3 ms·

By your logic there should also be no discussion of vaccines in either platform. Those discussions are scientific as well.

• geofft 5y ago
  My logic is that you shouldn't rely on those platforms, not that you shouldn't try to have the discussions. If YouTube decides that all discussion of the coronavirus in any form - truthful or otherwise - is bad for their ad revenue, they are within their rights to shut all of it down, and those people who want to discuss it (i.e., just about all of us in society) need to make sure we have alternatives. Allowing companies to centralize vital functions of our society because it brings them profit and then whining that they're profit-motivated is a losing game. That's all. Imagine if we'd had all our discussions of the vaccine on Google+ and then it shut down. Nobody calls the Google+ shutdown "censorship," and yet it would have had exactly the same effect.
  • proc0 5y ago
    > If YouTube decides that all discussion of the coronavirus in any form - truthful or otherwise - is bad for their ad revenue, they are within their rights to shut all of it down, Sure, but it's not ALL conversations they are shutting down. Adn then it's a simple observation that if they are doing it for their ad revenue, then advertising companies are the ones deciding this. So then advertisers are the ones effectively allowing and disallowing the medical advise. I don't see that as ethical. Again, if they come up with "universal" rules like "no discussion of this whatsoever", I would agree, but it is obviously clear there are right and wrong discussions based on what a corporation and/or their advertisers deem fit. This means they are indeed trying to advise the public with what medical actions to take, and people are not "going to another platform" for this.