5 ms·

>I think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices first, youtube isnt where open discussion by moderate voices

>I think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices first, youtube isnt where open discussion by moderate voices happens. Its a cavalcade of endlessly random videos promoting everything from free energy to colloidal silver cures and get rich quick schemes. Second, the topic of conversation is vaccination methodology during an ongoing pandemic in which a sizeable quantity of affected persons refuse to vaccinate. This is without a doubt a sensitive topic and likely shouldnt use Youtube as a forum. You should have a gatekeeper and there should be a minimum level of scientific competency and acumen required to participate in the conversation. A moderator should exist, and that moderator is not youtube. Might i suggest matrix or signal? or perhaps even pleroma? as an aside, the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" is puerile and absolutely should be banned. No reasonable person would evangelize healthy adults forego vaccination during a global pandemic.

syshum 5y ago
>>as an aside, the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" Well they change what "anti-vaccine" means [1], so now I am classified as a "person who has been vaccinated but is Anti-vaccine" because I oppose any and all governments mandates that would force a person to be vaccinated, or would impose conditions on them by government to participate in society. private companies can impose them but government should not, not if we want to claim to be a free society. Due to my position against authoritarian policies I am officially a "Vaccinated Anti-vaxxer" a oxymoronic label only government could come up with. [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
- flavius29663 5y ago
  I never understood why vaccine mandates are so badly received. As long as there are solid exemptions in place, for proof of antibodies or twice a week testing, it should be normal to require it. The mandates themselves can be ok. I personally have a problem with the absolutely insane gaslighting that is happening in the US now. You are not allowed to question anything, or you get cancelled.
  - syshum 5y ago
    I am opposed to government mandates. Private companies, venues, etc I am fine with mandating vaccines. Government, specifically the federal government, should not have that authority.
nitrogen 5y ago
the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" is puerile and absolutely should be banned. This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs. There's an object lesson they sometimes do in university classes or corporate retreats where two people are asked to push against each other's hands. It usually ends with "why are you pushing so hard?" "Because you were pushing so hard." There's a human instinct that many of us have that is basically "fight makes right." That is, when vehemence in opposition to a thing goes beyond a certain point, the vehemence becomes "evidence" that the thing being opposed must have some legitimacy to it, or else there wouldn't be so much energy dedicated to opposing it.
- joshstrange 5y ago
  > This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs. I see this, or forms of it, oft repeated but it's never synced up with reality for me. Sure, you will have some hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool proponents of someone/some topic that will follow them to the ends of the earth but you stop the radicalization of so many more than I have to count it as a net-win. I used to be staunchly 100%-free-speech, no-holds-barred but I am, and have been, coming to the realization that it's simply not tenable when you factor in technology/internet. Banning Parlor from App Stores and infrastructure absolutely cut down on their users. Sure, some will continue to use it but you cut off the on-ramp for radicalization. Same story with YouTube, actually it's even MORE compelling for YouTube since the majority people going to Parlor were people already inclined to think a certain way (aka: believe the election was stolen, COVID is a hoax, Democrats drink baby's blood, etc). With YouTube we have endless examples of people being slowly radicalized as YouTube's algorithm takes them further and further down the rabbit hole and, unlike Parlor, you can start down that path while watching something completely innocuous. See also: Reddit banning T_D or other subs promoting violence and hatred.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Suppressing the visible symptom of a cultural problem -- Parler, YouTube videos, whatever -- doesn't solve the cultural problem. It just means you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. People are still rolling coal with their flags flying if that's what they want to do. It's kind of like pushing homelessness underground, except the phenomenon being suppressed has a lot more potential energy. You squish a balloon, and the air/water just moves elsewhere. Eventually the balloon pops though, and we actually get to see what we've been trying to hide from and suppress.
megous 5y ago
> first, youtube isnt where open discussion by moderate voices happens. Its a cavalcade of endlessly random videos promoting everything from free energy to colloidal silver cures and get rich quick schemes. Youtube also has people doing educational videos. I can watch recorded lectures there, if I want. Why do we need a gatekeeper for that? It also has videos of people just sharing their experiences. Should that be banned to, if those are negative about the vaccine? On what basis?

syshum 5y ago

>>as an aside, the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" Well they change what "anti-vaccine" means [1], so now I am classified as a "person who has been vaccinated but is Anti-vaccine" because I oppose any and all governments mandates that would force a person to be vaccinated, or would impose conditions on them by government to participate in society. private companies can impose them but government should not, not if we want to claim to be a free society. Due to my position against authoritarian policies I am officially a "Vaccinated Anti-vaxxer" a oxymoronic label only government could come up with. [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

flavius29663 5y ago
I never understood why vaccine mandates are so badly received. As long as there are solid exemptions in place, for proof of antibodies or twice a week testing, it should be normal to require it. The mandates themselves can be ok. I personally have a problem with the absolutely insane gaslighting that is happening in the US now. You are not allowed to question anything, or you get cancelled.
- syshum 5y ago
  I am opposed to government mandates. Private companies, venues, etc I am fine with mandating vaccines. Government, specifically the federal government, should not have that authority.

nitrogen 5y ago

the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" is puerile and absolutely should be banned. This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs. There's an object lesson they sometimes do in university classes or corporate retreats where two people are asked to push against each other's hands. It usually ends with "why are you pushing so hard?" "Because you were pushing so hard." There's a human instinct that many of us have that is basically "fight makes right." That is, when vehemence in opposition to a thing goes beyond a certain point, the vehemence becomes "evidence" that the thing being opposed must have some legitimacy to it, or else there wouldn't be so much energy dedicated to opposing it.

joshstrange 5y ago
> This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs. I see this, or forms of it, oft repeated but it's never synced up with reality for me. Sure, you will have some hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool proponents of someone/some topic that will follow them to the ends of the earth but you stop the radicalization of so many more than I have to count it as a net-win. I used to be staunchly 100%-free-speech, no-holds-barred but I am, and have been, coming to the realization that it's simply not tenable when you factor in technology/internet. Banning Parlor from App Stores and infrastructure absolutely cut down on their users. Sure, some will continue to use it but you cut off the on-ramp for radicalization. Same story with YouTube, actually it's even MORE compelling for YouTube since the majority people going to Parlor were people already inclined to think a certain way (aka: believe the election was stolen, COVID is a hoax, Democrats drink baby's blood, etc). With YouTube we have endless examples of people being slowly radicalized as YouTube's algorithm takes them further and further down the rabbit hole and, unlike Parlor, you can start down that path while watching something completely innocuous. See also: Reddit banning T_D or other subs promoting violence and hatred.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Suppressing the visible symptom of a cultural problem -- Parler, YouTube videos, whatever -- doesn't solve the cultural problem. It just means you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. People are still rolling coal with their flags flying if that's what they want to do. It's kind of like pushing homelessness underground, except the phenomenon being suppressed has a lot more potential energy. You squish a balloon, and the air/water just moves elsewhere. Eventually the balloon pops though, and we actually get to see what we've been trying to hide from and suppress.

megous 5y ago

> first, youtube isnt where open discussion by moderate voices happens. Its a cavalcade of endlessly random videos promoting everything from free energy to colloidal silver cures and get rich quick schemes. Youtube also has people doing educational videos. I can watch recorded lectures there, if I want. Why do we need a gatekeeper for that? It also has videos of people just sharing their experiences. Should that be banned to, if those are negative about the vaccine? On what basis?