3 ms·

My answer to that would be that YouTube did not de-platform David Icke because of his wacky views, remember he has had an account for ages with no problem. They

My answer to that would be that YouTube did not de-platform David Icke because of his wacky views, remember he has had an account for ages with no problem. They de-platformed him because he was spreading dangerous misinformation that could endanger lives. For example, the 5G misinformation has led to 5G masts being set on fire and 5G engineers being threatened and (I think) assaulted. Now you can say what you want about free speech, and I largely agree with you, but if someone is spreading dangerous misinformation that is causing people to commit arson and assault then I think that silencing them is a reasonable option.

ggreer 6y ago
I think that argument proves too much. It can be applied in many more cases than it actually is, and I can't help but notice certain discrepancies in who gets the banhammer and who is spared. What about the dangerous misinformation regarding the coronavirus? We had Twitter accounts telling people not to wear masks. Do we ban the WHO[1][2] and the US Surgeon General[3][4] from Twitter? Do we delete the account of NYC's Health Council chair for encouraging public gatherings during a pandemic?[5] Those proclamations led to far more harm than just property damage, yet none of those accounts have to worry about being censored. If you support banning David Icke for his crazy views because it might have led to a cell tower being damaged, you should definitely support banning all of these accounts for causing thousands of deaths. 1. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234095938555260929 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234095938555260929 2. https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243171683067777024 https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243171683067777024 3. https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321... 4. https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1245697453413851136 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12456974534138511... 5. https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1226566648729133056 https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1226566648729133056
- hef19898 6y ago
  There is one big difference between sharing the best avaiable information (taking circumstances into account) and conspiracy theories and disinformation. The WHO falls in the first category, Alex Jones and Co. in the latter.
  - ggreer 6y ago
    It was definitely not the best information at the time. Everyone knew that masks worked, but many organizations and governments lied to the public because they didn't have enough masks. And how could anyone think that encouraging people to go to crowded public events during a pandemic is the best available information? It was clearly harmful at the time and it's one of the reasons why over 18,000 New Yorkers are now dead from coronavirus. It's easy to find far more harmful information than a stupid conspiracy theory that almost nobody believes. Here's a fun one: Should we ban all pro-life messages? After all, they reliably lead to some crazies attacking abortion doctors. Should we ban all pro-communist sentiment? Communism led to mass death and starvation in the USSR, China, and North Korea. If there's a more harmful ideology, I have yet to hear it. Getting back to cell phones: Should we ban anyone who says that cell phones cause cancer? The exact same argument applies: It can cause people to damage cell phone towers and threaten maintenance workers. There is no coherent framework for censorship that allows these things while also banning 5g conspiracy theories. The double-standard could not be more obvious.
    - Digit-Al 6y ago
      > Everyone knew that masks worked Well, that's disingenuous at best. There's still fierce debate as to whether it's worth the general public wearing masks. Pro life? Communism? You're really digging now. How about capitalism? Lots of people die because of capitalism. Shall we ban any debate about capitalism as well? Freedom of speech is one of those issues that will never be resolved because there are no clear boundaries. We all agree that there are some things that people should not say. That's why we have things like libel/slander laws. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone was going around trying to convince people that your father likes to give blow jobs to dobermans. You would, rightfully, want that person stopped. Is that suppression of freedom of speech? The question is: where does the boundary lie? This is where we have the debates. > Should we ban anyone who says that cell phones cause cancer? Possibly. The difference is we have not (to my knowledge) heard any stories of engineers being attacked because of this whereas there have been a number of stories in the news recently of engineers being afraid to go to work because of idiots attacking them because of these ludicrous coronavirus 5G stories.

ggreer 6y ago

I think that argument proves too much. It can be applied in many more cases than it actually is, and I can't help but notice certain discrepancies in who gets the banhammer and who is spared. What about the dangerous misinformation regarding the coronavirus? We had Twitter accounts telling people not to wear masks. Do we ban the WHO[1][2] and the US Surgeon General[3][4] from Twitter? Do we delete the account of NYC's Health Council chair for encouraging public gatherings during a pandemic?[5] Those proclamations led to far more harm than just property damage, yet none of those accounts have to worry about being censored. If you support banning David Icke for his crazy views because it might have led to a cell tower being damaged, you should definitely support banning all of these accounts for causing thousands of deaths. 1. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234095938555260929 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1234095938555260929 2. https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243171683067777024 https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243171683067777024 3. https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321... 4. https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1245697453413851136 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12456974534138511... 5. https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1226566648729133056 https://twitter.com/MarkLevineNYC/status/1226566648729133056

hef19898 6y ago
There is one big difference between sharing the best avaiable information (taking circumstances into account) and conspiracy theories and disinformation. The WHO falls in the first category, Alex Jones and Co. in the latter.
- ggreer 6y ago
  It was definitely not the best information at the time. Everyone knew that masks worked, but many organizations and governments lied to the public because they didn't have enough masks. And how could anyone think that encouraging people to go to crowded public events during a pandemic is the best available information? It was clearly harmful at the time and it's one of the reasons why over 18,000 New Yorkers are now dead from coronavirus. It's easy to find far more harmful information than a stupid conspiracy theory that almost nobody believes. Here's a fun one: Should we ban all pro-life messages? After all, they reliably lead to some crazies attacking abortion doctors. Should we ban all pro-communist sentiment? Communism led to mass death and starvation in the USSR, China, and North Korea. If there's a more harmful ideology, I have yet to hear it. Getting back to cell phones: Should we ban anyone who says that cell phones cause cancer? The exact same argument applies: It can cause people to damage cell phone towers and threaten maintenance workers. There is no coherent framework for censorship that allows these things while also banning 5g conspiracy theories. The double-standard could not be more obvious.
  - Digit-Al 6y ago
    > Everyone knew that masks worked Well, that's disingenuous at best. There's still fierce debate as to whether it's worth the general public wearing masks. Pro life? Communism? You're really digging now. How about capitalism? Lots of people die because of capitalism. Shall we ban any debate about capitalism as well? Freedom of speech is one of those issues that will never be resolved because there are no clear boundaries. We all agree that there are some things that people should not say. That's why we have things like libel/slander laws. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone was going around trying to convince people that your father likes to give blow jobs to dobermans. You would, rightfully, want that person stopped. Is that suppression of freedom of speech? The question is: where does the boundary lie? This is where we have the debates. > Should we ban anyone who says that cell phones cause cancer? Possibly. The difference is we have not (to my knowledge) heard any stories of engineers being attacked because of this whereas there have been a number of stories in the news recently of engineers being afraid to go to work because of idiots attacking them because of these ludicrous coronavirus 5G stories.