4 ms·

In order to be a free country there must be freedom, even if you don't like what other people say. This is a dangerous precedent. We are rapidly getting to th

In order to be a free country there must be freedom, even if you don't like what other people say. This is a dangerous precedent. We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said. Having a free press and allowing citizens to be heard becomes crucial to a functioning democracy. That being said, I'm also in favor of letting companies have freedom to run their companies as they see fit as long as it is legal and moral. But this decision by YouTube saddens me. If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence.

evgen 6y ago
Either there are consequences for your lies and misinformation or truth is doomed and freedom will follow soon after. > If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence. This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it. This event was not a response to censorship, it was a response to an subset of the population being fed a steady diet of outrage and misinformation and then putting on your surprised pikachu face when they get upset that their candidate lost an election. These people had the ability to be heard and debate and participate, they just are not willing to accept the consequences of that participation or to acknowledge that their candidate lost.
- bcheung 6y ago
  Sure it wasn't the sole cause but it was definitely a strong contributing factor. Listen to the interviews of the people that were there. It's human behavior when people don't feel like they are being heard and understood they raise their voice, become less agreeable, and when something is important enough to them and there is no peaceful way to resolve things they become violent. Acknowledging what someone else says and repeating back to them what they are saying works amazingly well for disarming conflict. When dialog ceases to be the means by which people can peacefully resolve their differences then violence is inevitable. Censoring and banning people further escalates conflict because it takes away people's ability to feel like they are being heard and understood. If instead the dialog going something like "well why do you believe that, what evidence do you have to support that claim, did you consider X, here's why I disagree with you, etc" then maybe people would have changed their minds. Instead, by and large, the approach taken by the media and tech companies was "you guys are wrong, you're an idiot, and we are going to silence you". I don't think that helps and only further escalates things. Along your point though, should there then be censorship of the ideas that led people to the BLM riots? I don't think censorship is the answer there either. Who gets to decide what is true and how does that not lead to dangerous concentrations of power?
colmvp 6y ago
> We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said. I mean the US is already there. I recall many years ago having to actively search for the positions and speeches from Ron Paul because he was barely given air time in debates. Same goes for Andrew Yang where I only got to know him through alternative media sources (podcasts) instead of major news channels.
- gnarbarian 6y ago
  You're completely right. It's been this way forever. It's just more obvious now.

evgen 6y ago

Either there are consequences for your lies and misinformation or truth is doomed and freedom will follow soon after. > If the media didn't keep censoring and banning people I doubt the Capitol would have been stormed. When you take away people's ability to be heard, debate, and participate in democracy, people feel they have nothing to lose. Recent events are the consequence. This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it. This event was not a response to censorship, it was a response to an subset of the population being fed a steady diet of outrage and misinformation and then putting on your surprised pikachu face when they get upset that their candidate lost an election. These people had the ability to be heard and debate and participate, they just are not willing to accept the consequences of that participation or to acknowledge that their candidate lost.

bcheung 6y ago
Sure it wasn't the sole cause but it was definitely a strong contributing factor. Listen to the interviews of the people that were there. It's human behavior when people don't feel like they are being heard and understood they raise their voice, become less agreeable, and when something is important enough to them and there is no peaceful way to resolve things they become violent. Acknowledging what someone else says and repeating back to them what they are saying works amazingly well for disarming conflict. When dialog ceases to be the means by which people can peacefully resolve their differences then violence is inevitable. Censoring and banning people further escalates conflict because it takes away people's ability to feel like they are being heard and understood. If instead the dialog going something like "well why do you believe that, what evidence do you have to support that claim, did you consider X, here's why I disagree with you, etc" then maybe people would have changed their minds. Instead, by and large, the approach taken by the media and tech companies was "you guys are wrong, you're an idiot, and we are going to silence you". I don't think that helps and only further escalates things. Along your point though, should there then be censorship of the ideas that led people to the BLM riots? I don't think censorship is the answer there either. Who gets to decide what is true and how does that not lead to dangerous concentrations of power?

colmvp 6y ago

> We are rapidly getting to the point where elections are not based on merit of candidates but by what the media says and allows to be said. I mean the US is already there. I recall many years ago having to actively search for the positions and speeches from Ron Paul because he was barely given air time in debates. Same goes for Andrew Yang where I only got to know him through alternative media sources (podcasts) instead of major news channels.

gnarbarian 6y ago
You're completely right. It's been this way forever. It's just more obvious now.