7 ms·

Well, if the principle is "don't lie", then "expose people who lie" doesn't violate the principle. It remains to be seen, however, whether Google actually has a

Well, if the principle is "don't lie", then "expose people who lie" doesn't violate the principle. It remains to be seen, however, whether Google actually has any principles other than making money.

mc32 5y ago
Conspiracy theories are the bane of any society. But, the problem is often one does not know in advance if a conspiracy theory is just a crackpot theory or there is something to it. To wit: SARS-CoV-2 lab origin. mRNA vaccine heart inflammation. Both were denounced as conspiracy theories by the CDC and flagged by YT (and other social media) the CDC has revered on both examples.
- BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
  I agree with all of that. And there's a big difference between e.g. "dismissing lab leak out of hand is wrong because there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of government suppression and coverup", which many people currently say based on available evidence, and "this is definitely a Chinese bioweapons program" which many people also currently say without any factual evidence whatsoever. I worry a lot about people and organizations who lump them together, but I'm fine with silencing the latter. The CDC is a political organization controlled by the executive branch that happens to be staffed partly with people who call themselves scientists[0]. The unwavering faith that people put into political organizations is its own tragic issue. [0] - In the same way that many programmers are terrible at being programmers, many scientists are terrible at being scientists.
  - nwienert 5y ago
    The only difference is that you personally believe the evidence to be less strong than others… there’s no fundamental difference, just difference of opinion. If a socialist candidate is assassinated in South America and someone on YouTube says “this was the American imperialist regimes doing” without evidence, I wouldn’t assume they are right, but I’d see it as an opinion based on historical evidence that I’d hate to see censored. This applies even if someone claims it was aliens!
    - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
      > The only difference is that you personally believe the evidence to be less strong than others… there’s no fundamental difference, just difference of opinion. The differences are in the type of claim being made and in whether the reasons given are real or made up and in whether the reasons actually support the claim and in the systemic harm caused by being wrong. All of those differences matter.
      - nwienert 5y ago
        I never made a claim they had more or less evidence, you ignore the South America example entirely which is that it’s ok to have circumspect evidence but extrapolate based on priors. There’s no place for silencing opinions, and those are opinions that all have different levels of evidence. That you tend to weigh certain evidence differently is your own stance, not objective fact. To try again, let’s say someone is a “body language expert”. I don’t really believe that to a large degree, but fine. They post a YouTube clip showing the Chinese gov denying the lab leak and say “oh man I can tell based on X, Y, and Z their body language is a total giveaway that this was intentional!” Again, I don’t believe it. But it doesn’t matter. Whether they think it’s aliens because they saw some cloud trails or tea leaves or whatever, it’s all a matter of degree. The lab leak was shut down under the same premises. “Our” evidence is strong, and “their” evidence is conspiracy theory. Except it wasn’t. So I don’t trust anyone, you included, to be the decider of valid evidence. I’ll sort through it myself.
        BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
        > If a socialist candidate is assassinated in South America and someone on YouTube says “this was the American imperialist regimes doing” without evidence, I wouldn’t assume they are right, but I’d see it as an opinion You are conflating "opinion" with "unsupported statement of fact", "assumption", and "guess". Assumption and conclusion are not synonyms, but your statement here treats them as though they are. "Murder is wrong" is an opinion, because it's a compressed substitute for an expansive syllogistic trail that starts from some initial premises that are purely personal and subjective about the value and nature of life and being and leads to the conclusion. You reach a moral ruling starting from an instinctive feeling. Expressing that feeling itself is not an opinion, but concluding a moral position from that feeling is. "I like the taste of this cheese" is a factual observation about the self that is not an opinion, because while it observes something personal it itself is not subjectively based on an initial position. You either like the taste of this cheese or you don't. Statements about the cause of things that happen in the world are either true or false, not opinions. There's a reason for the old saw that opinions can't be wrong. Subjectivity is the critical element that makes them opinions in the first place. People tend to lose or forget that distinction or insert subjectivity where none exists, but that's an error which disrupts effective communication and muddies thought.
  - simonh 5y ago
    I’m not fine with silencing either of them, even the people who say it was “definitely” a state bioweapons programme. However there are a third group that knowingly misrepresent and fabricate evidence to promote conspiracy theories. Screw those guys. They hide under the cover of legitimate opinion, but no platform should be expected to tolerate being used to propagate that sort of crap.
    - mc32 5y ago
      The big problem is FB, YT, etc. don't seem to be able to tell apart aunt Rose's conspiracies from those fabricated by NK, RU, or CN troll/bot units.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Compounding the problem is that much of the knowledge we hold today was once considered outlandish and false... often with great conviction from those in trusted positions of power. Plate tectonics, doctors being required to wash hands, babies cannot feel pain and don't require anesthesia, and so much more. This doesn't mean all fringe theories are true, of course, but I do caution people in thinking that our current understanding is unequivocally correct just because there is a scientific consensus.
