6 ms·

What exactly qualifies someone to be a "professional" who is allowed to speak? The vast majority of content I watch on Youtube is produced by independent creat

What exactly qualifies someone to be a "professional" who is allowed to speak? The vast majority of content I watch on Youtube is produced by independent creators covering a variety of topics with much more detail, expertise, and truth than any mainstream program.

cle 7y ago
There isn’t “qualified” and “unqualified”. It’s not that black-and-white, and I wish people would accept that more. Basically what we should be asking ourselves is “What’s the likelihood that what this person is telling me is correct?” which is much more useful, because it immediately puts the focus on what factors contribute to that. We aren’t going to conclude anything useful until we can agree that there are good and bad tradeoffs between central information control and decentralized, and that the optimum at any given point in time probably lies somewhere in between and depends on the context in which the communication takes place.
- chrstphrhrt 7y ago
  Makes total sense. The black and white thing always seemed so weird. It's a false dichotomy. Even if censorship is good in the particular context (which seems to be the case here), but bad in general and bad in principle, it seems that the real issue is that there should be one unaccountable entity who gets to make that decision. Why is Youtube big enough to have such an impact without being accountable in any way to the public?
  - aantthony 7y ago
    It's not just Youtube, it's also Twitter[1] and Facebook[2]. When they all act in concert with each other, it's much harder to hold them accountable. I think censorship can be dangerous in this context so I'm working on a decentralised fact-checker. I think it could be a more constructive solution to fake news that isn't subject to these problems: https://blog.verifact.io/2020/04/20/A-decentralised-fact-checker/ https://blog.verifact.io/2020/04/20/A-decentralised-fact-che... [1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19.html#definition https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19.... [2] https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/facebook-fact-checkers-foul-again-after-censoring-post-story/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/facebook-fact-checkers-foul-ag...
- nostrebored 7y ago
  With the current state of scientific journalism, the likelihood among all channels is a resounding: very low.
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  I think part of the trouble is, our society is built on the radical decentralization of information control during the enlightenment. Our most basic propaganda is based around the idea that we are the successful society because we allow more decentralised information control. The central powers who would like to now have more control over our information are also the primary sources of propaganda which justifies our way of life by saying everyone can make up their own mind. If I had the skills I would build a strategy game that deals with the new reality - that tribes are nonlocal but often ideologically quite cohesive. Exploring the idea that one's ideological affiliations, rather than one's government or search engine, controls one's thought seems like it would lend itself to the medium rather well.
  - lowdose 7y ago
    Tribes are non local? That's a pipe dream. Every minute 23 girls younger than 18 married in a pre-arrangement. If a 35 year old man would trade a goat for a 13 year old girl in the developed world than the tribe would hang this man before midnight when the news reports on this extreme form of child abuse. When it these things happen outside the Dunbar number in developing countries we don't give a fuck. Today 600 million women are alive that were sold before they were 18 to the highest bid, around 200 million also received a physical downgrade by butchering & cutting out a part of their vagina. Tribes are hyper local.
    - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
      When I say 'tribes', I am referring to any ideological monoculture. Obviously some tribes are more adapted to local conditions. I would bet even the tribes you are referring to prioritise access to communications technology that allows them to co-ordinate their activities over distances that would have been unmanageable to them two generations ago.
- belorn 7y ago
  It is not a given that there exists an optimal middle ground when it comes to central information control. Similar arguments have been done in regard to encryption controls where the arguments are in favor of backdoors, escrows, export control. But it has been mostly rejected that we need to find a optimal middle ground between giving government access to information and providing encryption for e-commerce depending on the context in which the communication takes place. We either have strong encryption or we don't. I would also look to inspiration from the past, and here I will copy loosely from a talk by Eben Moglen. Government wants to control communication. Sometimes in a claim of some civilizing mission on the belief that government and only government can really artfully determine who ought to speak to the masses, and sometimes quite explicitly for the purpose of remaining itself in power. But whatever the reason may be, a lust for power or a misguided belief in the superiority of government wisdom about who should speak to many, central information control is an evil whose time has come. Right now Google is not seen as an essential part of the infrastructure of society. Google can shutdown email, maps, search and Youtube today and we the citizens have no voice to dictate otherwise. No matter how much people rely on Google maps for driving, or have information stored in the cloud that impact their lives, for now those systems are not considered essential. That view however is starting to change as people's lives start to get unseparable from their use of those services. At that point we get the same discussion. Who ought to speak to the masses, and what will that decision be based on? A lust for power, or the belief in the superiority of government wisdom?
