it apply to how we think about physics, statistics or even software engineering? This isn't a free speech issue, no one is suggesting that this content be removed from the internet. The issue is that sites like YouTube don't just provide content, they also promote it by showing people recommendations. No one is suggesting that climate change deniers should be prohibited from expressing their views, just that YouTube should not promote it. Take a more extreme issue: flat-earthers. Someone who believes the earth is flat should definitely be able to say so, but it's not a good idea for YouTube to actively promote that viewpoint. It's also just as bad for YouTube to present the issue purely as flat-earthers versus non-flat-earthers, as it suggests there is some sort of balance between the viewpoints. To the extent that YouTube is promoting content, they should do within some bounds of reasonable consensus. If they refuse to police their recommendations, they aren't improving free speech, they are just destroying the existing mechanisms of consensus.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hgoel 7y ago
You're just playing at semantics at that point.
pensatoio 7y ago
The thing is, there’s no way for an algorithm to know the intent behind why someone wants to see more of a certain kind of content. I get recommendations for flat earth videos because I’ve gone on several spurts of watching them. (It’s a good laugh, what can I say.) Sure, this is anecdotal, but I’m certain so are many other individual viewing habits. On top of all this, climate denialism is such a fuzzy topic. The science community barely even agrees on many aspects of the data and potential remediations. My point is, whenever these content hosts start adjusting recommendations based on their view of the world, regardless of whether I agree or not, I think we’re all done a disservice. What YouTube’s management define as “reasonable consensus” is most certainly not going to be a moderate position.
chr1 7y ago
> but it's not a good idea for YouTube to actively promote that viewpoint. I would argue it is very beneficial to promote flat-earther videos. Because most people can see it being false, and can use the experience to learn to not trust to everything. So it can be a kind of a vaccine.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > I would argue it is very beneficial to promote flat-earther videos. Because most people can see it being false, and can use the experience to learn to not trust to everything. Some people who watch those videos will be convinced the earth is flat. But even the people that don't, that "use the experience to learn to not trust everything", is also harmful. It's far more productive for YouTube, or any institution, to build actually trustworthy institutions, rather than teaching people to not trust anything.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hgoel 7y ago

You're just playing at semantics at that point.

pensatoio 7y ago

The thing is, there’s no way for an algorithm to know the intent behind why someone wants to see more of a certain kind of content. I get recommendations for flat earth videos because I’ve gone on several spurts of watching them. (It’s a good laugh, what can I say.) Sure, this is anecdotal, but I’m certain so are many other individual viewing habits. On top of all this, climate denialism is such a fuzzy topic. The science community barely even agrees on many aspects of the data and potential remediations. My point is, whenever these content hosts start adjusting recommendations based on their view of the world, regardless of whether I agree or not, I think we’re all done a disservice. What YouTube’s management define as “reasonable consensus” is most certainly not going to be a moderate position.

chr1 7y ago

> but it's not a good idea for YouTube to actively promote that viewpoint. I would argue it is very beneficial to promote flat-earther videos. Because most people can see it being false, and can use the experience to learn to not trust to everything. So it can be a kind of a vaccine.

speedplane 7y ago
> I would argue it is very beneficial to promote flat-earther videos. Because most people can see it being false, and can use the experience to learn to not trust to everything. Some people who watch those videos will be convinced the earth is flat. But even the people that don't, that "use the experience to learn to not trust everything", is also harmful. It's far more productive for YouTube, or any institution, to build actually trustworthy institutions, rather than teaching people to not trust anything.