6 ms·

Throwaway. I worked at an event David did many years ago. I used to be a big fan. My wife and I watched his 3 hour interview last night after hearing about the

Throwaway. I worked at an event David did many years ago. I used to be a big fan. My wife and I watched his 3 hour interview last night after hearing about these bans and discussed this a fair bit. For those that didn't watch, he categorically denies the existence of Covid-19, calls the entire thing a hoax and said that Gates is a psychopath who wants to vaccinate the entire world with nanobots that will eventually enslave us. 5G doesn't cause Covid-19, because it doesn't exist, but 5g can activate the nanobots and at 60ghz can cause respiratory problems similar to what we're seeing. This is orchestrated by a shadowy group called The Cult. We should rise up against our governments and the 'technocrats' of silicon valley (the 1%) to solve this. It may sound ridiculous, but he mixes in enough truth (often in the form of things you will have seen on the Internet) and cleverly spun arguments to make the 'lies' believable. He does this over a long enough time period (yesterday 3 hours, but his talks are often far longer), that you come away believing what he's said, that's he incredibly clever, and that he's fighting for the "real man on the street" against the 1% and a government that's done nothing for you. Social media has been very dangerous in this respect. A few days ago I saw someone on twitter saying that rather than deplatform, Icke should just be beaten in debate. The problem is you can't beat Icke in debate without making his followers dig in further. Like any conspiracist, the retort is "that's what they'd want you to say". It's similar to arguing with someone about the existence of God. You can't prove there is no God, I continue to believe and tell you he exists. My wife just thinks it's all ridiculous. I think with the vaccinations, it's dangerous. But then I have kids now, both are vaccinated. The concept of censoring people scares me, but the idea of throwing away a hundred years of science and medicine because people are worried about being being controlled by Gates's nanobots scares me even more.

leonvv 6y ago
The root of the problem seems to be the inability of people to correctly judge the likeliness of David's arguments to be true. This is not a problem that we're going to solve by banning David's content.
- krapp 6y ago
  >This is not a problem that we're going to solve by banning David's content. Ok. How are we going to solve it by guaranteeing that his content proliferates as widely as possible, or even as some have suggested, by having governments force platforms to host it against their will, in the name of absolute free speech? The principle that we can debate the merit of ideas only so long as we never prevent any idea from spreading only renders debate meaningless. It's implied in the concept of a marketplace of ideas that some ideas will have value over others. And so it seems implicit to the concept of free speech that one should have the freedom to accept or reject an idea, or try to disabuse someone of an idea you deem fallacious.
  - leonvv 6y ago
    > his content proliferates This is the root of the problem. The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. > How are we going to solve it Critical thinking skills are apparently undervalued. This is a problem that is hopefully solvable by education and public debate. Even if not, the situation in which a small part of the population believes in David's ideas seems preferable to me than one in which a small group of (non democratically chosen) people decide what is acceptable content and what is not. > It's implied in the concept of a marketplace of ideas that some ideas will have value over others. I agree, but different people will have different definitions of value. > And so it seems implicit to the concept of free speech that one should have the freedom to accept or reject an idea, or try to disabuse someone of an idea you deem fallacious. I agree, but censoring someone goes much farther than to disabuse. Too far, in my opinion.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. That's not what I meant. In a world run under free speech maximalist principles, one in which society is only allowed to debate and criticize ideas like David Icke's, but no platform is allowed to choose not to host them (because that choice amounts to censorship,) those ideas would proliferate because mere criticism and debate are not sufficient to prevent their spread. If it were, there would be no anti-vaxxers or flat earthers, or people who buy into most conspiracy theories, because those people are aware of the arguments to the contrary of their point of view, and they choose to dismiss those arguments. They don't respond to criticism with sober introspection and logic, they respond with ridicule and sometimes violence. >Even if not, the situation in which a small part of the population believes in David's ideas seems preferable to me than one in which a small group of (non democratically chosen) people decide what is acceptable content and what is not. Except Youtube isn't deciding what is acceptable for society, they are deciding what is acceptable for themselves. David Icke's delusional followers are free to continue to be deluded, but he is no longer allowed to host content on their platform. >I agree, but censoring someone goes much farther than to disabuse. Too far, in my opinion. I disagree that David Icke's been censored. He doesn't have a right to a Youtube account, any more than he has the right to break into my house and start ranting about lizard men. Youtube isn't public property just because it's on the internet. The problem is that it's impossible for the marketplace of ideas to reject anything without it being interpreted as censorship. That's a slippery slope no one wants to recognize.

leonvv 6y ago

The root of the problem seems to be the inability of people to correctly judge the likeliness of David's arguments to be true. This is not a problem that we're going to solve by banning David's content.

krapp 6y ago
>This is not a problem that we're going to solve by banning David's content. Ok. How are we going to solve it by guaranteeing that his content proliferates as widely as possible, or even as some have suggested, by having governments force platforms to host it against their will, in the name of absolute free speech? The principle that we can debate the merit of ideas only so long as we never prevent any idea from spreading only renders debate meaningless. It's implied in the concept of a marketplace of ideas that some ideas will have value over others. And so it seems implicit to the concept of free speech that one should have the freedom to accept or reject an idea, or try to disabuse someone of an idea you deem fallacious.
- leonvv 6y ago
  > his content proliferates This is the root of the problem. The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. > How are we going to solve it Critical thinking skills are apparently undervalued. This is a problem that is hopefully solvable by education and public debate. Even if not, the situation in which a small part of the population believes in David's ideas seems preferable to me than one in which a small group of (non democratically chosen) people decide what is acceptable content and what is not. > It's implied in the concept of a marketplace of ideas that some ideas will have value over others. I agree, but different people will have different definitions of value. > And so it seems implicit to the concept of free speech that one should have the freedom to accept or reject an idea, or try to disabuse someone of an idea you deem fallacious. I agree, but censoring someone goes much farther than to disabuse. Too far, in my opinion.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >The fact that his content is on YouTube does not imply that it will proliferate. That's not what I meant. In a world run under free speech maximalist principles, one in which society is only allowed to debate and criticize ideas like David Icke's, but no platform is allowed to choose not to host them (because that choice amounts to censorship,) those ideas would proliferate because mere criticism and debate are not sufficient to prevent their spread. If it were, there would be no anti-vaxxers or flat earthers, or people who buy into most conspiracy theories, because those people are aware of the arguments to the contrary of their point of view, and they choose to dismiss those arguments. They don't respond to criticism with sober introspection and logic, they respond with ridicule and sometimes violence. >Even if not, the situation in which a small part of the population believes in David's ideas seems preferable to me than one in which a small group of (non democratically chosen) people decide what is acceptable content and what is not. Except Youtube isn't deciding what is acceptable for society, they are deciding what is acceptable for themselves. David Icke's delusional followers are free to continue to be deluded, but he is no longer allowed to host content on their platform. >I agree, but censoring someone goes much farther than to disabuse. Too far, in my opinion. I disagree that David Icke's been censored. He doesn't have a right to a Youtube account, any more than he has the right to break into my house and start ranting about lizard men. Youtube isn't public property just because it's on the internet. The problem is that it's impossible for the marketplace of ideas to reject anything without it being interpreted as censorship. That's a slippery slope no one wants to recognize.