- a_conservative 5y ago
  > Conspiracy theories are the bane of any society. Can you provide some examples of this? I'm having a hard time understanding how or why conspiracy theories are so problematic. Have they always been problematic? I would love to hear some historical conspiracy theories and their deleterious effects.
  - jml7c5 5y ago
    Two that come to mind immediately: Jewish blood libel, and conspiracy theories about Christians that led to Roman persecution.
    - a_conservative 5y ago
      wouldn't the target of the conspiracy theory have to be in power somehow? What differentiates between false beliefs and a conspiracy theory?
      - jml7c5 5y ago
        Conspiracy theories are a subset of false beliefs. (Well, except where there actually is a real conspiracy.) The target need not have actual power - as long as the belief involves some form of "people are colluding secretly" (aka "conspiring"), it's a conspiracy theory.
  - mc32 5y ago
    I don’t have any specific. But I imagine that rumors about illegitimate heirs would have been one in order to get access to or deny power. Also Ancient Rome and demonizing political opponents (some the depravity ascribed to some of the emperors were exaggerations).
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Did YT or anyone else ban comments or posts about the lab leak theory or vaccine heart inflammation? Sure people initially dismissed it but the proponents of those theories seem to have not only kept talking but have presented enough credible evidence to change minds about dismissing their theories out of hand. And it seemed to hit a tipping point almost overnight. One day the lab leak was nonsense and the next it was put forth as a possibility worth considering. Isn’t that a sign that things are working? Don’t get me wrong, it absolutely sucks to feel “silenced” and I’m sure it sucks even more to feel silenced when you are indeed correct or at least aren’t as dead wrong as others claimed. But isn’t the crux of the free speech “marketplace of ideas” that the “good” ideas will find listeners and gain traction anyway? Even when “everyone” initially disagrees or thinks you’re crazy. Because that’s free speech, too. You have a right to say things even if they sound kind of crazy and I have a right to say “hey, that sounds crazy!”
  - bananabiscuit 5y ago
    Yes, talking about COVID lab leak on Facebook could get you banned until very recently. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facebook-lifts-ban-on-wuhan-lab-leak-posts-amid-renewed-debate-over-theory/ar-AAKq24i https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facebook-lifts-ban-o... Also if you scroll down about 40% of the way here: https://m.facebook.com/help/230764881494641/ https://m.facebook.com/help/230764881494641/ you will see that claiming that the vaccine has negative effects is still a bannable offense.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  > SARS-CoV-2 lab origin How come the folks who keep bringing this up don't also mention that the original "censored" claims were that the virus was both engineered and intentionally leaked?
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    This is the first major article about covid lab release dating to Jan of 2020. It was also the first article to be censored. Doesn't mention either of those. https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavir...
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      > the real reason behind the viral spread is because a weaponized version of the coronavirus was released by Wuhan's Institute of Virology (accidentally or not) Literally claims it's a manmade weapon released intentionally in the first paragraph. Edit: it seems pretty obvious that article was banned because it's an unsubstantiated witch-hunt. It even gives the guy's number and urges the reader to harass him. Fwiw "they were just asking questions!" is not a valid argument.
      - alentist 5y ago
        > Literally claims it's a manmade weapon released intentionally in the first paragraph. Do you know what the word "accidentally" means?
        seattle_spring 5y ago
        The term "or not" is them suggesting it may not have been an accidental leak. Edit: ah you're the troll I unfortunately encountered yesterday. Won't be engaging further, have a good evening!
        alentist 5y ago
filoleg 5y ago
Lies as they are online are not absolutes, just look at fact-checking. Tons of things can be misinterpreted (whether intentionally or not) as a lie or truth depending on your leaning even by "authoritative" fact checkers. Here is a concrete example from NBC[0]: their fact-checkers say Trump's statement about Clinton "acid-washing" her email server was a lie, because her team actually just "used an app called BleachBit". Do you see the point I am making? 0. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465
- mc32 5y ago
  The funniest of these I saw what a Satire site getting a suspension because their satirical take wasn't literally true. That's one of the main tools of satire.
ehutch79 5y ago
Google is a for profit business, not a person. Profit is it's sole purpose for existence.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  It's quite common, almost to the point of universality, that employees of a company have motivations that aren't 100% inline with those of the company. Google might care about profit above all else but many of its employees care about using the power of Google to advance their own interests rather than maximizing Google's profits.
peakaboo 5y ago
Google is also getting rid of all privacy and doing research into robots and AI that will patrol the human race in the near future. They are the backbone for a future where humans are constantly watched.
prestigious 5y ago
Don’t lie is very difficult to determine though. The vast majority of things are unknown or unknowable. Did Epstein kill himself? No one knows.
splistud 5y ago
So your assumptions are so correct that any response by Google that you don't agree with are about principles rather than your assumptions?
ohhhhhh 5y ago
Not Youtubes job to determine what is truth and a lie, but they obviously think it is

