7 ms·

I disagree. If someone is posting misinformation according to these standards, I'm happy about YouTube taking such things down. How can we have an informed ele

I disagree. If someone is posting misinformation according to these standards, I'm happy about YouTube taking such things down. How can we have an informed electorate when misinformation (whether intentional or not) is allowed to propagate? We know at this point that incendiary content tends to spread faster than the often-boring truth. Turning a blind eye is a race to the bottom that encourages political parties and those with an agenda to create more of this misleading content. They give a list so you have some guidelines. Ultimately, you can argue with the guidelines and generally agreed-upon facts, and I'm sure many will.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 5y ago
Who gets to define misinformation? The lab leak theory was misinformation at one point. Wearing masks was misinformation at one point. The problem with censorship is that no man is fit to play the censor.
- belltaco 5y ago
  >The lab leak theory was misinformation at one point So? We know more about it now, so the earlier wild claims without evidence or proof were definitely misinformation at the time, intended to deflect blame from the ineptness of the politicians in power in feb 2020.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    Given that lab leaks are fairly common through recent history and the location of the WIV, it was a totally plausible hypothesis back then. It was just taboo for purely political reasons. The case for a lab leak now is mostly the same as it was back then - circumstantial.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      There were a lot of claims that it was a bioweapon leak, in the recent months there has been more circumstantial evidence that it might have been an accidental leak. So yes, there was a lot of misinformation at that time around this.
      - vorpalhex 5y ago
        You can't badly conflate two different claims and then use that as a reason to engage in censorship.
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        The leak hypothesis itself - not merely a bioweapon leak - was verboten despite its evident plausibility as a hypothesis given a precedent of other lab leaks. Little has changed since then aside from Trump being voted out which then freed up the political left to consider this possibility in its discourse.
        belltaco 5y ago
        A case of the boy who cried wolf not being believed.
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        If you don't see a serious problem with scientists and journalists abdicating their responsibility to dispassionatly pursue the truth and the damage this does to institutions and the public confidence of those institutions, and moreover you do not even lay any blame at their feet and excuse this behavior just because the other side is more dishonest, then I can only think that you have some pretty powerful ideological blinders that have pushed you into a very partisan culture-war type worldview.
  - shockeychap 5y ago
    > So? Seriously?!? If the lab leak discussion had been suppressed just a little bit more, would we even be talking about it today? Wrong ideas have always existed and always been part of life. From a pile of wrong ideas, a few right ones emerge. I'm old enough to remember well the plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some of them were quite offensive to the people who suffered and died on that day. But I never called for suppression of free speech because of it.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      9/11 conspiracies did not cause violence or deaths. About one 9/11 worth of unvaccinated people are dying every few days. We spent trillions going after the people who orchestrated the 5000 odd deaths on 9/11. But fake news and misinformation are somehow okay, and the minimal attempts to combat them by social media websites are demonized.
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    For over a year it was forbidden to discuss even the idea of a lab leak theory. People who questioned it were shut down. They weren't making claims, just asking. Journalists refused to investigate. Scientists were afraid to talk. Because of this, we know less now than we could have.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  YouTube deciding what is and isn't misinformation has a positive side effect in that it indirectly protects the first amendment through the middle ground of private voluntary self-regulation. 1A proponents need to understand that there's a grey area between outright incitement to violence and otherwise. Within that grey area lies conspiracy theories and hate speech which can motivate actual harmful and illegal activity downstream if these ideas become sufficiently widespread. It's plausible that the unmoderated hate speech on 8chan motivated numerous lone wolf shooters, given how many manifestos have been posted there. While we may want this speech to be legal (I largely do), we should not want to voluntarily assist in the spreading of this speech above and beyond the legal requirements of 1A. Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left and that sentiment isn't totally invalid if we zoom into specific examples of speech motivating heinous outcomes. So nipping a real problem in the bud with private self-regulation seems to be the least slippery slopey outcome of them all.
  - shockeychap 5y ago
    > Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left That statement, if you stop to think about what it means for all other freedoms, should genuinely scare you. Freedom only matters if it includes the right to offend others. Anything less isn't freedom at all. If you genuinely believe in the principles of freedom, you will trust that the free exchange of all ideas - good and bad, right and wrong - is the best and only way to bring out the truth. All of this hearkens back to dark ideas in which one class of people exercise power over another. Remember what they say about power.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      "Free exchange of ideas... best and only way to bring out the truth." I don't believe this to be true. I only think the 1A is a good idea because it's too easy for an authoritarian government to co-opt speech restrictions. The free exchange in itself isn't what I care about. People on the whole are pretty stupid, tribal and irrational creatures. I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.
smitty1e 5y ago
These diabolical moves are sold as purely reasonable moves that only a reactionary nitwit would object to, yes.
BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
I for one, am comfortable with the orthodoxy. The powers that be do not know how heresy will express itself, so it makes sense for them to be ambiguous about what is allowed. Why limit the orthodoxy’s ability to censor what they deem to be subversive disinformation? I would rather ten true facts be censored than let one piece of misinformation go free. /s
ekianjo 5y ago
> How can we have an informed electorate when misinformation (whether intentional or not) is allowed to propagate? It's not up to youtube to define what is Misinformation, if they even have a little tiny pretense of being a platform and not a publisher.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vorpalhex 5y ago

