4 ms·

Or they create an account here on HN, and suddenly they're an expert on anything remotely tangential to STEM.

cudgy 5y ago
Or they judge someone on Youtube as a nutbar and call to censor with equally little knowledge. Ignorance cuts both ways.
- sodality2 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
- b112 5y ago
  You don't need to censor the nutbars, and it is ok to call them that. The former is shutting down discourse, the latter is pointing out its flaws, and is a correct response. When I was in high school, pre-Internet, we has an entire class about modern media. We discussed advertising, profit motives, watched TV commercials and dissected them, it was all about creating awareness in youth, about something they grew up with and took for granted. This sort of thing had value, it helps people see things through a different viewpoint, including helping people become more critical of the snakenoil salesman. We should have such things about the Internet, and youtube, as well. I bet the average Joe doesn't realise how profitable YouTube channels can be, and thus, how profitable lies are.
  - cudgy 5y ago
    > You don't need to censor the nutbars, and it is ok to call them that. I fully agree. Both sides can call each other nutbars and both sides should not be censored. One person’s nutbar is another person’s geniusbar. Profit motives and understanding the finances of the media platforms is useful, but it does not address the search for truth and fact beyond the important detail of monetary motivations of the people behind the opinions. Truth and fact takes hard work. It requires access to all sides of the argument/topic, which censorship denies to people, creating a one-sided view that many times does not represent the most accurate view and in some cases has been manipulated (not always for monetary returns) by the dominant forces interested in the matter.

Or they judge someone on Youtube as a nutbar and call to censor with equally little knowledge. Ignorance cuts both ways.

sodality2 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
b112 5y ago
You don't need to censor the nutbars, and it is ok to call them that. The former is shutting down discourse, the latter is pointing out its flaws, and is a correct response. When I was in high school, pre-Internet, we has an entire class about modern media. We discussed advertising, profit motives, watched TV commercials and dissected them, it was all about creating awareness in youth, about something they grew up with and took for granted. This sort of thing had value, it helps people see things through a different viewpoint, including helping people become more critical of the snakenoil salesman. We should have such things about the Internet, and youtube, as well. I bet the average Joe doesn't realise how profitable YouTube channels can be, and thus, how profitable lies are.
- cudgy 5y ago
  > You don't need to censor the nutbars, and it is ok to call them that. I fully agree. Both sides can call each other nutbars and both sides should not be censored. One person’s nutbar is another person’s geniusbar. Profit motives and understanding the finances of the media platforms is useful, but it does not address the search for truth and fact beyond the important detail of monetary motivations of the people behind the opinions. Truth and fact takes hard work. It requires access to all sides of the argument/topic, which censorship denies to people, creating a one-sided view that many times does not represent the most accurate view and in some cases has been manipulated (not always for monetary returns) by the dominant forces interested in the matter.