Well, if the principle is "don't lie", then "expose people who lie" doesn't violate the principle. It remains to be seen, however, whether Google actually has any principles other than making money.

mc32 5y ago

Conspiracy theories are the bane of any society. But, the problem is often one does not know in advance if a conspiracy theory is just a crackpot theory or there is something to it. To wit: SARS-CoV-2 lab origin. mRNA vaccine heart inflammation. Both were denounced as conspiracy theories by the CDC and flagged by YT (and other social media) the CDC has revered on both examples.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
I agree with all of that. And there's a big difference between e.g. "dismissing lab leak out of hand is wrong because there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of government suppression and coverup", which many people currently say based on available evidence, and "this is definitely a Chinese bioweapons program" which many people also currently say without any factual evidence whatsoever. I worry a lot about people and organizations who lump them together, but I'm fine with silencing the latter. The CDC is a political organization controlled by the executive branch that happens to be staffed partly with people who call themselves scientists[0]. The unwavering faith that people put into political organizations is its own tragic issue. [0] - In the same way that many programmers are terrible at being programmers, many scientists are terrible at being scientists.
- nwienert 5y ago
  The only difference is that you personally believe the evidence to be less strong than others… there’s no fundamental difference, just difference of opinion. If a socialist candidate is assassinated in South America and someone on YouTube says “this was the American imperialist regimes doing” without evidence, I wouldn’t assume they are right, but I’d see it as an opinion based on historical evidence that I’d hate to see censored. This applies even if someone claims it was aliens!
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    > The only difference is that you personally believe the evidence to be less strong than others… there’s no fundamental difference, just difference of opinion. The differences are in the type of claim being made and in whether the reasons given are real or made up and in whether the reasons actually support the claim and in the systemic harm caused by being wrong. All of those differences matter.
    - nwienert 5y ago
      I never made a claim they had more or less evidence, you ignore the South America example entirely which is that it’s ok to have circumspect evidence but extrapolate based on priors. There’s no place for silencing opinions, and those are opinions that all have different levels of evidence. That you tend to weigh certain evidence differently is your own stance, not objective fact. To try again, let’s say someone is a “body language expert”. I don’t really believe that to a large degree, but fine. They post a YouTube clip showing the Chinese gov denying the lab leak and say “oh man I can tell based on X, Y, and Z their body language is a total giveaway that this was intentional!” Again, I don’t believe it. But it doesn’t matter. Whether they think it’s aliens because they saw some cloud trails or tea leaves or whatever, it’s all a matter of degree. The lab leak was shut down under the same premises. “Our” evidence is strong, and “their” evidence is conspiracy theory. Except it wasn’t. So I don’t trust anyone, you included, to be the decider of valid evidence. I’ll sort through it myself.
      - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
        > If a socialist candidate is assassinated in South America and someone on YouTube says “this was the American imperialist regimes doing” without evidence, I wouldn’t assume they are right, but I’d see it as an opinion You are conflating "opinion" with "unsupported statement of fact", "assumption", and "guess". Assumption and conclusion are not synonyms, but your statement here treats them as though they are. "Murder is wrong" is an opinion, because it's a compressed substitute for an expansive syllogistic trail that starts from some initial premises that are purely personal and subjective about the value and nature of life and being and leads to the conclusion. You reach a moral ruling starting from an instinctive feeling. Expressing that feeling itself is not an opinion, but concluding a moral position from that feeling is. "I like the taste of this cheese" is a factual observation about the self that is not an opinion, because while it observes something personal it itself is not subjectively based on an initial position. You either like the taste of this cheese or you don't. Statements about the cause of things that happen in the world are either true or false, not opinions. There's a reason for the old saw that opinions can't be wrong. Subjectivity is the critical element that makes them opinions in the first place. People tend to lose or forget that distinction or insert subjectivity where none exists, but that's an error which disrupts effective communication and muddies thought.
- simonh 5y ago