  - cle 7y ago
    > central information control is an evil whose time has come. It depends on the context. If your city is being invaded by a civilian-slaughtering army, I doubt many of the civilians would refer to a coordinated military defense as "evil", even though it would rely heavily on centralized information control.
    - belorn 7y ago
      In war time we accept the kind of government control that we would never do in peace time. Law is suspended. Freedom is removed. Elections is historically often put on hold. During war time people genuinely believe in the superiority of government wisdom. It is sad aspect of how people work during a crisis, and it has enabled many atrocities which we in peace time can't image a human being could commit. Thankfully in peace time people tend to build up some resistance and recognize government wisdom for what it is. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is not, and only through open dialog and free communication can we determine which is which.
sgustard 7y ago
I believe that you, and I, have a robust filter to identify trustworthy content. But would you agree that most people consume only reliable content on YouTube, or Facebook? There is plenty of evidence that is not the case, and these platforms are being actively attacked by bad actors.
- aww_dang 7y ago
  IMHO it is better to start from a point of humility and recognize that we all have our own particular blind spots. Technocratic management and epistemology would be prime examples in this case. Who cares if people consume incorrect information? Who decides what is correct? The WHO has been wrong throughout this pandemic. Accusations of misconduct and a pro-CCP bias are still playing out. The establishment sources have similarly been wrong. At the end of the day, man is still fallible and 'fact-check' is a deceptive misnomer.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > Who cares if people consume incorrect information? Anti-vax information can get people killed. The "5G causes coronavirus" conspiracy theory is causing people to burn down mobile phone masts. The Rohingya crisis was accelerated by all sorts of fake news and racial libel, resulting in a large number of deaths.
    - aww_dang 7y ago
      Similarly the crisis was exacerbated by the WHO's complicity if not participation in the CCP's cover-up.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        Yes. So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever? Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong information source is not the counter to another wrong information source.
azinman2 7y ago
That description is far from universal, and it’s trivial to find plenty of obviously terrible videos with millions of hits.
losttheplot 7y ago
This statement is exactly the bollocks that got us here. Just because you have a social media account, or fucking "likes", does not qualify you to speak about pandemics, or vaccinations, or gravity, etc.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Then why dont you answer the question: what does qualify someone?
  - mam2 7y ago
    Actual experience in a field ?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      So the opposite of mainstream journalists that know nothing about what they cover. That's what I said in my first post.
      - mam2 7y ago
        Yeah but not all " independent creators covering a variety of topics " are that experienced, and certainly not all the retards in the Covid facebook groups giving their opinion. I'm not sure the point you wanted to make on the first place but you seemed to oppose the fact that some people should stfu a little on the internet because they know nothing.
mam2 7y ago
Mainstream is not professional.. just look at Fox news if you need convincing. that say that if you cannot make the difference between an professional (or informed) opinion, and some redneck with the deep belief that the Earth is flat then I cannot do anything for you
- manigandham 7y ago
  Mainstream news, by all standard definitions, is professional. Fox News is the same as CNN and all the other channels in between, with countless examples of misinformation and outright false stories by every station. Nobody is asking you to do anything for them, in fact they're asking for the opposite; to let them decide for themselves. And most people can do that just fine. Just because some extremist views exist does not mean the majority believes in them.
natmaka 7y ago
Indeed. In many fields, especially applied or related to life, only the less "professional" are assertive. Experts profess very nuanced thoughts. Countering assertions which are proven false is good (pointing to a FAQ is sufficient). Censoring, on the other hand, seems counterproductive to me and nourishes the usual "they censor us because they cannot produce a valid counter-argument".

