5 ms·

> Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. Two

> Yea except that it's been demonstrated over and over that unmitigated, unrestricted content can and does radicalize susceptible population demographics. Two things: A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control. B. Lack of access to good counterarguments/innoculation to the radical ideas is a consequence of those ideas being supressed. If people don't even know what a radicalized person believes how can they help dig them out of the hole they are in? It's one of the reasons why "scientific racism" continues to grow.

gfe8ygighjb7 5y ago
The solution is simple either remove all moderation including AI/ML based from YouTube. And let people deal with it. Or if you will moderate content, then be held liable for your mistakes. Both censorship or recommending false information should make YouTube liable for damages.
danaris 5y ago
> A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control. "The rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of militant, hard-right reactionary ideology, as well as vaccine deniers, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they have provably cost us, are a price worth paying to make sure that no one can tell me I can't post whatever videos I want on a privately-owned video hosting site."
- Shosty123 5y ago
  I like Christopher Hitchen's take on matters like these: "And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.”—That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. How do I know I know this except I’ve always been taught this and never heard any thing else? It’s always worth establishing first principle….don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that, whatever you think, you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely, moral majority" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
  - Applejinx 5y ago
    On the other hand if you're executing and motivating a Holocaust, this is one of your tactics. I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so. It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.
    - Shosty123 5y ago
      That works the other way too, no? If you're trying to build the next regime, censorship is one of your tactics. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance comes to mind, but my issue with that is who gets to decide what is intolerant? I don't like the idea of some unelected board or career politician deciding what is suitable for me to read or view.
      - danaris 5y ago
        But you can decide it based upon certain principles. I strongly believe that one of those principles should be that hate speech is intolerable and unacceptable. And yes, there are grey areas in determining what is hate speech (this isn't a silver bullet that removes all need for human judgement and discussion), but there are also very large areas that are not grey in any way, shape, or form.
        Shosty123 5y ago
        For sure, I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says: ... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. I can't bring myself to tell someone else they can't consider the idea, but I can also understand why someone might want to censor that. So what does one do? I don't know, but my intuition points me to the former and hope that we've educated society enough to handle that. Perhaps we'll be able to set up elaborate simulations one day to see how things play out.
- concordDance 5y ago
  That's the most gish gallop I've ever seen crammed into a single sentence... I've given up writing rebutals to the 8 different tangents, insinuations, conflation, etc. and will instead focus on a single point: Every single ideology will say their opponents are responsible for countless lives lost. (And if they lump everyone who disagrees with them together can probably make such a case) Just for an example, capitalism vs communism. I'd rather not be stuck in a China like situation where arguing against government beliefs like "this new virus in Wuhan is nothing to worry about citizen" gets censored or we get eternally stuck in a suboptimal state because arguing for anything different is considered dangerous.
hytdstd 5y ago
Who is the central arbiter of truth here? Twitter and facebook have made similar policies.
- concordDance 5y ago
  Eventually the government. So many people (including in this thread) keep advocating that the decider on what to censor should be the government. I'll also point out that the deciders in Twitter, Facebook, etc are not the most ideologically diverse bunch, so one could argue that the so-called blue tribe is being the central arbiter.

gfe8ygighjb7 5y ago

The solution is simple either remove all moderation including AI/ML based from YouTube. And let people deal with it. Or if you will moderate content, then be held liable for your mistakes. Both censorship or recommending false information should make YouTube liable for damages.

danaris 5y ago

> A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control. "The rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of militant, hard-right reactionary ideology, as well as vaccine deniers, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they have provably cost us, are a price worth paying to make sure that no one can tell me I can't post whatever videos I want on a privately-owned video hosting site."

Shosty123 5y ago
I like Christopher Hitchen's take on matters like these: "And one person gets up and says, “you know what, this holocaust, I’m not even sure it happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.”—That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with. Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. How do I know I know this except I’ve always been taught this and never heard any thing else? It’s always worth establishing first principle….don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus and the feeling that, whatever you think, you’re bound to be okay because you’re in the safely, moral majority" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
- Applejinx 5y ago
  On the other hand if you're executing and motivating a Holocaust, this is one of your tactics. I think one of the things we've been learning real hard as a globally interconnected species is, if people can do nefarious shit through insisting their intentions be taken in good faith, over a large enough sampling size they WILL do nefarious shit because it is in their interest to do so. It's like criminal justice. If you look at a large enough population you begin to run into people where you can't take their word on things. And mandating that such people must have the ability to make their case is not the same thing as taking their side. Sometimes what they have to say did not take great effort to come up with. Sometimes they say what they say because they're what they appear to be, and it's a thing that is criminal or otherwise unacceptable.
  - Shosty123 5y ago
    That works the other way too, no? If you're trying to build the next regime, censorship is one of your tactics. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance comes to mind, but my issue with that is who gets to decide what is intolerant? I don't like the idea of some unelected board or career politician deciding what is suitable for me to read or view.
    - danaris 5y ago
      But you can decide it based upon certain principles. I strongly believe that one of those principles should be that hate speech is intolerable and unacceptable. And yes, there are grey areas in determining what is hate speech (this isn't a silver bullet that removes all need for human judgement and discussion), but there are also very large areas that are not grey in any way, shape, or form.
      - Shosty123 5y ago
        For sure, I'm not a proponent of unlimited free speech. It's those grey areas that concern me. Like, using Hitch's example, is holocaust denial hate speech or an incitement to violence? Under certain circumstances, I imagine it would be. It's easy for me to say it should be allowed because I know the majority of society right now would dismiss their claims, but at what point (in terms of the percentage of society) would I start to feel uneasy about the idea being discussed? Is it better then to censor it outright? What if, as Hitch says: ... Might contain a grain of historical truth; might, in any case, give people to think why do they know what they think they already know. I can't bring myself to tell someone else they can't consider the idea, but I can also understand why someone might want to censor that. So what does one do? I don't know, but my intuition points me to the former and hope that we've educated society enough to handle that. Perhaps we'll be able to set up elaborate simulations one day to see how things play out.
concordDance 5y ago
That's the most gish gallop I've ever seen crammed into a single sentence... I've given up writing rebutals to the 8 different tangents, insinuations, conflation, etc. and will instead focus on a single point: Every single ideology will say their opponents are responsible for countless lives lost. (And if they lump everyone who disagrees with them together can probably make such a case) Just for an example, capitalism vs communism. I'd rather not be stuck in a China like situation where arguing against government beliefs like "this new virus in Wuhan is nothing to worry about citizen" gets censored or we get eternally stuck in a suboptimal state because arguing for anything different is considered dangerous.

hytdstd 5y ago

Who is the central arbiter of truth here? Twitter and facebook have made similar policies.

concordDance 5y ago
Eventually the government. So many people (including in this thread) keep advocating that the decider on what to censor should be the government. I'll also point out that the deciders in Twitter, Facebook, etc are not the most ideologically diverse bunch, so one could argue that the so-called blue tribe is being the central arbiter.