3 ms·

There's lots and lots of bad stuff there... The question is should youtube be censoring it? if so, why this, and not others?

SkyMarshal 6y ago
Videos like this not only spread false info, they do something more pernicious by distorting or distracting an already partially-numerate public from understanding growth rates and scale. Eg, the important thing about an outbreak is its second and third derivatives, rate of growth and rate of rate of growth. Here they claim SARS-NCOV-2 is "similar in prevalance and death rate" to flu, somehow missing the fact that the former reached that point in one month and keeps going unless extensive social distancing, lockdowns and mask wearing is put in place. I hate censorship, but I support censoring information sourced from the idiocracy (or malevolent foreign power as the case may be).
- foolinaround 6y ago
  i am almost with you there, but i see youtube as a biased actor also, when experts themselves (not these 2 guys) have come up with different recommendations - and cant agree with themselves, youtube should allow a free exchange of ideas. they are free (and should) to add a notice that says that it is potentially false, etc.
  - SkyMarshal 6y ago
    Yes YouTube and Google appear to have deprioritized neutrality in recent years, which I think is a mistake for them. But I also think this particular instance is not the right hill for people who care about that to die on. It’s a form of falsely or mistakenly crying wolf and will cost them credibility.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ViViDboarder 6y ago
Yes. They should for others as well. If something is provably false and puts lives at risk, I’d say they have a moral obligation to “censor” it.
sacred_numbers 6y ago
I'm still kind of conflicted on this particular case, but if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater should the theater owner be able to kick them out? What if the fire alarm is going off, but a so-called "expert" is claiming that the fire alarm is just malfunctioning? Should the theater owner be able to silence them? Deep down I think I still believe that free speech should be protected even if it costs lives, but it's getting harder to hold onto this philosophy in recent years. Misinformation and propaganda is a plague that is nearly impossible to beat since it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute a lie than to spread it. The only ways I can think of to solve this problem are either to restrict free speech or to spend huge resources on teaching the public critical thinking skills and the scientific method. The second option will take decades to work, if it's even possible at all.
- foolinaround 6y ago
  lets take the fire example now, what if the theatre owner has no way to know if there is a fire or not (lets assume he is locked in a room), some guy screams fire, a bunch of people run out, another guy says running out will make it worse, some should sit down, some should walk out, etc. i am just making this up to tell that the theatre owner (youtube) simply has no way to tell. In this case, he is not even responsible for the theatre ( as youtube has argued in courts before)
threatofrain 6y ago
That depends. How much liability and risk is Google taking on by being more hands-off? From this perspective, it's understandable why Google would wish to delegate medical judgments to a known institution, similar to how the rest of the video content industry delegates to the FCC. I'm sure Google would like to have no risk and simply host pirated content like they used to.

SkyMarshal 6y ago

Videos like this not only spread false info, they do something more pernicious by distorting or distracting an already partially-numerate public from understanding growth rates and scale. Eg, the important thing about an outbreak is its second and third derivatives, rate of growth and rate of rate of growth. Here they claim SARS-NCOV-2 is "similar in prevalance and death rate" to flu, somehow missing the fact that the former reached that point in one month and keeps going unless extensive social distancing, lockdowns and mask wearing is put in place. I hate censorship, but I support censoring information sourced from the idiocracy (or malevolent foreign power as the case may be).

foolinaround 6y ago
i am almost with you there, but i see youtube as a biased actor also, when experts themselves (not these 2 guys) have come up with different recommendations - and cant agree with themselves, youtube should allow a free exchange of ideas. they are free (and should) to add a notice that says that it is potentially false, etc.
- SkyMarshal 6y ago
  Yes YouTube and Google appear to have deprioritized neutrality in recent years, which I think is a mistake for them. But I also think this particular instance is not the right hill for people who care about that to die on. It’s a form of falsely or mistakenly crying wolf and will cost them credibility.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ViViDboarder 6y ago

Yes. They should for others as well. If something is provably false and puts lives at risk, I’d say they have a moral obligation to “censor” it.

sacred_numbers 6y ago

I'm still kind of conflicted on this particular case, but if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater should the theater owner be able to kick them out? What if the fire alarm is going off, but a so-called "expert" is claiming that the fire alarm is just malfunctioning? Should the theater owner be able to silence them? Deep down I think I still believe that free speech should be protected even if it costs lives, but it's getting harder to hold onto this philosophy in recent years. Misinformation and propaganda is a plague that is nearly impossible to beat since it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute a lie than to spread it. The only ways I can think of to solve this problem are either to restrict free speech or to spend huge resources on teaching the public critical thinking skills and the scientific method. The second option will take decades to work, if it's even possible at all.

foolinaround 6y ago
lets take the fire example now, what if the theatre owner has no way to know if there is a fire or not (lets assume he is locked in a room), some guy screams fire, a bunch of people run out, another guy says running out will make it worse, some should sit down, some should walk out, etc. i am just making this up to tell that the theatre owner (youtube) simply has no way to tell. In this case, he is not even responsible for the theatre ( as youtube has argued in courts before)

threatofrain 6y ago

That depends. How much liability and risk is Google taking on by being more hands-off? From this perspective, it's understandable why Google would wish to delegate medical judgments to a known institution, similar to how the rest of the video content industry delegates to the FCC. I'm sure Google would like to have no risk and simply host pirated content like they used to.