4 ms·

You've written a lot of vague platitudes about corruption, but have offered no evidence to support your speculation.

ddingus 5y ago
I don't need to. The technical arguments are not sufficiently compelling to undermine the entirely obvious transition to a more big media friendly model in progress. Further, I'm on the solid majority opinion on all this. To get past that requires proponents show people need this to be done, they are better off, and that somehow they will be better informed, see more value. Not gonna happen.
- root_axis 5y ago
  > I don't need to Ok. Obviously you don't need to do anything, but presenting evidence for a claim when asked is a pretty basic standard for discussion around here. Peace out.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    We do not have an absolute here. Time will tell. You want hard facts on political and power motivated behaviors. Over time, as I said, we will learn more. And hey, I could be wrong. That will come out too.
    - sieabah 5y ago
      It's intellectually lazy arguing. They're basically trying to take the position of "It's not real until you can have a scientific or political consensus by APPROVED thought leaders." It's a chicken and egg issue. You can assume if you have an egg you'll eventually get a chicken, but he's saying "you don't know that 'for sure'" until the chicken hatches. It's just feels like concern trolling.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        Noted and filed away for the future. Thanks. That makes sense.
      - root_axis 5y ago
        Please don't speak for me, your explanation of my position is totally off base. > They're basically trying to take the position of "It's not real until you can have a scientific or political consensus by APPROVED thought leaders." This is a bizarre and bad faith summary of my position. I have made no statements about "approved thought leaders". What I said is that evidence has not been provided for the claim that YouTube is deleting comments for criticism of hiding the dislike button. I understand that you believe this to be true implicitly and that no evidence is needed to make the claim, but I reject the suggestion that your claim doesn't need evidence. Lacking evidence, you lash out and label me a troll... a foreboding omen for the possibility of civil discussion.
        sieabah 5y ago
        I literally provided you evidence of it happening. I guess that wasn't the evidence you're looking for hence "approved thought leaders". If it doesn't come from specific sources for you it's not relevant or "evidentiary". Go back to reddit.

I don't need to. The technical arguments are not sufficiently compelling to undermine the entirely obvious transition to a more big media friendly model in progress. Further, I'm on the solid majority opinion on all this. To get past that requires proponents show people need this to be done, they are better off, and that somehow they will be better informed, see more value. Not gonna happen.

root_axis 5y ago
> I don't need to Ok. Obviously you don't need to do anything, but presenting evidence for a claim when asked is a pretty basic standard for discussion around here. Peace out.
- ddingus 5y ago
  We do not have an absolute here. Time will tell. You want hard facts on political and power motivated behaviors. Over time, as I said, we will learn more. And hey, I could be wrong. That will come out too.
  - sieabah 5y ago
    It's intellectually lazy arguing. They're basically trying to take the position of "It's not real until you can have a scientific or political consensus by APPROVED thought leaders." It's a chicken and egg issue. You can assume if you have an egg you'll eventually get a chicken, but he's saying "you don't know that 'for sure'" until the chicken hatches. It's just feels like concern trolling.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      Noted and filed away for the future. Thanks. That makes sense.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      Please don't speak for me, your explanation of my position is totally off base. > They're basically trying to take the position of "It's not real until you can have a scientific or political consensus by APPROVED thought leaders." This is a bizarre and bad faith summary of my position. I have made no statements about "approved thought leaders". What I said is that evidence has not been provided for the claim that YouTube is deleting comments for criticism of hiding the dislike button. I understand that you believe this to be true implicitly and that no evidence is needed to make the claim, but I reject the suggestion that your claim doesn't need evidence. Lacking evidence, you lash out and label me a troll... a foreboding omen for the possibility of civil discussion.
      - sieabah 5y ago
        I literally provided you evidence of it happening. I guess that wasn't the evidence you're looking for hence "approved thought leaders". If it doesn't come from specific sources for you it's not relevant or "evidentiary". Go back to reddit.