Who gets to define misinformation? The lab leak theory was misinformation at one point. Wearing masks was misinformation at one point. The problem with censorship is that no man is fit to play the censor.

belltaco 5y ago
>The lab leak theory was misinformation at one point So? We know more about it now, so the earlier wild claims without evidence or proof were definitely misinformation at the time, intended to deflect blame from the ineptness of the politicians in power in feb 2020.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Given that lab leaks are fairly common through recent history and the location of the WIV, it was a totally plausible hypothesis back then. It was just taboo for purely political reasons. The case for a lab leak now is mostly the same as it was back then - circumstantial.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    There were a lot of claims that it was a bioweapon leak, in the recent months there has been more circumstantial evidence that it might have been an accidental leak. So yes, there was a lot of misinformation at that time around this.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      You can't badly conflate two different claims and then use that as a reason to engage in censorship.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      The leak hypothesis itself - not merely a bioweapon leak - was verboten despite its evident plausibility as a hypothesis given a precedent of other lab leaks. Little has changed since then aside from Trump being voted out which then freed up the political left to consider this possibility in its discourse.
      - belltaco 5y ago
        A case of the boy who cried wolf not being believed.
        fighterpilot 5y ago
        If you don't see a serious problem with scientists and journalists abdicating their responsibility to dispassionatly pursue the truth and the damage this does to institutions and the public confidence of those institutions, and moreover you do not even lay any blame at their feet and excuse this behavior just because the other side is more dishonest, then I can only think that you have some pretty powerful ideological blinders that have pushed you into a very partisan culture-war type worldview.
- shockeychap 5y ago
  > So? Seriously?!? If the lab leak discussion had been suppressed just a little bit more, would we even be talking about it today? Wrong ideas have always existed and always been part of life. From a pile of wrong ideas, a few right ones emerge. I'm old enough to remember well the plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some of them were quite offensive to the people who suffered and died on that day. But I never called for suppression of free speech because of it.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    9/11 conspiracies did not cause violence or deaths. About one 9/11 worth of unvaccinated people are dying every few days. We spent trillions going after the people who orchestrated the 5000 odd deaths on 9/11. But fake news and misinformation are somehow okay, and the minimal attempts to combat them by social media websites are demonized.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  For over a year it was forbidden to discuss even the idea of a lab leak theory. People who questioned it were shut down. They weren't making claims, just asking. Journalists refused to investigate. Scientists were afraid to talk. Because of this, we know less now than we could have.
fighterpilot 5y ago
YouTube deciding what is and isn't misinformation has a positive side effect in that it indirectly protects the first amendment through the middle ground of private voluntary self-regulation. 1A proponents need to understand that there's a grey area between outright incitement to violence and otherwise. Within that grey area lies conspiracy theories and hate speech which can motivate actual harmful and illegal activity downstream if these ideas become sufficiently widespread. It's plausible that the unmoderated hate speech on 8chan motivated numerous lone wolf shooters, given how many manifestos have been posted there. While we may want this speech to be legal (I largely do), we should not want to voluntarily assist in the spreading of this speech above and beyond the legal requirements of 1A. Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left and that sentiment isn't totally invalid if we zoom into specific examples of speech motivating heinous outcomes. So nipping a real problem in the bud with private self-regulation seems to be the least slippery slopey outcome of them all.
- shockeychap 5y ago
  > Anti-1A sentiment is growing on the political left That statement, if you stop to think about what it means for all other freedoms, should genuinely scare you. Freedom only matters if it includes the right to offend others. Anything less isn't freedom at all. If you genuinely believe in the principles of freedom, you will trust that the free exchange of all ideas - good and bad, right and wrong - is the best and only way to bring out the truth. All of this hearkens back to dark ideas in which one class of people exercise power over another. Remember what they say about power.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    "Free exchange of ideas... best and only way to bring out the truth." I don't believe this to be true. I only think the 1A is a good idea because it's too easy for an authoritarian government to co-opt speech restrictions. The free exchange in itself isn't what I care about. People on the whole are pretty stupid, tribal and irrational creatures. I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.

smitty1e 5y ago

These diabolical moves are sold as purely reasonable moves that only a reactionary nitwit would object to, yes.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago

I for one, am comfortable with the orthodoxy. The powers that be do not know how heresy will express itself, so it makes sense for them to be ambiguous about what is allowed. Why limit the orthodoxy’s ability to censor what they deem to be subversive disinformation? I would rather ten true facts be censored than let one piece of misinformation go free. /s

ekianjo 5y ago

> How can we have an informed electorate when misinformation (whether intentional or not) is allowed to propagate? It's not up to youtube to define what is Misinformation, if they even have a little tiny pretense of being a platform and not a publisher.