4 ms·

> until some Institution (CDC/WHO/etc) decides on a Consensus of Truth, and that this Consensus of Truth No need to draw unfounded "implicit" proposals. I expl

> until some Institution (CDC/WHO/etc) decides on a Consensus of Truth, and that this Consensus of Truth No need to draw unfounded "implicit" proposals. I explicitly invoked a body of everyone with domain expertise to evaluate claims, not a singular institution. Those people often do connect via institutionS created to support and benefit from their work and its utility, like professional associations, journals and trade publications, domain-specific forums, research arms, university departments. The emphasized plural in institutionS should underscore the point that as neat a rhetorical flourish the invocation of an oppressive capital-I Institution is, it's actually substantially wrong as a way of engaging this topic. The actual truth is not going to be somehow hamstrung or stamped out if the stewards of a large public platform like YouTube follow the conversations in these communities of expertise on some topics rather than letting Lone Gunmen lead them into controversy-view battle against it. Like Paul Graham recently said "Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they're proposed by reasonable domain experts." The first best way to tell if someone is a domain expert is to become one; the second best is to see if the maverick can convince other domain experts. If collective expertise itself sounds oppressive to you, wait until you try the oppression from giving authority to collective ignorance. > the efficacy of wearing masks? If this is talking about the surgeon general's take circa Feb/Mar 2020, I welcome its admission to this discussion, because it's actually an illustration about the problems of mass communication and how someone can say something where every last word is defensible and most of it holds up over a year later ... and yet harmful mass misunderstanding (and a handle for disinformation) can follow. And that should encourage people towards more cautious use/responsibility when it comes to media reach. And still, even with all the problems with that... the official narrative that you seem eager to characterize as potentially misleading or oppressive had actually fixed itself, accompanied with accessible arguments and demonstrations within months. > As for YouTube being “mass media”, come on—it’s filled with random crap uploaded by members of the public. Walter Cronkite broadcast on narrow-producer mass-audience media. Youtube is both mass-audience AND mass-producer. Some videos on the long tail see a few dozen views. Some videos have reached more of the world than Cronkite ever did and may still be doing so long after everyone who ever heard his voice live or even remembers his name is dead. Seems to me that doesn't make YouTube any less "mass."

philwelch 5y ago
> No need to draw unfounded "implicit" proposals. I explicitly invoked a body of everyone with domain expertise to evaluate claims, not a singular institution. We’re discussing a video of such “domain experts” themselves discussing and evaluating such claims openly, having been taken down by the singular Institution of Alphabet Inc.
thu2111 5y ago
Your argument would be more compelling if it were really specific to YouTube but guess what, all kinds of institutions have been suppressing all kinds of topics, including journals, arXiv sites, ResearchGate and so on. The problem here is not scientific debate happening with the "wrong" technologies (lol) but rather than some ideas are simply being suppressed by certain factions within society for their own ends, in ways that are both: a. Illegitimate b. Foolish If collective expertise itself sounds oppressive to you, wait until you try the oppression from giving authority to collective ignorance. That's exactly what has happened here. The actual expertise is being oppressed by YouTube moderators, who are themselves responding to instructions decided by Susan Wojcicki, a woman with no scientific or medical expertise whatsoever, who isn't even a software engineer, in fact a woman who is famous primarily for losing against YouTube in the market when she had to compete against them. An outcome that occurred largely because YouTube bet on user generated content, whilst Wojcicki became obsessed with professionally produced movies and TV shows. Now, in a display of extraordinary hubris, arrogance and a mind-blowing inability to learn from mistakes, she has again decided that the whole user-generated content thing isn't the right way to go and that the only content allowed on the platform should be whatever institutions with "World" in their title approve of. She does this despite the fact that she lost the video war last time because of the same elitist views, despite that the WHO is not run by a doctor or medical specialist of any kind, despite that the WHO constantly changes its mind and is by now totally discredited, and despite many other factors that should have led to this policy being scrapped within minutes of being proposed.

philwelch 5y ago

> No need to draw unfounded "implicit" proposals. I explicitly invoked a body of everyone with domain expertise to evaluate claims, not a singular institution. We’re discussing a video of such “domain experts” themselves discussing and evaluating such claims openly, having been taken down by the singular Institution of Alphabet Inc.

thu2111 5y ago

Your argument would be more compelling if it were really specific to YouTube but guess what, all kinds of institutions have been suppressing all kinds of topics, including journals, arXiv sites, ResearchGate and so on. The problem here is not scientific debate happening with the "wrong" technologies (lol) but rather than some ideas are simply being suppressed by certain factions within society for their own ends, in ways that are both: a. Illegitimate b. Foolish If collective expertise itself sounds oppressive to you, wait until you try the oppression from giving authority to collective ignorance. That's exactly what has happened here. The actual expertise is being oppressed by YouTube moderators, who are themselves responding to instructions decided by Susan Wojcicki, a woman with no scientific or medical expertise whatsoever, who isn't even a software engineer, in fact a woman who is famous primarily for losing against YouTube in the market when she had to compete against them. An outcome that occurred largely because YouTube bet on user generated content, whilst Wojcicki became obsessed with professionally produced movies and TV shows. Now, in a display of extraordinary hubris, arrogance and a mind-blowing inability to learn from mistakes, she has again decided that the whole user-generated content thing isn't the right way to go and that the only content allowed on the platform should be whatever institutions with "World" in their title approve of. She does this despite the fact that she lost the video war last time because of the same elitist views, despite that the WHO is not run by a doctor or medical specialist of any kind, despite that the WHO constantly changes its mind and is by now totally discredited, and despite many other factors that should have led to this policy being scrapped within minutes of being proposed.