7 ms·

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,

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
    Similarly the crisis was exacerbated by the WHO's complicity if not participation in the CCP's cover-up.
    - pjc50 6y 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.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        RE: 'YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice' WHO advice is the standard being proposed. Adults should be capable of consuming and evaluating information. The solution is not to regard everyone as a child who needs to be coddled. >'So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever' Let individual consumers determine their own standards. It is absurd to suggest that there would be no standards without platforms or supranational organizations determining them. When you choose to take a politically charged interpretation of a presser as your own standard, you establish this. Individuals can disagree. We can't make the world safe for everyone. If based upon your informational standards you think that the president told someone to inject bleach, that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree.
        pjc50 6y ago
        > https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-press-conference-transcript-april-23 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronaviru... > a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful. Steve, please. What is your interpretation of "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside"? I mean, it's kind of gibberish, not full sentences where one concept is logically related to another, but what do you think it means? Do you think it's a responsible thing to say after the deaths of people from self-administered chloroquine? Do you not think it refers to injections of disinfectant? Of course, part of how this tactic works is that for any interpretation I can offer you can say "that's not what he said/meant", because what he said is incoherent.
  - zajio1am 6y ago
    > Anti-vax information can get people killed. No. Not vaccinating children get people killed. Therefore, the reasonable response is to mandate child vaccinations (together with fines and other punishments for non-compliance). With such mandates (that are already in many countries), non-compliance is limited to very tiny segment of population. > The "5G causes coronavirus" conspiracy theory is causing people to burn down mobile phone masts. The "5G causes coronavirus" is an obvious nonsense, but lets assume for the purpose of an argument that it is true. Even in such case a reasonable response is to petition your MP or do mass demonstrations, not burning mobile phone masts (as violent vigilantism is generally unacceptable approach). As violent vigilantism is completely unacceptable reaction regardless of truthness of such statements, it does not make sense to blame that statements for such reaction based on being false (unless that statements also contain calls to violence, but in that case even truthfull statements would be responsible for that).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

aww_dang 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
  Similarly the crisis was exacerbated by the WHO's complicity if not participation in the CCP's cover-up.
  - pjc50 6y 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.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      RE: 'YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice' WHO advice is the standard being proposed. Adults should be capable of consuming and evaluating information. The solution is not to regard everyone as a child who needs to be coddled. >'So .. we should give up on all informational hygiene standards and just let people tell their followers to inject bleach or whatever' Let individual consumers determine their own standards. It is absurd to suggest that there would be no standards without platforms or supranational organizations determining them. When you choose to take a politically charged interpretation of a presser as your own standard, you establish this. Individuals can disagree. We can't make the world safe for everyone. If based upon your informational standards you think that the president told someone to inject bleach, that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        > https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-press-conference-transcript-april-23 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronaviru... > a question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly when we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful. Steve, please. What is your interpretation of "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside"? I mean, it's kind of gibberish, not full sentences where one concept is logically related to another, but what do you think it means? Do you think it's a responsible thing to say after the deaths of people from self-administered chloroquine? Do you not think it refers to injections of disinfectant? Of course, part of how this tactic works is that for any interpretation I can offer you can say "that's not what he said/meant", because what he said is incoherent.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  > Anti-vax information can get people killed. No. Not vaccinating children get people killed. Therefore, the reasonable response is to mandate child vaccinations (together with fines and other punishments for non-compliance). With such mandates (that are already in many countries), non-compliance is limited to very tiny segment of population. > The "5G causes coronavirus" conspiracy theory is causing people to burn down mobile phone masts. The "5G causes coronavirus" is an obvious nonsense, but lets assume for the purpose of an argument that it is true. Even in such case a reasonable response is to petition your MP or do mass demonstrations, not burning mobile phone masts (as violent vigilantism is generally unacceptable approach). As violent vigilantism is completely unacceptable reaction regardless of truthness of such statements, it does not make sense to blame that statements for such reaction based on being false (unless that statements also contain calls to violence, but in that case even truthfull statements would be responsible for that).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]