3 ms·

Well. I guess the Ministry of Truth has spoken. There couldn't possibly be other dissenting views on that. It's _true_ my friends. Vox is clearly an imparti

Well. I guess the Ministry of Truth has spoken. There couldn't possibly be other dissenting views on that. It's _true_ my friends. Vox is clearly an impartial observer. The Senate hearings which led to impeachment hearings on Trump (because he investigated Hunter Biden, who has been under FBI investigation for over a year now... a materially true fact) could not _possibly_ have been politically motivated. Shutting down speech does not lead to "facts" or "truth", it leads to uncertainty. YouTube is basically the Catholic church, claiming they know the facts, they know the truth, and Galileo is spouting nonsense. If you're so confident, then let those people speak and use arguments (even your ludicrous wall of links) against them. That's rational and dare I say it, scientific.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
You have not actually provided evidence to the contrary, instead went for a string of logical fallacies.
- abernard1 6y ago
  > You have not actually provided evidence to the contrary YouTube is arguing that I shouldn't be able to provide evidence to the contrary, which is the point. I'm not arguing with the list of bullet points. I'm arguing with the very silly implication that there is an obvious "truth" that some MegaCorp should be able to hand down and enforce on this.
  - somehnrdr14726 6y ago
    You are free to host your video evidence on your own website, following your own internal moderation rules for what is deemed credible or not. No one is taking this right from you.
    - abernard1 6y ago
      > No one is taking this right from you. Correct. But it's tantamount to saying "you can't speak in this public square, how about you pretend your front yard is a public square and speak there." Eventually, people are going to say the hell with that and that Google's "private" management of 90% of inbound searches and content is, in fact, public. After that, maybe we can start calling it Gov-gle or something once it's nationalized.
      - somehnrdr14726 6y ago
        There are no public squares on the internet. Every DNS resolution leads to privately owned 'land'. You can be escorted off the property for nearly any reason. Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily.
      - abernard1 6y ago
        > Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily. Welp. Time to get rid of Section 230 then! Apparently these companies aren't neutral carriers and should be held liable for what they censor in their editorial discretion.
nrealist 6y ago
Understand your response is guilty of the same argument. You consider your own sources (whatever they might be) to be more factual then the ones presented by onyx_. Both of you will not agree. More troubling is that you require their sources to be held to a higher standard than your own. I assume both of you are not experts or journalists in the field, so do not conflate your truth as superior because someone else relies on their own de facto truth. You are in fact both several degrees removed from the source. Scrutinize their sources, but likewise your own. > Shutting down speech does not lead to "facts" or "truth", it leads to uncertainty I do agree that shutting down speech only adds fuel to the flames. You're right. I also think companies are not faultless judges of the truth. > If you're so confident, then let those people speak and use arguments (even your ludicrous wall of links) against them. That's rational and dare I say it, scientific. Here is where the discussion on YouTube (social media in general) censorship should start. The problem is that these people (the left as well) use "post truth" arguments and tactics to draw circles in the sand. Isolating discussions into talking points presented by their own side. Shrouding the herd from other arguments by claiming them to be "Fake News". Inflaming individuals to argue at (not with) everyone. This is immeasurably harmful as this information needs no fact checking and can be presented with a facade of reasonableness. People will find these arguments faster, more digestible, more appealing, and more viral than traditional news media. No discussion will occur. Even onyx_'s list of sources will not persuade them. > YouTube is basically the Catholic church, claiming they know the facts, they know the truth, and Galileo is spouting nonsense. Here's the crux, you are scared of Google's knowledge of the "facts" and biases, but you show no interest in gathering the whole truth yourself. Onyx_ did give a list of sources, that could be true or false. You dismissed them immediately in your comment. But more telling is what position you place your knowledge. Is it above sources, officials, experts, scientists(?), journalists, news agencies? Can you confidently verify the same authenticity of your sources? We should not fool ourselves. Tomorrow, just like today, no meaningful discussion tainted by politicization will be held by both sides again.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

You have not actually provided evidence to the contrary, instead went for a string of logical fallacies.

abernard1 6y ago
> You have not actually provided evidence to the contrary YouTube is arguing that I shouldn't be able to provide evidence to the contrary, which is the point. I'm not arguing with the list of bullet points. I'm arguing with the very silly implication that there is an obvious "truth" that some MegaCorp should be able to hand down and enforce on this.
- somehnrdr14726 6y ago
  You are free to host your video evidence on your own website, following your own internal moderation rules for what is deemed credible or not. No one is taking this right from you.
  - abernard1 6y ago
    > No one is taking this right from you. Correct. But it's tantamount to saying "you can't speak in this public square, how about you pretend your front yard is a public square and speak there." Eventually, people are going to say the hell with that and that Google's "private" management of 90% of inbound searches and content is, in fact, public. After that, maybe we can start calling it Gov-gle or something once it's nationalized.
    - somehnrdr14726 6y ago
      There are no public squares on the internet. Every DNS resolution leads to privately owned 'land'. You can be escorted off the property for nearly any reason. Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily.
    - abernard1 6y ago
      > Maybe Youtube gave the misconception that they were a public square when they weren't moderating as heavily. Welp. Time to get rid of Section 230 then! Apparently these companies aren't neutral carriers and should be held liable for what they censor in their editorial discretion.

nrealist 6y ago

Understand your response is guilty of the same argument. You consider your own sources (whatever they might be) to be more factual then the ones presented by onyx_. Both of you will not agree. More troubling is that you require their sources to be held to a higher standard than your own. I assume both of you are not experts or journalists in the field, so do not conflate your truth as superior because someone else relies on their own de facto truth. You are in fact both several degrees removed from the source. Scrutinize their sources, but likewise your own. > Shutting down speech does not lead to "facts" or "truth", it leads to uncertainty I do agree that shutting down speech only adds fuel to the flames. You're right. I also think companies are not faultless judges of the truth. > If you're so confident, then let those people speak and use arguments (even your ludicrous wall of links) against them. That's rational and dare I say it, scientific. Here is where the discussion on YouTube (social media in general) censorship should start. The problem is that these people (the left as well) use "post truth" arguments and tactics to draw circles in the sand. Isolating discussions into talking points presented by their own side. Shrouding the herd from other arguments by claiming them to be "Fake News". Inflaming individuals to argue at (not with) everyone. This is immeasurably harmful as this information needs no fact checking and can be presented with a facade of reasonableness. People will find these arguments faster, more digestible, more appealing, and more viral than traditional news media. No discussion will occur. Even onyx_'s list of sources will not persuade them. > YouTube is basically the Catholic church, claiming they know the facts, they know the truth, and Galileo is spouting nonsense. Here's the crux, you are scared of Google's knowledge of the "facts" and biases, but you show no interest in gathering the whole truth yourself. Onyx_ did give a list of sources, that could be true or false. You dismissed them immediately in your comment. But more telling is what position you place your knowledge. Is it above sources, officials, experts, scientists(?), journalists, news agencies? Can you confidently verify the same authenticity of your sources? We should not fool ourselves. Tomorrow, just like today, no meaningful discussion tainted by politicization will be held by both sides again.