  I’m not fine with silencing either of them, even the people who say it was “definitely” a state bioweapons programme. However there are a third group that knowingly misrepresent and fabricate evidence to promote conspiracy theories. Screw those guys. They hide under the cover of legitimate opinion, but no platform should be expected to tolerate being used to propagate that sort of crap.
  - mc32 5y ago
    The big problem is FB, YT, etc. don't seem to be able to tell apart aunt Rose's conspiracies from those fabricated by NK, RU, or CN troll/bot units.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
Compounding the problem is that much of the knowledge we hold today was once considered outlandish and false... often with great conviction from those in trusted positions of power. Plate tectonics, doctors being required to wash hands, babies cannot feel pain and don't require anesthesia, and so much more. This doesn't mean all fringe theories are true, of course, but I do caution people in thinking that our current understanding is unequivocally correct just because there is a scientific consensus.
a_conservative 5y ago
> Conspiracy theories are the bane of any society. Can you provide some examples of this? I'm having a hard time understanding how or why conspiracy theories are so problematic. Have they always been problematic? I would love to hear some historical conspiracy theories and their deleterious effects.
- jml7c5 5y ago
  Two that come to mind immediately: Jewish blood libel, and conspiracy theories about Christians that led to Roman persecution.
  - a_conservative 5y ago
    wouldn't the target of the conspiracy theory have to be in power somehow? What differentiates between false beliefs and a conspiracy theory?
    - jml7c5 5y ago
      Conspiracy theories are a subset of false beliefs. (Well, except where there actually is a real conspiracy.) The target need not have actual power - as long as the belief involves some form of "people are colluding secretly" (aka "conspiring"), it's a conspiracy theory.
- mc32 5y ago
  I don’t have any specific. But I imagine that rumors about illegitimate heirs would have been one in order to get access to or deny power. Also Ancient Rome and demonizing political opponents (some the depravity ascribed to some of the emperors were exaggerations).
elliekelly 5y ago
Did YT or anyone else ban comments or posts about the lab leak theory or vaccine heart inflammation? Sure people initially dismissed it but the proponents of those theories seem to have not only kept talking but have presented enough credible evidence to change minds about dismissing their theories out of hand. And it seemed to hit a tipping point almost overnight. One day the lab leak was nonsense and the next it was put forth as a possibility worth considering. Isn’t that a sign that things are working? Don’t get me wrong, it absolutely sucks to feel “silenced” and I’m sure it sucks even more to feel silenced when you are indeed correct or at least aren’t as dead wrong as others claimed. But isn’t the crux of the free speech “marketplace of ideas” that the “good” ideas will find listeners and gain traction anyway? Even when “everyone” initially disagrees or thinks you’re crazy. Because that’s free speech, too. You have a right to say things even if they sound kind of crazy and I have a right to say “hey, that sounds crazy!”
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  Yes, talking about COVID lab leak on Facebook could get you banned until very recently. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facebook-lifts-ban-on-wuhan-lab-leak-posts-amid-renewed-debate-over-theory/ar-AAKq24i https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facebook-lifts-ban-o... Also if you scroll down about 40% of the way here: https://m.facebook.com/help/230764881494641/ https://m.facebook.com/help/230764881494641/ you will see that claiming that the vaccine has negative effects is still a bannable offense.
seattle_spring 5y ago
> SARS-CoV-2 lab origin How come the folks who keep bringing this up don't also mention that the original "censored" claims were that the virus was both engineered and intentionally leaked?
- barbacoa 5y ago
  This is the first major article about covid lab release dating to Jan of 2020. It was also the first article to be censored. Doesn't mention either of those. https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavirus-pandemic https://www.zerohedge.com/health/man-behind-global-coronavir...
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    > the real reason behind the viral spread is because a weaponized version of the coronavirus was released by Wuhan's Institute of Virology (accidentally or not) Literally claims it's a manmade weapon released intentionally in the first paragraph. Edit: it seems pretty obvious that article was banned because it's an unsubstantiated witch-hunt. It even gives the guy's number and urges the reader to harass him. Fwiw "they were just asking questions!" is not a valid argument.
    - alentist 5y ago
      > Literally claims it's a manmade weapon released intentionally in the first paragraph. Do you know what the word "accidentally" means?
      - seattle_spring 5y ago
        The term "or not" is them suggesting it may not have been an accidental leak. Edit: ah you're the troll I unfortunately encountered yesterday. Won't be engaging further, have a good evening!
        alentist 5y ago

