4 ms·

This is a strange take on how issues should be discussed in a free society. Rather than have ideological gate keeping at every level, I believe we in tech shou

This is a strange take on how issues should be discussed in a free society. Rather than have ideological gate keeping at every level, I believe we in tech should advocate for a plurality of viewpoints discussed in the open. Probing, reasonable discourse is the best antidote to propaganda and confusion.

garyfirestorm 5y ago
Yup we should totally Facebook it
wwweston 5y ago
> Rather than have ideological gate keeping at every level Are you taking the position that all gatekeeping is ideological? Because otherwise, bringing it up when the topic seems to be gatekeeping of factual understanding seems off topic.
- squidlogic 5y ago
  Issues of fact are not always easy to discern and may require reasonable discourse to arrive at a conclusion, wouldn’t you agree?
- thu2111 5y ago
  It clearly is in this case. Nothing YouTube is doing is anything to do with factual understanding - Google's understanding of the topics in question is extremely poor and certainly not justified with any medical evidence. Their FAQ on the topics simply says they'll block "medical misinformation" which they define as anything the WHO disagrees with. As the WHO has repeatedly disagreed with itself there's no way to be consistent with that standard, at least not without erasing all material from the WHO and its supporters too, but they don't do that. Of course they don't because in the end, this is pure authoritarianism. No fact-finding has gone into this decision.
  - apmee 5y ago
    > Their FAQ on the topics simply says they'll block "medical misinformation" which they define as anything the WHO disagrees with This seems entirely sensible to me. > As the WHO has repeatedly disagreed with itself Unless I misunderstand you, you're saying this as if it's a bad thing. No one's saying the the decision-making processes at the WHO are perfect, but shifts in stance and advice in response to newly available evidence is not "disagreeing with oneself". It's fundamentally how science works. In fact, most of the criticisms from credible experts have been that the WHO have been too resistant to updating their positions (in the face of the increasingly overwhelming evidence last year that the virus is airborne, for example). > this is pure authoritarianism. No fact-finding has gone into this decision. You consider their policy of deferring to an internationally recognised public health body to inform their content guidelines to be an example of authoritarianism? If so, what alternative "fact-finding" approaches would you suggest? Because if we imagine for the sake of argument that YouTube somehow had the means, resources and competence to conduct their own rigorous studies and research, in such a notoriously complex field as public health, and used this to inform their content moderation decisions instead of information from the WHO, how would this be any less "authoritarian"?
    - thu2111 5y ago
      The WHO hasn't changed its views due to "new science", the shifts have all been for political reasons, as was sometimes admitted by their own staff. Additionally this notion that it's ok for "experts" to set policies and claim science as justification then totally change them on a dime largely voids the whole original justification. It implies their original "science" was totally wrong in ways they couldn't detect and thus they presented it with absolute confidence, then they discovered they had badly screwed up but never admitted to it or investigated what went wrong. In the end, science is respected because it claims to reveal universal truths about nature. If those truths are constantly being announced to be obsolete such that the new truths aren't mere refinements but totally different, what use is science? As for authoritarianism, preventing people disagreeing with a global authority is a pure example of it, no? YouTube shouldn't even bother trying to figure out the truth here, they aren't able to do so. Just let people thrash it out amongst themselves.

garyfirestorm 5y ago

Yup we should totally Facebook it

wwweston 5y ago

> Rather than have ideological gate keeping at every level Are you taking the position that all gatekeeping is ideological? Because otherwise, bringing it up when the topic seems to be gatekeeping of factual understanding seems off topic.

squidlogic 5y ago
Issues of fact are not always easy to discern and may require reasonable discourse to arrive at a conclusion, wouldn’t you agree?
thu2111 5y ago
It clearly is in this case. Nothing YouTube is doing is anything to do with factual understanding - Google's understanding of the topics in question is extremely poor and certainly not justified with any medical evidence. Their FAQ on the topics simply says they'll block "medical misinformation" which they define as anything the WHO disagrees with. As the WHO has repeatedly disagreed with itself there's no way to be consistent with that standard, at least not without erasing all material from the WHO and its supporters too, but they don't do that. Of course they don't because in the end, this is pure authoritarianism. No fact-finding has gone into this decision.
- apmee 5y ago
  > Their FAQ on the topics simply says they'll block "medical misinformation" which they define as anything the WHO disagrees with This seems entirely sensible to me. > As the WHO has repeatedly disagreed with itself Unless I misunderstand you, you're saying this as if it's a bad thing. No one's saying the the decision-making processes at the WHO are perfect, but shifts in stance and advice in response to newly available evidence is not "disagreeing with oneself". It's fundamentally how science works. In fact, most of the criticisms from credible experts have been that the WHO have been too resistant to updating their positions (in the face of the increasingly overwhelming evidence last year that the virus is airborne, for example). > this is pure authoritarianism. No fact-finding has gone into this decision. You consider their policy of deferring to an internationally recognised public health body to inform their content guidelines to be an example of authoritarianism? If so, what alternative "fact-finding" approaches would you suggest? Because if we imagine for the sake of argument that YouTube somehow had the means, resources and competence to conduct their own rigorous studies and research, in such a notoriously complex field as public health, and used this to inform their content moderation decisions instead of information from the WHO, how would this be any less "authoritarian"?
  - thu2111 5y ago
    The WHO hasn't changed its views due to "new science", the shifts have all been for political reasons, as was sometimes admitted by their own staff. Additionally this notion that it's ok for "experts" to set policies and claim science as justification then totally change them on a dime largely voids the whole original justification. It implies their original "science" was totally wrong in ways they couldn't detect and thus they presented it with absolute confidence, then they discovered they had badly screwed up but never admitted to it or investigated what went wrong. In the end, science is respected because it claims to reveal universal truths about nature. If those truths are constantly being announced to be obsolete such that the new truths aren't mere refinements but totally different, what use is science? As for authoritarianism, preventing people disagreeing with a global authority is a pure example of it, no? YouTube shouldn't even bother trying to figure out the truth here, they aren't able to do so. Just let people thrash it out amongst themselves.