cle 7y ago

There isn’t “qualified” and “unqualified”. It’s not that black-and-white, and I wish people would accept that more. Basically what we should be asking ourselves is “What’s the likelihood that what this person is telling me is correct?” which is much more useful, because it immediately puts the focus on what factors contribute to that. We aren’t going to conclude anything useful until we can agree that there are good and bad tradeoffs between central information control and decentralized, and that the optimum at any given point in time probably lies somewhere in between and depends on the context in which the communication takes place.

chrstphrhrt 7y ago
Makes total sense. The black and white thing always seemed so weird. It's a false dichotomy. Even if censorship is good in the particular context (which seems to be the case here), but bad in general and bad in principle, it seems that the real issue is that there should be one unaccountable entity who gets to make that decision. Why is Youtube big enough to have such an impact without being accountable in any way to the public?
- aantthony 7y ago
  It's not just Youtube, it's also Twitter[1] and Facebook[2]. When they all act in concert with each other, it's much harder to hold them accountable. I think censorship can be dangerous in this context so I'm working on a decentralised fact-checker. I think it could be a more constructive solution to fake news that isn't subject to these problems: https://blog.verifact.io/2020/04/20/A-decentralised-fact-checker/ https://blog.verifact.io/2020/04/20/A-decentralised-fact-che... [1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19.html#definition https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid-19.... [2] https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/facebook-fact-checkers-foul-again-after-censoring-post-story/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/17/facebook-fact-checkers-foul-ag...
nostrebored 7y ago
With the current state of scientific journalism, the likelihood among all channels is a resounding: very low.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
I think part of the trouble is, our society is built on the radical decentralization of information control during the enlightenment. Our most basic propaganda is based around the idea that we are the successful society because we allow more decentralised information control. The central powers who would like to now have more control over our information are also the primary sources of propaganda which justifies our way of life by saying everyone can make up their own mind. If I had the skills I would build a strategy game that deals with the new reality - that tribes are nonlocal but often ideologically quite cohesive. Exploring the idea that one's ideological affiliations, rather than one's government or search engine, controls one's thought seems like it would lend itself to the medium rather well.
- lowdose 7y ago
  Tribes are non local? That's a pipe dream. Every minute 23 girls younger than 18 married in a pre-arrangement. If a 35 year old man would trade a goat for a 13 year old girl in the developed world than the tribe would hang this man before midnight when the news reports on this extreme form of child abuse. When it these things happen outside the Dunbar number in developing countries we don't give a fuck. Today 600 million women are alive that were sold before they were 18 to the highest bid, around 200 million also received a physical downgrade by butchering & cutting out a part of their vagina. Tribes are hyper local.
  - SuoDuanDao 7y ago
    When I say 'tribes', I am referring to any ideological monoculture. Obviously some tribes are more adapted to local conditions. I would bet even the tribes you are referring to prioritise access to communications technology that allows them to co-ordinate their activities over distances that would have been unmanageable to them two generations ago.
belorn 7y ago
It is not a given that there exists an optimal middle ground when it comes to central information control. Similar arguments have been done in regard to encryption controls where the arguments are in favor of backdoors, escrows, export control. But it has been mostly rejected that we need to find a optimal middle ground between giving government access to information and providing encryption for e-commerce depending on the context in which the communication takes place. We either have strong encryption or we don't. I would also look to inspiration from the past, and here I will copy loosely from a talk by Eben Moglen. Government wants to control communication. Sometimes in a claim of some civilizing mission on the belief that government and only government can really artfully determine who ought to speak to the masses, and sometimes quite explicitly for the purpose of remaining itself in power. But whatever the reason may be, a lust for power or a misguided belief in the superiority of government wisdom about who should speak to many, central information control is an evil whose time has come. Right now Google is not seen as an essential part of the infrastructure of society. Google can shutdown email, maps, search and Youtube today and we the citizens have no voice to dictate otherwise. No matter how much people rely on Google maps for driving, or have information stored in the cloud that impact their lives, for now those systems are not considered essential. That view however is starting to change as people's lives start to get unseparable from their use of those services. At that point we get the same discussion. Who ought to speak to the masses, and what will that decision be based on? A lust for power, or the belief in the superiority of government wisdom?
- cle 7y ago
  > central information control is an evil whose time has come. It depends on the context. If your city is being invaded by a civilian-slaughtering army, I doubt many of the civilians would refer to a coordinated military defense as "evil", even though it would rely heavily on centralized information control.
  - belorn 7y ago
    In war time we accept the kind of government control that we would never do in peace time. Law is suspended. Freedom is removed. Elections is historically often put on hold. During war time people genuinely believe in the superiority of government wisdom. It is sad aspect of how people work during a crisis, and it has enabled many atrocities which we in peace time can't image a human being could commit. Thankfully in peace time people tend to build up some resistance and recognize government wisdom for what it is. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is not, and only through open dialog and free communication can we determine which is which.