filoleg 5y ago

Lies as they are online are not absolutes, just look at fact-checking. Tons of things can be misinterpreted (whether intentionally or not) as a lie or truth depending on your leaning even by "authoritative" fact checkers. Here is a concrete example from NBC[0]: their fact-checkers say Trump's statement about Clinton "acid-washing" her email server was a lie, because her team actually just "used an app called BleachBit". Do you see the point I am making? 0. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465 https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465

mc32 5y ago
The funniest of these I saw what a Satire site getting a suspension because their satirical take wasn't literally true. That's one of the main tools of satire.

ehutch79 5y ago

Google is a for profit business, not a person. Profit is it's sole purpose for existence.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
It's quite common, almost to the point of universality, that employees of a company have motivations that aren't 100% inline with those of the company. Google might care about profit above all else but many of its employees care about using the power of Google to advance their own interests rather than maximizing Google's profits.

peakaboo 5y ago

Google is also getting rid of all privacy and doing research into robots and AI that will patrol the human race in the near future. They are the backbone for a future where humans are constantly watched.

prestigious 5y ago

Don’t lie is very difficult to determine though. The vast majority of things are unknown or unknowable. Did Epstein kill himself? No one knows.

splistud 5y ago

So your assumptions are so correct that any response by Google that you don't agree with are about principles rather than your assumptions?

ohhhhhh 5y ago

Not Youtubes job to determine what is truth and a lie, but they obviously think it is