4 ms·
What are you even saying? Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines? Or are you saying
by thelean12 5y ago
What are you even saying?
Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines?
Or are you saying that YouTube should allow complete bullshit, lies, and misinformation mixed in with the few bits of fair criticism?
Both options are completely absurd.
- manigandham 5y agoThose are the only two options though because they either moderate or they don't... so what are you saying exactly?
- thelean12 5y agoI am saying: what are other options besides the two I mentioned, and the one that they're using? I'm saying that the two I mentioned are absolutely absurd. Not even worth a conversation. The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago> The one they're using is deferring their decision making to a source that, even if they're a bit flawed, is WAY WAY WAY better than themselves when figuring out what is worth keeping online. Ok, fair enough. However, in your original post (which appears to be no longer visible) you stated that Youtube made this particular decision to censor accurate information in order to spread lies (with a "common good" purpose). I don't like that.
- baobabKoodaa 5y ago> Are you saying that YouTube should be the arbiter of whether or not a video is a fair criticism of WHO guidelines? No, I don't think YouTube should be in the "arbiter of truth" business at all! That said, I do understand the argument some people make, that misinformation should be censored. Note that you didn't make this argument. You made the argument that misinformation should (in some cases) be promoted, while truthful information should be censored.