sgustard 7y ago

I believe that you, and I, have a robust filter to identify trustworthy content. But would you agree that most people consume only reliable content on YouTube, or Facebook? There is plenty of evidence that is not the case, and these platforms are being actively attacked by bad actors.

aww_dang 7y ago
IMHO it is better to start from a point of humility and recognize that we all have our own particular blind spots. Technocratic management and epistemology would be prime examples in this case. Who cares if people consume incorrect information? Who decides what is correct? The WHO has been wrong throughout this pandemic. Accusations of misconduct and a pro-CCP bias are still playing out. The establishment sources have similarly been wrong. At the end of the day, man is still fallible and 'fact-check' is a deceptive misnomer.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > Who cares if people consume incorrect information? Anti-vax information can get people killed. The "5G causes coronavirus" conspiracy theory is causing people to burn down mobile phone masts. The Rohingya crisis was accelerated by all sorts of fake news and racial libel, resulting in a large number of deaths.
  - aww_dang 7y ago
    Similarly the crisis was exacerbated by the WHO's complicity if not participation in the CCP's cover-up.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Yes. So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever? Two wrongs don't make a right. A wrong information source is not the counter to another wrong information source.

azinman2 7y ago

That description is far from universal, and it’s trivial to find plenty of obviously terrible videos with millions of hits.

losttheplot 7y ago

This statement is exactly the bollocks that got us here. Just because you have a social media account, or fucking "likes", does not qualify you to speak about pandemics, or vaccinations, or gravity, etc.

manigandham 7y ago
Then why dont you answer the question: what does qualify someone?
- mam2 7y ago
  Actual experience in a field ?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    So the opposite of mainstream journalists that know nothing about what they cover. That's what I said in my first post.
    - mam2 7y ago
      Yeah but not all " independent creators covering a variety of topics " are that experienced, and certainly not all the retards in the Covid facebook groups giving their opinion. I'm not sure the point you wanted to make on the first place but you seemed to oppose the fact that some people should stfu a little on the internet because they know nothing.

mam2 7y ago

Mainstream is not professional.. just look at Fox news if you need convincing. that say that if you cannot make the difference between an professional (or informed) opinion, and some redneck with the deep belief that the Earth is flat then I cannot do anything for you

manigandham 7y ago
Mainstream news, by all standard definitions, is professional. Fox News is the same as CNN and all the other channels in between, with countless examples of misinformation and outright false stories by every station. Nobody is asking you to do anything for them, in fact they're asking for the opposite; to let them decide for themselves. And most people can do that just fine. Just because some extremist views exist does not mean the majority believes in them.

natmaka 7y ago

Indeed. In many fields, especially applied or related to life, only the less "professional" are assertive. Experts profess very nuanced thoughts. Countering assertions which are proven false is good (pointing to a FAQ is sufficient). Censoring, on the other hand, seems counterproductive to me and nourishes the usual "they censor us because they cannot produce a valid counter-argument".