8 ms·

Would you also argue that TV shows like "The Search for Bigfoot" and whatnot should be banned? I can understand removing something because it contains personal

Would you also argue that TV shows like "The Search for Bigfoot" and whatnot should be banned? I can understand removing something because it contains personal information or something really obscene (like terrorists beheading someone), but videos like this are mostly just entertainment.

rosndo 5y ago
I think “Search for Bigfoot” is obviously different. Nobody is going to hurt themselves or others after watching it. JCS - Criminal Psychology will create idiots who think they’re master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison. There’s a simple solution for JCS, just distance from the pseudoscientific “psychology” and stick to the true crime.
- kolanos 5y ago
  Can you give any specific examples of JCS perpetuating pseudo science?
- effingwewt 5y ago
  Quite the slipper slope you got going on there. I fail to see how a youtube video discussing interrogation techniques is going to magically cause people to 'think they're master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison.' By your reasoning anything discussing anything could be 'harmful'. How about we decide for ourselves what we want to watch/listen/read.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    >discussing interrogation techniques Spreading misinformation about interrogation techniques in a sort-of educational format. > How about we decide for ourselves what we want to watch/listen/read. We can, of course. I just also happen to believe that youtube should get to decide what they distribute, and this is a fairly reasonable thing to choose not to distribute.
    - throwaway73838 5y ago
      What if I deem your comment to be misinformation because it could lead to people developing capitalistic tendencies? Would you have a problem then?
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        You can deem whatever you want. You don't run HN, so its not really relevant.
        effingwewt 5y ago
        You don't run youtube either, so why is what you think relevant? For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken. You've an obvious axe to grind, which is fine, but does not give you the right to dictate what is and is not misinformation, nor harmful.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > You've an obvious axe to grind, which is fine, but does not give you the right to dictate what is and is not misinformation, nor harmful. I'm a different person. I don't have an axe to grind. I'm not dictating anything misinformation or not. Neither was the other person. > For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken Then why would we be talking about videos YouTube removed for being misinformation? > You don't run youtube either, so why is what you think relevant? I believe the statement made was "YouTube has the right to choose what they distribute". You also have that right. So do I. I don't need to run YouTube (or HN) to believe they have those rights. You or I can deem whatever we wish, and you'd be correct: it isn't relevant.
        effingwewt 5y ago
        You are indeed a different person, my apologies. We are discussing a video being removed, the other poster was the one acreaming about it being misinformative. They have no idea why or even what videos were stricken, they were simply gloating. This is beyond a platform having the right or not, they can indeed choose what to host. Byt once you start labeling videos as misinformation or censoring and removing them, you male yourself the arbiter of truth. I personally do not want an ad company deciding anything for me, not ever. A label would be one thing, but removing videos on a whim (which happens every single day- reasons are almost never given, and the rules arw arbitrary). Also, comparing a person to a huge public square (youtube is very much an online public square) is very disingenuous. If I choose not to believe something (my version of 'allowing something on my platform or not), it wouldn't effectively silence that person, as it does when videos and channels are nixed.
- retrac 5y ago
  > Nobody is going to hurt themselves or others after watching it. https://www.montanarightnow.com/community/man-says-he-was-shot-at-after-being-mistaken-for-bigfoot/article_af285c0c-030e-11e9-adcc-bf5f6b22f1c5.html https://www.montanarightnow.com/community/man-says-he-was-sh... Don't be so sure.
- kolanos 5y ago
  > JCS - Criminal Psychology will create idiots who think they’re master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison. This is, at best, hyperbole. But you know what else creates idiots? The homogenization of information.

rosndo 5y ago

I think “Search for Bigfoot” is obviously different. Nobody is going to hurt themselves or others after watching it. JCS - Criminal Psychology will create idiots who think they’re master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison. There’s a simple solution for JCS, just distance from the pseudoscientific “psychology” and stick to the true crime.

kolanos 5y ago
Can you give any specific examples of JCS perpetuating pseudo science?
effingwewt 5y ago
Quite the slipper slope you got going on there. I fail to see how a youtube video discussing interrogation techniques is going to magically cause people to 'think they're master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison.' By your reasoning anything discussing anything could be 'harmful'. How about we decide for ourselves what we want to watch/listen/read.
- rosndo 5y ago
  >discussing interrogation techniques Spreading misinformation about interrogation techniques in a sort-of educational format. > How about we decide for ourselves what we want to watch/listen/read. We can, of course. I just also happen to believe that youtube should get to decide what they distribute, and this is a fairly reasonable thing to choose not to distribute.
  - throwaway73838 5y ago
    What if I deem your comment to be misinformation because it could lead to people developing capitalistic tendencies? Would you have a problem then?
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      You can deem whatever you want. You don't run HN, so its not really relevant.
      - effingwewt 5y ago
        You don't run youtube either, so why is what you think relevant? For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken. You've an obvious axe to grind, which is fine, but does not give you the right to dictate what is and is not misinformation, nor harmful.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > You've an obvious axe to grind, which is fine, but does not give you the right to dictate what is and is not misinformation, nor harmful. I'm a different person. I don't have an axe to grind. I'm not dictating anything misinformation or not. Neither was the other person. > For all you know it could be C&D letters, not all the vids have been stricken Then why would we be talking about videos YouTube removed for being misinformation? > You don't run youtube either, so why is what you think relevant? I believe the statement made was "YouTube has the right to choose what they distribute". You also have that right. So do I. I don't need to run YouTube (or HN) to believe they have those rights. You or I can deem whatever we wish, and you'd be correct: it isn't relevant.
        effingwewt 5y ago
        You are indeed a different person, my apologies. We are discussing a video being removed, the other poster was the one acreaming about it being misinformative. They have no idea why or even what videos were stricken, they were simply gloating. This is beyond a platform having the right or not, they can indeed choose what to host. Byt once you start labeling videos as misinformation or censoring and removing them, you male yourself the arbiter of truth. I personally do not want an ad company deciding anything for me, not ever. A label would be one thing, but removing videos on a whim (which happens every single day- reasons are almost never given, and the rules arw arbitrary). Also, comparing a person to a huge public square (youtube is very much an online public square) is very disingenuous. If I choose not to believe something (my version of 'allowing something on my platform or not), it wouldn't effectively silence that person, as it does when videos and channels are nixed.
retrac 5y ago
> Nobody is going to hurt themselves or others after watching it. https://www.montanarightnow.com/community/man-says-he-was-shot-at-after-being-mistaken-for-bigfoot/article_af285c0c-030e-11e9-adcc-bf5f6b22f1c5.html https://www.montanarightnow.com/community/man-says-he-was-sh... Don't be so sure.
kolanos 5y ago
> JCS - Criminal Psychology will create idiots who think they’re master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison. This is, at best, hyperbole. But you know what else creates idiots? The homogenization of information.