4 ms·

I'm not sure I represented myself well at all. I'm not for censorship or any form of "Ministry of Truth". Those ideas will be paired with videos naturally by pe

I'm not sure I represented myself well at all. I'm not for censorship or any form of "Ministry of Truth". Those ideas will be paired with videos naturally by people who would choose to refute the ideas put forth. And I think fair use should cover rebuttal videos (though I'm unsure how copyright works in that way). I don't think anyone needs to be banned for showing a video discussing any topic... it's legal, and a private platform. They have the right, but it seems a bit tacky. I don't see how I could have been misconstrued as for not rebutting poor arguments or false information with facts, good arguments and critical thinking skills. I apologize if I did - I got a little long winded and should have kept it shorter and to the point.

DoctorOW 5y ago
> I don't see how I could have been misconstrued as for not rebutting poor arguments or false information with facts, good arguments and critical thinking skills. Again, you're agreeing with YouTube on that point. The Hill's ban was because they didn't contextualize the false information they shared.
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  Here's Kim Iverson breaking down the criteria for Political Disinformation and what they might have done to break said policy: https://youtu.be/t-oEaACklrc https://youtu.be/t-oEaACklrc EDIT: and I think I see where we're breaking down in our communications. We are basically agreeing (I think). I don't think YouTube's need for an immediate tag or rebuttal around "misinformation" leads to further discourse. I think rebuttal videos which would be linked, by way of the shared interest algorithm, would further discourse. Instead of scrounging for ad revenue and pushing people down into their own little bubble, YouTube has an obligation to offer up rebuttal videos, videos which offer an alternative to supposed misinformation, not to outright ban something like raw footage of political figures putting their foots in their mouths.

DoctorOW 5y ago

> I don't see how I could have been misconstrued as for not rebutting poor arguments or false information with facts, good arguments and critical thinking skills. Again, you're agreeing with YouTube on that point. The Hill's ban was because they didn't contextualize the false information they shared.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago
Here's Kim Iverson breaking down the criteria for Political Disinformation and what they might have done to break said policy: https://youtu.be/t-oEaACklrc https://youtu.be/t-oEaACklrc EDIT: and I think I see where we're breaking down in our communications. We are basically agreeing (I think). I don't think YouTube's need for an immediate tag or rebuttal around "misinformation" leads to further discourse. I think rebuttal videos which would be linked, by way of the shared interest algorithm, would further discourse. Instead of scrounging for ad revenue and pushing people down into their own little bubble, YouTube has an obligation to offer up rebuttal videos, videos which offer an alternative to supposed misinformation, not to outright ban something like raw footage of political figures putting their foots in their mouths.