3 ms·

I think the idea is to censor untrue and dangerous ideas rather than unpopular ideas. Yes, determining that is challenging. But denying COVID, for example, is v

I think the idea is to censor untrue and dangerous ideas rather than unpopular ideas. Yes, determining that is challenging. But denying COVID, for example, is very dangerous to all of society. Thousands of people are dying because of COVID deniers. To me, this is theoretically similar as if a massive video campaign was messaging you to drink bleach. I’m sure that sort of video is against YouTube’s terms of service — at least, I would hope that it is! The difference is really that some lunatic could stand in Times Square and scream that we should all drink bleach. But in that public forum, no one would take them seriously, and plenty would deride them. But with a great production value, paid influencers, just the right wording and messaging, you can manipulate social networks into spreading very dangerous information and actually making people believe things that can kill them. I think that problem, gone unchecked, leads to serious consequences and it would be in the best interest of society as a whole to fix it.

cheph 6y ago
> I think the idea is to censor untrue and dangerous ideas rather than unpopular ideas. I would definitely agree that if all viewpoints except mine were eliminated the world would be a better place.
- hef19898 6y ago
  I'd say this way of thinking is un-democratic, and deeply dangerous.
  - cheph 6y ago
    Maybe it would help if I thought all viewpoint except mine were untrue and dangerous.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Quite the contrary. Because that would make the underlying idea, but not the specific legalities, of free speech completely useless for you.
jpttsn 6y ago
> But with a great production value, paid influencers, just the right wording and messaging, you can manipulate social networks into spreading very dangerous information and actually making people believe things that can kill them. Clearly, you’d need an arbiter that is immune to such influences. Someone who knows what’s really true and can sensor the misinformation despite its high production values. I think the interesting question is where you’d find such an oracle, and how you’d convince it to work for YouTube.
- 72deluxe 6y ago
  Someone not human then I guess??

cheph 6y ago

> I think the idea is to censor untrue and dangerous ideas rather than unpopular ideas. I would definitely agree that if all viewpoints except mine were eliminated the world would be a better place.

hef19898 6y ago
I'd say this way of thinking is un-democratic, and deeply dangerous.
- cheph 6y ago
  Maybe it would help if I thought all viewpoint except mine were untrue and dangerous.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Quite the contrary. Because that would make the underlying idea, but not the specific legalities, of free speech completely useless for you.

jpttsn 6y ago

> But with a great production value, paid influencers, just the right wording and messaging, you can manipulate social networks into spreading very dangerous information and actually making people believe things that can kill them. Clearly, you’d need an arbiter that is immune to such influences. Someone who knows what’s really true and can sensor the misinformation despite its high production values. I think the interesting question is where you’d find such an oracle, and how you’d convince it to work for YouTube.

72deluxe 6y ago
Someone not human then I guess??