3 ms·

> "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 s

> "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?
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  No. Take, for example, "China admits Wuhan coronavirus death toll at least 50% higher than first reported" [0]. Would you have labeled those who said before that admission that the death toll in Wuhan was probably higher than the official number as "promoting false claims about the past"? What truth would you have based your decision on? I have as little love for the Holocaust-deniers as anyone but I have just as little love for those who want to suppress "false claims about the past" because I know darned well they have no better idea of what the truth is than anyone else and that it won't stop at just the obvious falsehoods. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wuhan-death-toll-coronavirus-china-50-higher-than-first-reported-today-2020-04-17/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wuhan-death-toll-coronavirus-ch...

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?

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
No. Take, for example, "China admits Wuhan coronavirus death toll at least 50% higher than first reported" [0]. Would you have labeled those who said before that admission that the death toll in Wuhan was probably higher than the official number as "promoting false claims about the past"? What truth would you have based your decision on? I have as little love for the Holocaust-deniers as anyone but I have just as little love for those who want to suppress "false claims about the past" because I know darned well they have no better idea of what the truth is than anyone else and that it won't stop at just the obvious falsehoods. [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wuhan-death-toll-coronavirus-china-50-higher-than-first-reported-today-2020-04-17/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wuhan-death-toll-coronavirus-ch...