4 ms·
Those are ideological beliefs. Yes, at one time they were very widely and strongly held. But they were never remotely comparible to spreading factually incorrec
by quietbritishjim 7y ago
Those are ideological beliefs. Yes, at one time they were very widely and strongly held. But they were never remotely comparible to spreading factually incorrect information about something biological.
A simple demonstration to this: even the reverse of these (e.g. "I believe gay marriage is morally wrong") can't reasonably be argued against with "that is factually incorrect".
It's fair to believe that private companies like YouTube shouldn't be censoring speech like this. But these comparisons are bogus and only weaken your point.
- fantyoon 7y ago> But they were never remotely comparible to spreading factually incorrect information about something biological. > Smoking causes lung cancer
- quietbritishjim 7y agoThe parent comment was comparing against YouTube banning videos that claimed smoking does cause lung cancer, back before the link was proven, in some steampunk world where YouTube existed 100 years ago. That is not comparible because initially there were at least some scientific studies, or even a vague possible link to a rational doctor, between smoking and lung cancer. There is nothing like a possible link between 5G and coronavirus to anyone that understands what a virus is.
- petersellers 7y agoYouTube has no problem banning content on ideological grounds, though. I remember last year various news articles about YouTube's removal of white supremacist content. I don't really see why it's important to distinguish whether the content is problematic "factually" vs "ideologically". Clearly there are valid reasons to ban content on ideological grounds but on the other hand removing any content that has factual errors would be cumbersome (or impossible) to do. You need to also look at other criteria to make a reasonable determination.
- quietbritishjim 7y ago> YouTube has no problem banning content on ideological grounds, though. I never said they did. I just said that this isn't that, and comparisons with it just confuse the discussion.
- petersellers 7y agoI don't see why it's confusing. What is the importance of distinguishing between factual vs ideological violations?
- hubert1234 7y agoyou really think that somebody cant come up with strong scientific evidence to support all of those? cmon, it's a lack of knowledge and imagination on your part. There are plenty of real scientific arguments against gay marriage or gay rights at large. You just dont ever hear them because everyone who ever so much as hints at them gets banned immediately.
- 0xBA5ED 7y ago>There are plenty of real scientific arguments against gay marriage or gay rights at large Such as? >You just dont ever hear them because everyone who ever so much as hints at them gets banned immediately. Then where do you hear them?
- Cthulhu_ 7y agoYou're appealing to authority and you're using weasel words. What are these arguments? Who made them?
- Cthulhu_ 7y agoI'd look up those examples listed in history books if I were you; it was widely taken as fact that non-whites were biologically inferior. Look up Nazi propaganda, or what the US civil war was about. It really doesn't take much research to realize that people were (and are) othered using "scientific / biological facts".
- leonvv 7y agoYou seem to imply that it's okay for YouTube to censor content as long as the content is 'factually incorrect'. What is your definition of 'factually' incorrect content? More importantly, how do you prevent YouTube from coming up with their own definition of factual correctness and start banning content at will.