5 ms·

I had not heard of this Plandemic film before reading this article, but now I'm going to look it up. I enjoy viewing anything labeled with the "debunked conspir

I had not heard of this Plandemic film before reading this article, but now I'm going to look it up. I enjoy viewing anything labeled with the "debunked conspiracy theory" trope at this point. As far as I can tell the lede here is "let's dox some random YouTuber." Not super classy.

rconti 6y ago
On the flip side, you could view it as giving publicity to people with ideas that weren't worth spreading in the first place. After all, you hadn't heard of it before this article was posted here; I'm sure it'll be new to many others as well, so actually the publicity will help them. An alternative would be not covering it at all. As it turns out, not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  I had heard of it before this article was posted, but hadn't seen it, and probably never would have seen it but for this negative publicity. Of course, Youtube took it down, but it's available on Bitchute[1]. It looks like nonsense to me, conspiracy theories and exaggerations, but preventing people from deciding for themselves is censorship, i.e. the suppression of free speech, and that never ends well. 1. https://www.bitchute.com/video/MXyKqZ201Dj5/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/MXyKqZ201Dj5/
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > preventing people from deciding for themselves is censorship YouTube isn't telling anybody they can't watch it, they just don't want their name associated with it, or pay for the hardware to serve it out.
    - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
      Over 500 hours of videos are uploaded to Youtube every minute. You think they actually care about the cost of hardware to host a 2-hour political documentary? As far as censorship goes, taking down a video for political reasons is pretty much textbook censorship, regardless how you may spin it or justify it.
- henriquez 6y ago
  > not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value Very true. I just don't appreciate being told to think about things before I have a chance to evaluate them myself. It seems impossible now to get media coverage that doesn't have a clear agenda. But maybe a clear agenda is preferable to coverage with a hidden agenda. On the surface, the claims raised by Judy Mikovits (who would be a more interesting subject of this same article) seem outrageous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits - but I note that the wiki lists her as a "former" research scientist ("discredited"). Again, an agenda is apparent here. Wikipedia's article on Flat Earth theory is more generous and less biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Why would Vice even shine a light on these people, particularly if their ideas offer nothing of value? What makes Flat Earthers "less discredited" than these so called anti-vax people? It seems like a lot of the claims raised by these people are _unverified_ not _debunked_, and there's a big difference in my mind (eg. it is neither proven nor disproven that face masks amplify the virus and reinfect people). But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I'm not sure how claims like Mikovits' are any less outlandish than New York Times raising the idea that estrogen could be a treatment for COVID-19 in males: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/health/coronavirus-estrogen-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/health/coronavirus-estrog... - another unverified (not _disproven_) claim, yet notice the lack of torches and pitchforks.
  - rconti 6y ago
    > But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I don't disagree with you on principle; I generally hate being told what to think (I'm stubborn, so it tends to push me the other way), but, as you point out, when the bias is clear, it's at least easier to work around. I'll note that Vice is probably not the place to go for dispassionate, neutral commentary. Furthermore, my experience in the past decade or so is that the media tries to give "equal time" to both reasoned discourse that at least TRIES to air multiple sides of an issue (even if there is a bias in such reporting), and, frankly, utter and complete claptrap that doesn't even try to be factually correct. And thanks to the midpoint fallacy, people end up believing left-leaning NPR, which describes conservative views on a matter (if only as a foil) has the same news value as utter and complete trash that some idiot/troll/paid propagandist has produced. And, not surprisingly, the midpoint has shifted much closer to utter and complete trash over time. Where we all used to roll our collective eyes at "conspiracy theories" like the faked moon landing, now its what "the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear" and you have to "think for yourself" by researching random youtube videos.. even when it's being widely covered in the same media.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "As it turns out, not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value." In 1981, it was "obvious" to industry professionals that the x86 was only suitable for microcomputers and serious computing would always be done on servers and big iron. Talking about it was, in the parent poster's words, would have been "giving publicity to people with ideas that weren't worth spreading in the first place" In the mid 1990s, it was "obvious" to industry professionals and pundits that Linux was a toy OS for hobbyists and would never amount to anything. Talking about it was, in the parent poster's words, would have been "giving publicity to people with ideas that weren't worth spreading in the first place" While the last thing I want to do is to defend the video authors, the point is that nobody can ever know what ideas are going to have value and that's why stifling ideas is a losing game despite the vast majority of ideas being worthless.
  - henriquez 6y ago
    I want to clarify that I never said the ideas weren't worth spreading in the first place. I only raised the question that if, for the sake of argument, we accept the premise that they aren't worth spreading, then why would a media outlet promote the existence of the ideas in order to villainize some random YouTuber? The cost/benefit isn't there if you believe that the ideas aren't worth spreading, since you necessarily must spread them in order to run an article like this. I'm not familiar enough with the claims made in the Plandemic video, or QAnon for that matter, so why should I accept the blanket dismissal of all of them as "debunked conspiracy theories?" If news outlets think these ideas are worth writing about at all, then they should at least try do so from a neutral perspective. I agree that not all ideas have the same value, and most of them are worthless, but I will always oppose censorship. Tech companies are not qualified to be information police. It's one thing for YouTube to promote claims made by the World Health Organization (which spread debunked information about human-to-human transmission early on in the plague), but it's quite another for them to delete any ideas that question their preferred narratives. I believe that is more dangerous to society than the spread of mis- and disinformation.
  - tedunangst 6y ago
    Is there no difference between conjecture about yet to happen future events and promoting false claims about the past?

