4 ms·

The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus', and meanwhile you're trying to tie up everybodies attention with special ca

The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus', and meanwhile you're trying to tie up everybodies attention with special cases that don't represent the majority of cases. People get disoriented with special cases and trick questions. Let me put it this way. If you're not just pointing to the mask example as a tentative, academic exercise, and sincerely believe that they constitute some non-trivial percentage of videos that will really get taken down, you should come out and say so. And if you don't want to commit to that, I have a hard time understanding what, other than frivolous internet contrarianism, motivates you to emphasize those examples. >do you really think that a discussion about edge cases is so unnecessary? Yes.

OrderlyTiamat 7y ago
Well, than I don't know what to say to you. I have already explained my view on the proportions, I have already given argument and explanation for it, and you seem to be intent on not supporting your own conclusions apart from a rather lame "you're a contrarianist" argument. Why not actually defend your arguments and attack mine instead of circling about the issue with "this actual real life example is a what if hypothetical" and hastily drawn up dichotomies? (Particularly this hammering that these are contrived examples is bordering on the ridiculous: we know this is true!) You've lost your benefit of the doubt with this comment.
- glenstein 7y ago
  >(Particularly this hammering that these are contrived examples is bordering on the ridiculous: we know this is true!) I'm just going to note you agree that these examples are contrived yet nevertheless want to debate them, apparently to performatively exhibit your appreciation for the values open-mindedness and free speech. That's a not a constructive use of anybody's time. It's a frivolous distraction. Youtube is doing what they can to save lives by stopping misinformation in the face of a global pandemic. If you're more interested in turning this into a navel gazing exercise, I'd say you're suffering from a serious lack of perspective.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >Youtube is doing what they can to save lives by stopping misinformation... I'm shocked that anyone would believe that this is an honest framing of YouTube's motivation.
    - AgentME 7y ago
      What do you think their real motivation is? Take advantage of this event to take their place as the Ministry of Truth and censor their way into being at the top of the New World Order? Or maybe they really just weren't happy with airing content at their scale that's practically guaranteed to help cause a lot of people to hurt themselves. (Or they think their advertisers aren't happy with doing that... which I think is pretty equivalent, because it involves people feeling the same thing leading to the same result.)
      - Legogris 7y ago
        > What do you think their real motivation is? How about political pressure?
        jshevek 7y ago
        I try not to engage with people who go directly to snarky extremist characterization, as above. But yes, political agendas are a factor here, as is simple appeasement.
        AgentME 7y ago
        Who are they trying to appease? Trump? What agenda are they pushing specifically? "Don't get yourself infected or do ridiculous dangerous things to try to cure yourself"? Is that specific agenda bad?
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    More like youtube is doing what they can to support a certain political position with disregard for human lives. If anything the WHO recommendations themselves are misinformation.
jshevek 7y ago
>The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus' If this were the case, they could simply announce that their policy is to ban videos that blame coronavirus on 5G. In practice, they will probably be banning a lot more videos than simply ones which blame coronavirus on 5G.
- Faark 7y ago
  Might has something to with it being easier to come up with new crackpot theories than announcing policy changes. Kind of like "then debunk the conspiracy" doesn't really work, since this requires a disproportional amount of effort. Society might be able to handle this additional effort in a "low noise" environment, but hardly when motivated actors got their foot in the door already.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    Yes, I agree. My point in that comment was not to debate the merits of a general policy vs specific policy, but to dispell the idea that the general policy would only be used for the specific case of corona virus and 5G. It seems that you agree.
    - glenstein 7y ago
      >only be used for the specific case of corona virus and 5G. There's nothing in any of my comments that suggests the policy would only address the specific case of 5g.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        The technical correctness of your comment isn't of practical significance when you argue as follows: >The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus', and meanwhile you're trying to tie up everybodies attention with special cases that don't represent the majority of cases. People get disoriented with special cases and trick questions.

OrderlyTiamat 7y ago

Well, than I don't know what to say to you. I have already explained my view on the proportions, I have already given argument and explanation for it, and you seem to be intent on not supporting your own conclusions apart from a rather lame "you're a contrarianist" argument. Why not actually defend your arguments and attack mine instead of circling about the issue with "this actual real life example is a what if hypothetical" and hastily drawn up dichotomies? (Particularly this hammering that these are contrived examples is bordering on the ridiculous: we know this is true!) You've lost your benefit of the doubt with this comment.

glenstein 7y ago
>(Particularly this hammering that these are contrived examples is bordering on the ridiculous: we know this is true!) I'm just going to note you agree that these examples are contrived yet nevertheless want to debate them, apparently to performatively exhibit your appreciation for the values open-mindedness and free speech. That's a not a constructive use of anybody's time. It's a frivolous distraction. Youtube is doing what they can to save lives by stopping misinformation in the face of a global pandemic. If you're more interested in turning this into a navel gazing exercise, I'd say you're suffering from a serious lack of perspective.
- jshevek 7y ago
  >Youtube is doing what they can to save lives by stopping misinformation... I'm shocked that anyone would believe that this is an honest framing of YouTube's motivation.
  - AgentME 7y ago
    What do you think their real motivation is? Take advantage of this event to take their place as the Ministry of Truth and censor their way into being at the top of the New World Order? Or maybe they really just weren't happy with airing content at their scale that's practically guaranteed to help cause a lot of people to hurt themselves. (Or they think their advertisers aren't happy with doing that... which I think is pretty equivalent, because it involves people feeling the same thing leading to the same result.)
    - Legogris 7y ago
      > What do you think their real motivation is? How about political pressure?
      - jshevek 7y ago
        I try not to engage with people who go directly to snarky extremist characterization, as above. But yes, political agendas are a factor here, as is simple appeasement.
        AgentME 7y ago
        Who are they trying to appease? Trump? What agenda are they pushing specifically? "Don't get yourself infected or do ridiculous dangerous things to try to cure yourself"? Is that specific agenda bad?
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  More like youtube is doing what they can to support a certain political position with disregard for human lives. If anything the WHO recommendations themselves are misinformation.

jshevek 7y ago

>The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus' If this were the case, they could simply announce that their policy is to ban videos that blame coronavirus on 5G. In practice, they will probably be banning a lot more videos than simply ones which blame coronavirus on 5G.

Faark 7y ago
Might has something to with it being easier to come up with new crackpot theories than announcing policy changes. Kind of like "then debunk the conspiracy" doesn't really work, since this requires a disproportional amount of effort. Society might be able to handle this additional effort in a "low noise" environment, but hardly when motivated actors got their foot in the door already.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Yes, I agree. My point in that comment was not to debate the merits of a general policy vs specific policy, but to dispell the idea that the general policy would only be used for the specific case of corona virus and 5G. It seems that you agree.
  - glenstein 7y ago
    >only be used for the specific case of corona virus and 5G. There's nothing in any of my comments that suggests the policy would only address the specific case of 5g.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      The technical correctness of your comment isn't of practical significance when you argue as follows: >The 99.99999% case scenario concerns videos that are saying '5g caused coronavirus', and meanwhile you're trying to tie up everybodies attention with special cases that don't represent the majority of cases. People get disoriented with special cases and trick questions.