5 ms·
The core of science is debate. There is no singular truth for most things in the scientific world, and lots and lots of shades of "the truth". Science isn't do
by joe_the_user 5y ago
The core of science is debate. There is no singular truth for most things in the scientific world, and lots and lots of shades of "the truth".
Science isn't done by youtube video battles but by debates in scholarly journals. Youtube is a medium for popularizing whatever content. Youtube seems well in its rights in banning content it considers harmful and in this case I'd agree with this ban.
That's not to say youtube's effective monopoly isn't concerning. I'd rather see ten providers but I'd like to see them all ban climate change, antivax and similarly noxious content - make people interested in the subject read long texts instead.
Video isn't good medium for sustained, coherent debate. In this instance, it's a means of broadcasting shallow propaganda to morons, or put less insultingly, those not using rational facilities to decide things.
- creato 5y agoThey're not even banning the content, they're just not showing ads on it.
- ekianjo 5y agoThey recently removed videos against Covid vaccines.
- munk-a 5y agoThose videos lead to deaths - so that's completely reasonable. America has pretty much plateaued in terms of vaccination rates and that is prolonging a disaster. If we're going to ban instructional bomb construction videos then I think anti-vax stuff is perfectly acceptable as well. I really don't understand where this miscomprehension that you should be able to say anything you want on private platforms comes from - there have always limits even on public speech, and private platforms have traditionally refused to print or publish items that go too strongly against their corporate beliefs. This even extends into print media and editorial boards.
- t0bia_s 5y agoHow could video lead to death? I though it works only in horror films.
- munk-a 5y agoThe US is currently 64% vaccinated even though the vaccine has been available there the longest - this is well behind most other western countries.
- t0bia_s 5y agoIt is not answer for my question.
- perryizgr8 5y agoEvery video leads to death. You waste 10 minutes of your limited time. You are 10 minutes closer to death after watching the video.
- t0bia_s 5y agoOk, that is valid answer. Should we ban entire YouTube then?
- perryizgr8 5y agoExactly, lol! It's a net detriment to mankind.
- ekianjo 5y ago> Every video leads to death. your comment has led to death too, by that kind of logic?
- otabdeveloper4 5y agoWell, "crate challenge" videos demonstably lead to deaths as well.
- Aerroon 5y agoYouTube only makes money if ads are shown on the video. YouTube also has an algorithm that chooses what gets promoted and recommended. There is absolutely no way that YouTube does not take into account whether a video is monetized when choosing recommendations. Ie this will most certainly limit the visibility of these kinds of videos.
- esrauch 5y agoIt seems like the goalposts are moving in the conversation. People are acting like it's banned above, and then you're saying it hypothetically will be less but still nonzero proactive algorithmic promotion of the content, right?
- imtringued 5y agoPromoting the content is the same thing as endorsing it.
- joe_the_user 5y agoNot to mention science doesn't consider all opinions equal or worth publication in standard journals, etc. Science is just more forgiving and less dogmatic than religion. etc.
- spfzero 5y agoScience certainly is. The "science" establishment in the USA... not so much. It is just as dogmatic as religion. Take the dogma of zoonotic origin of covid-19 in early 2020 for example. Where was the "less dogmatic" then?
- KingMachiavelli 5y ago> Science isn't done by YouTube video battles but by debates in scholarly journals. That's a lot of confidence to have in a very broken system given the replication crisis, ineffective peer review process, excessive and pervasive paywalls, and general high barrier to entry. Youtube is actually pretty great platform for lots of science and educational channels. I could easily see a scenario where some very poorly done climate study is talked about on Youtube and it becomes demonetized simple because the algorithm believed it was 'climate change denial ism'. Sure it is Youtube's right to do whatever they want and we are just 'lucky' that Youtube isn't controlled by anti-vax, climate change truthers, etc.
- joe_the_user 5y agoThat's a lot of confidence to have in a very broken system given the replication crisis, ineffective peer review process, excessive and pervasive paywalls, and general high barrier to entry. Lots of alternative scientific journals exist. Climate change denial is, in fact, well financed. There's nothing about a youtube ban that prevents alternative scientific research, even into things I'd considered absurd and despicable.
- hartator 5y ago> but by debates in scholarly journals. And these debates should be open. It's incredible how hard getting data on clinical studies are vs. here our culture of open source.
- COGlory 5y ago>Science isn't done by youtube video battles but by debates in scholarly journals. As a scientist, I would prefer more open discussion. Because the conversations scientists have with each other is not what ends up getting told to the public, and many agendas impact that.
- joe_the_user 5y agoMost scholarly journals are open. Moreover, anyone with a dissident opinion can publish an alternative journal and these certainly exist. You know the climate change denial videos on youtube aren't "getting things in the open" but slick sales jobs for a particular viewpoint.