rconti 6y ago

On the flip side, you could view it as giving publicity to people with ideas that weren't worth spreading in the first place. After all, you hadn't heard of it before this article was posted here; I'm sure it'll be new to many others as well, so actually the publicity will help them. An alternative would be not covering it at all. As it turns out, not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
I had heard of it before this article was posted, but hadn't seen it, and probably never would have seen it but for this negative publicity. Of course, Youtube took it down, but it's available on Bitchute[1]. It looks like nonsense to me, conspiracy theories and exaggerations, but preventing people from deciding for themselves is censorship, i.e. the suppression of free speech, and that never ends well. 1. https://www.bitchute.com/video/MXyKqZ201Dj5/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/MXyKqZ201Dj5/
- mcphage 6y ago
  > preventing people from deciding for themselves is censorship YouTube isn't telling anybody they can't watch it, they just don't want their name associated with it, or pay for the hardware to serve it out.
  - blisterpeanuts 6y ago
    Over 500 hours of videos are uploaded to Youtube every minute. You think they actually care about the cost of hardware to host a 2-hour political documentary? As far as censorship goes, taking down a video for political reasons is pretty much textbook censorship, regardless how you may spin it or justify it.
henriquez 6y ago
> not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value Very true. I just don't appreciate being told to think about things before I have a chance to evaluate them myself. It seems impossible now to get media coverage that doesn't have a clear agenda. But maybe a clear agenda is preferable to coverage with a hidden agenda. On the surface, the claims raised by Judy Mikovits (who would be a more interesting subject of this same article) seem outrageous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits - but I note that the wiki lists her as a "former" research scientist ("discredited"). Again, an agenda is apparent here. Wikipedia's article on Flat Earth theory is more generous and less biased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Why would Vice even shine a light on these people, particularly if their ideas offer nothing of value? What makes Flat Earthers "less discredited" than these so called anti-vax people? It seems like a lot of the claims raised by these people are _unverified_ not _debunked_, and there's a big difference in my mind (eg. it is neither proven nor disproven that face masks amplify the virus and reinfect people). But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I'm not sure how claims like Mikovits' are any less outlandish than New York Times raising the idea that estrogen could be a treatment for COVID-19 in males: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/health/coronavirus-estrogen-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/27/health/coronavirus-estrog... - another unverified (not _disproven_) claim, yet notice the lack of torches and pitchforks.
- rconti 6y ago
  > But breathless media coverage trying to impugn people on a personal level makes me emotionally more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I'm not sure it's a good thing. I don't disagree with you on principle; I generally hate being told what to think (I'm stubborn, so it tends to push me the other way), but, as you point out, when the bias is clear, it's at least easier to work around. I'll note that Vice is probably not the place to go for dispassionate, neutral commentary. Furthermore, my experience in the past decade or so is that the media tries to give "equal time" to both reasoned discourse that at least TRIES to air multiple sides of an issue (even if there is a bias in such reporting), and, frankly, utter and complete claptrap that doesn't even try to be factually correct. And thanks to the midpoint fallacy, people end up believing left-leaning NPR, which describes conservative views on a matter (if only as a foil) has the same news value as utter and complete trash that some idiot/troll/paid propagandist has produced. And, not surprisingly, the midpoint has shifted much closer to utter and complete trash over time. Where we all used to roll our collective eyes at "conspiracy theories" like the faked moon landing, now its what "the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear" and you have to "think for yourself" by researching random youtube videos.. even when it's being widely covered in the same media.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "As it turns out, not every item in the marketplace of ideas has the same value." In 1981, it was "obvious" to industry professionals that the x86 was only suitable for microcomputers and serious computing would always be done on servers and big iron. Talking about it was, in the parent poster's words, would have been "giving publicity to people with ideas that weren't worth spreading in the first place" In the mid 1990s, it was "obvious" to industry professionals and pundits that Linux was a toy OS for hobbyists and would never amount to anything. Talking about it was, in the parent poster's words, would have been "giving publicity to people with ideas that weren't worth spreading in the first place" While the last thing I want to do is to defend the video authors, the point is that nobody can ever know what ideas are going to have value and that's why stifling ideas is a losing game despite the vast majority of ideas being worthless.
- henriquez 6y ago
  I want to clarify that I never said the ideas weren't worth spreading in the first place. I only raised the question that if, for the sake of argument, we accept the premise that they aren't worth spreading, then why would a media outlet promote the existence of the ideas in order to villainize some random YouTuber? The cost/benefit isn't there if you believe that the ideas aren't worth spreading, since you necessarily must spread them in order to run an article like this. I'm not familiar enough with the claims made in the Plandemic video, or QAnon for that matter, so why should I accept the blanket dismissal of all of them as "debunked conspiracy theories?" If news outlets think these ideas are worth writing about at all, then they should at least try do so from a neutral perspective. I agree that not all ideas have the same value, and most of them are worthless, but I will always oppose censorship. Tech companies are not qualified to be information police. It's one thing for YouTube to promote claims made by the World Health Organization (which spread debunked information about human-to-human transmission early on in the plague), but it's quite another for them to delete any ideas that question their preferred narratives. I believe that is more dangerous to society than the spread of mis- and disinformation.
- tedunangst 6y ago
  Is there no difference between conjecture about yet to happen future events and promoting false claims about the past?