4 ms·

> Or the way the whole idea of truth can be weakened by authoritarian behavior and mass disinformation. So... YouTube. YouTube is the arbiter of truth we shou

> Or the way the whole idea of truth can be weakened by authoritarian behavior and mass disinformation. So... YouTube. YouTube is the arbiter of truth we should accept? Does that sound any less creepy to you? That a handful of people whose management is headquartered in a few zip codes in San Francisco can determine what people are allowed to talk about?

wpietri 6y ago
I don't think YouTube has to be the arbiter of truth. Or of what people are allowed to talk about. But I think they definitely should be the arbiter of what they're comfortable supporting on their platform. As you're proving right now, they are far from the only platform.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Should twitter remove posts like this? https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1337043496230932483 https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1337043496230932483 "Four people who received Pfizer's vaccine developed Bell's palsy, a form of temporary facial paralysis" The trouble is, this one's a bit different than a slippery slope argument. We'll have to decide whether we want to allow fringe news at all. If YouTube announced tomorrow that they would ban opposition to the new vaccine, would that feel as comfortable?
  - wpietri 6y ago
    I think it's a reasonable choice for a platform to label, deamplify, or even ban content that is both clearly false and clearly dangerous. Do you think that tweet is both false and dangerous?
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      I think it's probably false. I don't think information is dangerous, no. Do you think people should be able to make up their own minds? Unfortunately, all of those actions you mention run contrary to that premise.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - wpietri 6y ago
        I think that's a pretty bad way to frame it. E.g., look at medical licensing. One could oppose it, on the grounds that people should be able to make up their own minds as to whether somebody is competent to perform surgery on them. Saying that a person can't call themselves a medical doctor is just denying them freedom of speech! Who is the government to come between private parties! Etc, etc. But in practice that would lead to incredible harm for little gain. I think individual freedom is an important value, but not the only one, and that real-world concerns require balancing values.
tremon 6y ago
No, the courts are the arbiter of truth we should accept. And since many of these videos are alleging things that multiple court cases (including the US Supreme Court) have already thoroughly debunked, Youtube should not be getting flak for removing the content.
- tim333 6y ago
  No common sense and reason are the arbiter of truth we should accept. I'm not convinced that corporations are people my friend.

wpietri 6y ago

I don't think YouTube has to be the arbiter of truth. Or of what people are allowed to talk about. But I think they definitely should be the arbiter of what they're comfortable supporting on their platform. As you're proving right now, they are far from the only platform.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Should twitter remove posts like this? https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1337043496230932483 https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1337043496230932483 "Four people who received Pfizer's vaccine developed Bell's palsy, a form of temporary facial paralysis" The trouble is, this one's a bit different than a slippery slope argument. We'll have to decide whether we want to allow fringe news at all. If YouTube announced tomorrow that they would ban opposition to the new vaccine, would that feel as comfortable?
- wpietri 6y ago
  I think it's a reasonable choice for a platform to label, deamplify, or even ban content that is both clearly false and clearly dangerous. Do you think that tweet is both false and dangerous?
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    I think it's probably false. I don't think information is dangerous, no. Do you think people should be able to make up their own minds? Unfortunately, all of those actions you mention run contrary to that premise.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - wpietri 6y ago
      I think that's a pretty bad way to frame it. E.g., look at medical licensing. One could oppose it, on the grounds that people should be able to make up their own minds as to whether somebody is competent to perform surgery on them. Saying that a person can't call themselves a medical doctor is just denying them freedom of speech! Who is the government to come between private parties! Etc, etc. But in practice that would lead to incredible harm for little gain. I think individual freedom is an important value, but not the only one, and that real-world concerns require balancing values.

tremon 6y ago

No, the courts are the arbiter of truth we should accept. And since many of these videos are alleging things that multiple court cases (including the US Supreme Court) have already thoroughly debunked, Youtube should not be getting flak for removing the content.

tim333 6y ago
No common sense and reason are the arbiter of truth we should accept. I'm not convinced that corporations are people my friend.