4 ms·

This is a solved problem : don't BAN, but FLAG conspiracy theories and dangerous memes with a notice citing links to facts. I've enjoyed the somewhat balanced

This is a solved problem : don't BAN, but FLAG conspiracy theories and dangerous memes with a notice citing links to facts. I've enjoyed the somewhat balanced weekly covid discussions of youtuber Dr Chris Martenson / PeakProsperity. He generally backs up his opinions with links to science studies and data, but has been censored by youtube for mentioning controversially that "HCQ has some efficacy as a prophylactic before exposure to Covid". ( He has also covered topics such as less severe Covid outcome for those taking Vitamin-D, for which there now seems to be a lot of evidence... yet why are we not seeing governments recommend and supply it more widely ? ) Are we still able to rationally discuss on youtube topics such as : Did SARS-CoV2/Covid originate elsewhere than at the seafood market in Wuhan [ there are a handful of data with earlier cases in distant locales ] ? Are we allowed to make videos discussing the cause of collapse of WTC building 7 on 911 ? Engineering Professor Leroy Hulseys structural study at Fairbanks University argues that the canonical explanation of fire damage leading to failure of a weak point followed by cascading collapse is 'unlikely'. Will we be able to share videos that say fracking for oil produces so much extra methane as to render the proponents criminally liable for the acceleration of global warming ? Will we be able to discuss on youtube.com whether google.com should pay more tax than they currently do ? What body decides this ?

krapp 6y ago
That doesn't solve the problem. The very same people complaining about this also complained when platforms did exactly what you suggested. Even attempting to "fact check" is considered censorship.
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  Is your goal to ensure people have access to reliable information or to eliminate the opposition?
vladTheInhaler 6y ago
This is very, very, very far from a solved problem. It is not at all clear that flagging posts does anything to limit the spread of false information. Even when we know that the information we are reading is false, we can still end up believing it, especially if we are distracted or under time pressure [1]. Yesterday, the Lawfare podcast did an interview with a researcher studying misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information which I suggest people check out if they want to learn more about the issue [2]. [1] "You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read" : https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gilbert%20et%20al%20%28EVERYTHING%20YOU%20READ%29.pdf https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gilbert%20et%20al%20%28EVER... [2] "The Lawfare Podcast: The Vaccine Misinformation Cometh" : https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-vaccine-misinformation-cometh https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-vaccine-misinfor...
- jstgord 6y ago
  > "Even when we know that the information we are reading is false, we can still end up believing it" I'm not saying human perception is the 'solved problem' - if I know something is false, then can I also believe it ? I actually think the human mind is capable of believing both proposition "X is true" and its logical negation "X is not true". eg "birds are dinosaurs" is both true and not true, inmnsho. I want people to believe things that are true, but this would require much wider access to higher quality science education, as well as access to good information, protected freedom of speech ... My feeling is the Twitter model - where outrageous untruths are tagged with a notice - is a good start, and much better than the path of outright censorship that youtube seems to be choosing. I'd like to see a kind of wikipedia crowd-sourced model to fact-check social media - flag a post/comment with "controversial" / "established dogma" / "noncontroversial" / "conspiracy theory" : ] - similar to how we have pseudo-public reviews of books on Amazon and goodreads. Perhaps this can be gamed, but we still have wikipedia and much of it _is_ accurate, so there is hope.

krapp 6y ago

That doesn't solve the problem. The very same people complaining about this also complained when platforms did exactly what you suggested. Even attempting to "fact check" is considered censorship.

Ancapistani 6y ago
Is your goal to ensure people have access to reliable information or to eliminate the opposition?

vladTheInhaler 6y ago

This is very, very, very far from a solved problem. It is not at all clear that flagging posts does anything to limit the spread of false information. Even when we know that the information we are reading is false, we can still end up believing it, especially if we are distracted or under time pressure [1]. Yesterday, the Lawfare podcast did an interview with a researcher studying misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information which I suggest people check out if they want to learn more about the issue [2]. [1] "You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read" : https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gilbert%20et%20al%20%28EVERYTHING%20YOU%20READ%29.pdf https://wjh-www.harvard.edu/~dtg/Gilbert%20et%20al%20%28EVER... [2] "The Lawfare Podcast: The Vaccine Misinformation Cometh" : https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-vaccine-misinformation-cometh https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-vaccine-misinfor...

jstgord 6y ago
> "Even when we know that the information we are reading is false, we can still end up believing it" I'm not saying human perception is the 'solved problem' - if I know something is false, then can I also believe it ? I actually think the human mind is capable of believing both proposition "X is true" and its logical negation "X is not true". eg "birds are dinosaurs" is both true and not true, inmnsho. I want people to believe things that are true, but this would require much wider access to higher quality science education, as well as access to good information, protected freedom of speech ... My feeling is the Twitter model - where outrageous untruths are tagged with a notice - is a good start, and much better than the path of outright censorship that youtube seems to be choosing. I'd like to see a kind of wikipedia crowd-sourced model to fact-check social media - flag a post/comment with "controversial" / "established dogma" / "noncontroversial" / "conspiracy theory" : ] - similar to how we have pseudo-public reviews of books on Amazon and goodreads. Perhaps this can be gamed, but we still have wikipedia and much of it _is_ accurate, so there is hope.