6 ms·

Thanks for the reply. > Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill. Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert th

Thanks for the reply. > Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill. Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side." > But you know all this. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and I think you’re full of shit. Then why did you reply to me? What value is there in engaging in some bad faith bullshitter on the internet? Don't you believe that I'm going to respond with more bad faith bullshit and further confuse anyone who isn't rational and detached enough to see the truth? > Because, after these last four years saying “bad actors on both sides” means that you’ve chosen to either obscure or deny reality. After all this you're not even able to see how there could be bad faith actors on both sides? You don't think that bad faith actors on your own side might harm your cause or detract from your message? Or you don't think they exist? > What you’re doing is dangerous to democracy and you should be ashamed of yourself. I get that you're passionate about this so can you explain this statement? If me sharing my opinion is so dangerous then why is it safer to let me vote? I'm genuinely curious how you can think that its good for the common person to cast a ballot but its bad for the common person to share their opinions on the integrity of the election. > I’m not saying YouTube removing this content is the right move, but your logic only holds up in a fantasyland devoid of fact or context. What's the error in my logic? Is trump uniquely bad so the normal rules don't apply, or is there something dangerous about the idea that people who decide whose opinions should be heard are potentially bad faith actors who could corrupt the discourse?

croon 6y ago
> Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side." But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side. There is no silencing of good faith actors, although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side. How are they determining bad faith in an objective, reliable, and verifiable way? The policy is to delete content that alleges that there was widespread fraud. That doesn't reference the sincerity or faith of the actor, but the object-level claims that are being made. It would seem that means they are deleting content they disagree with, regardless of whether it is put forth in good faith or not. > There is no silencing of good faith actors Can you support this statement? It seems like an article of faith to me. How would you know that all the videos that had been removed are put forth in bad faith? > although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk. Does that mean you acknowledge the possibility of error in judgment with respect to this issue?
  - croon 6y ago
    > How are they determining bad faith in an objective, reliable, and verifiable way? The policy is to delete content that alleges that there was widespread fraud. That doesn't reference the sincerity or faith of the actor, but the object-level claims that are being made. It would seem that means they are deleting content they disagree with, regardless of whether it is put forth in good faith or not. How many cases of fraud has there been in this election? 1? There has been 0 evidence of widespread fraud. The only possible way any argument could be made in good faith is if you have the naivete of a child. I'm not saying that as a value judgment, but as a matter of fact. > > There is no silencing of good faith actors > Can you support this statement? It seems like an article of faith to me. How would you know that all the videos that had been removed are put forth in bad faith? I can not prove a negative, other than the absence of evidence of the contrary. Do you have any examples of good faith actors being silenced that we can discuss the merits of? > Does that mean you acknowledge the possibility of error in judgment with respect to this issue? Yes, but I have seen no evidence of this, so I reserve that hypothetical for when it happens.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > How many cases of fraud has there been in this election? I haven't the foggiest idea, I'm not a cop or political-type person. > There has been 0 evidence of widespread fraud. What kind of evidence would you expect to see? > The only possible way any argument could be made in good faith is if you have the naivete of a child. I'm not saying that as a value judgment, but as a matter of fact. How are you able to attest to that fact? > I can not prove a negative, other than the absence of evidence of the contrary. What evidence would you expect to see if YouTube had deleted a good faith video? > Do you have any examples of good faith actors being silenced that we can discuss the merits of? No because I'm not even sure how one would attest to the "good faith" of a video that is no longer on YouTube. Thats why I'm so puzzled at the certainty exhibited by people who seem determined that these videos and ideas are so dangerous that they should be suppressed. What kind of experiences and evidence would make someone so confident that they were right and they hadn't merely been misinformed? > Yes, but I have seen no evidence of this, so I reserve that hypothetical for when it happens. Wouldn't you want to have some evidence in support of your statement before you make sweeping claims? I'm trying to see how you can reconcile the part where you think these other people are bad because they make statements about reality without evidence, but you're fine with making statements about reality yourself without evidence.

croon 6y ago

> Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side." But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side. There is no silencing of good faith actors, although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side. How are they determining bad faith in an objective, reliable, and verifiable way? The policy is to delete content that alleges that there was widespread fraud. That doesn't reference the sincerity or faith of the actor, but the object-level claims that are being made. It would seem that means they are deleting content they disagree with, regardless of whether it is put forth in good faith or not. > There is no silencing of good faith actors Can you support this statement? It seems like an article of faith to me. How would you know that all the videos that had been removed are put forth in bad faith? > although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk. Does that mean you acknowledge the possibility of error in judgment with respect to this issue?
- croon 6y ago
  > How are they determining bad faith in an objective, reliable, and verifiable way? The policy is to delete content that alleges that there was widespread fraud. That doesn't reference the sincerity or faith of the actor, but the object-level claims that are being made. It would seem that means they are deleting content they disagree with, regardless of whether it is put forth in good faith or not. How many cases of fraud has there been in this election? 1? There has been 0 evidence of widespread fraud. The only possible way any argument could be made in good faith is if you have the naivete of a child. I'm not saying that as a value judgment, but as a matter of fact. > > There is no silencing of good faith actors > Can you support this statement? It seems like an article of faith to me. How would you know that all the videos that had been removed are put forth in bad faith? I can not prove a negative, other than the absence of evidence of the contrary. Do you have any examples of good faith actors being silenced that we can discuss the merits of? > Does that mean you acknowledge the possibility of error in judgment with respect to this issue? Yes, but I have seen no evidence of this, so I reserve that hypothetical for when it happens.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > How many cases of fraud has there been in this election? I haven't the foggiest idea, I'm not a cop or political-type person. > There has been 0 evidence of widespread fraud. What kind of evidence would you expect to see? > The only possible way any argument could be made in good faith is if you have the naivete of a child. I'm not saying that as a value judgment, but as a matter of fact. How are you able to attest to that fact? > I can not prove a negative, other than the absence of evidence of the contrary. What evidence would you expect to see if YouTube had deleted a good faith video? > Do you have any examples of good faith actors being silenced that we can discuss the merits of? No because I'm not even sure how one would attest to the "good faith" of a video that is no longer on YouTube. Thats why I'm so puzzled at the certainty exhibited by people who seem determined that these videos and ideas are so dangerous that they should be suppressed. What kind of experiences and evidence would make someone so confident that they were right and they hadn't merely been misinformed? > Yes, but I have seen no evidence of this, so I reserve that hypothetical for when it happens. Wouldn't you want to have some evidence in support of your statement before you make sweeping claims? I'm trying to see how you can reconcile the part where you think these other people are bad because they make statements about reality without evidence, but you're fine with making statements about reality yourself without evidence.