3 ms·

Crazy to see multiple comments treating this as legitimate content as opposed to harmful pseudoscience.

by rosndo 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago
I'm not familiar with this channel. But even if it is really "harmful pseudoscience", is that really a reason to ban it? And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content, and what happens when they're wrong?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > But even if it were really "harmful pseudoscience", is that really a reason to ban it? It is really a reason to decide not to distribute it. > And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content Anyone who is asked to actively participate in the chain of distribution. > and what happens when they're wrong? If someone disagrees with their decision not to distribute, they seek some other distribution. Except when it is a decision to distribute and the content is harmful in a way which produces liability, their decision being “wrong” in any authoritative sense isn't really an issue, only disagreement.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rosndo 5y ago
  It all comes down to the exact nature of the content, which you admit to not be familiar with. Do you genuinely believe that youtube should host videos attaching various involuntary physical traits to criminal behaviour? It’s obviously not okay to say that “this guy is black, so he’s probably guilty”. But is it okay to say “this guy is jittery under stress, he’s probably guilty”? Why should it be okay to say one or the other? Both will result in equally harmful outcomes.
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    These are long-closed cases, not on-going, and even if it were, any 'pundit' talking on any channel would likely say as your example, JCS does not do this. I seem to recall 'Judge' Janine Pirro going on pretty crazy rants, also Nancy Grace. Where were the 'harmful content' bans or nptices then?
  - tanseydavid 5y ago
    >> It all comes down to the exact nature of the content It seems evident to me, from the reading the HN comments, that there is hardly any sort of agreement about what the "exact nature of the content" actually is.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"Harmful" is a big, big hammer. It may crush something you enjoy next. Isn't sitting on Hacker News a harmful waste of time?
kolanos 5y ago
Provide specific examples of JCS perpetuating pseudo science and maybe you'll have made a compelling argument. Until then, this reads as baseless accusation. Which, IMO, is no better than pseudo science.

Crazy to see multiple comments treating this as legitimate content as opposed to harmful pseudoscience.

by rosndo 5y ago

Crazy to see multiple comments treating this as legitimate content as opposed to harmful pseudoscience.

I'm not familiar with this channel. But even if it is really "harmful pseudoscience", is that really a reason to ban it? And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content, and what happens when they're wrong?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> But even if it were really "harmful pseudoscience", is that really a reason to ban it? It is really a reason to decide not to distribute it. > And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content Anyone who is asked to actively participate in the chain of distribution. > and what happens when they're wrong? If someone disagrees with their decision not to distribute, they seek some other distribution. Except when it is a decision to distribute and the content is harmful in a way which produces liability, their decision being “wrong” in any authoritative sense isn't really an issue, only disagreement.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rosndo 5y ago
It all comes down to the exact nature of the content, which you admit to not be familiar with. Do you genuinely believe that youtube should host videos attaching various involuntary physical traits to criminal behaviour? It’s obviously not okay to say that “this guy is black, so he’s probably guilty”. But is it okay to say “this guy is jittery under stress, he’s probably guilty”? Why should it be okay to say one or the other? Both will result in equally harmful outcomes.
- effingwewt 5y ago
  These are long-closed cases, not on-going, and even if it were, any 'pundit' talking on any channel would likely say as your example, JCS does not do this. I seem to recall 'Judge' Janine Pirro going on pretty crazy rants, also Nancy Grace. Where were the 'harmful content' bans or nptices then?
- tanseydavid 5y ago
  >> It all comes down to the exact nature of the content It seems evident to me, from the reading the HN comments, that there is hardly any sort of agreement about what the "exact nature of the content" actually is.

inglor_cz 5y ago

"Harmful" is a big, big hammer. It may crush something you enjoy next. Isn't sitting on Hacker News a harmful waste of time?

kolanos 5y ago

Provide specific examples of JCS perpetuating pseudo science and maybe you'll have made a compelling argument. Until then, this reads as baseless accusation. Which, IMO, is no better than pseudo science.