4 ms·

What nonsense from YouTube. Do they really think putting in such disclaimers is actually going to change anyone's mind?

by lliamander 5y ago

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
I sense the goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind from “the election was stolen” to “the election was fair”. Rather, it serves to enforce the notion that believing the former is considered unacceptable.
- atlantas 5y ago
  That's interesting. If they're not trying to persuade (and it doesn't appear so), then is the point of that to flex their power or what?
  - DoctorOW 5y ago
    No it's more about the importance of challenging bad ideas with good ones. All the justifications for spreading what we agree are lies are under the assumption that the value is in debunking them.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    Pragmatically, you can persuade indirectly by means of not allowing the opposing side to express itself. I’m not talking about persuading partisans, but rather the people who aren’t invested and aren’t engaged on the topic. The dominant message they will see is the notion that the election was fully legitimate and had nothing substantial occur that would question its legitimacy. Any compelling or specific counter arguments are simply not visible. So that unengaged person is learning the accepted stance is correct, the unacceptable stance must have a disclaimer because it is so wrong/dangerous, and that if they take that stance they also risk being labeled as crazy or expelled from the platform.
enkid 5y ago
Is there a reason to think one way or the other? I would think having something contradicting it in the same time that it is said would affect at least a portion of people.
jquery 5y ago
It definitely would have an affect on someone who otherwise has no opinion. Or someone on the fence. It adds to the cost of deciding to believe Trump's big lie.

4 ms·

What nonsense from YouTube. Do they really think putting in such disclaimers is actually going to change anyone's mind?

by lliamander 5y ago

What nonsense from YouTube. Do they really think putting in such disclaimers is actually going to change anyone's mind?

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
I sense the goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind from “the election was stolen” to “the election was fair”. Rather, it serves to enforce the notion that believing the former is considered unacceptable.
- atlantas 5y ago
  That's interesting. If they're not trying to persuade (and it doesn't appear so), then is the point of that to flex their power or what?
  - DoctorOW 5y ago
    No it's more about the importance of challenging bad ideas with good ones. All the justifications for spreading what we agree are lies are under the assumption that the value is in debunking them.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
    Pragmatically, you can persuade indirectly by means of not allowing the opposing side to express itself. I’m not talking about persuading partisans, but rather the people who aren’t invested and aren’t engaged on the topic. The dominant message they will see is the notion that the election was fully legitimate and had nothing substantial occur that would question its legitimacy. Any compelling or specific counter arguments are simply not visible. So that unengaged person is learning the accepted stance is correct, the unacceptable stance must have a disclaimer because it is so wrong/dangerous, and that if they take that stance they also risk being labeled as crazy or expelled from the platform.
enkid 5y ago
Is there a reason to think one way or the other? I would think having something contradicting it in the same time that it is said would affect at least a portion of people.
jquery 5y ago
It definitely would have an affect on someone who otherwise has no opinion. Or someone on the fence. It adds to the cost of deciding to believe Trump's big lie.