4 ms·

> Not at all. For the same reason that heart surgery isn’t. Or black belt karate isn’t. Some human activities just have high skill floors. Science (at the level

by rhaksw 4y ago

> Not at all. For the same reason that heart surgery isn’t. Or black belt karate isn’t. Some human activities just have high skill floors. Science (at the levels we are talking about here - groundbreaking hard to understand complex stuff) is one of them. Are you saying that anyone publicly discussing science on the internet should be subjected to secretive removals because publishing groundbreaking science is complex stuff? If so I strongly disagree and I find it hard to square that with your following statement, > Just to clarify: I think science MUST be open for anyone and I think divulging it is critical. Those two paragraphs are in direct conflict. You're saying science should be open but not everyone should be able to discuss it online without having their commentary secretly removed.??? Nobody is born a heart surgeon or karate expert. Every single one of today's experts got there by beginning somewhere near the bottom and working their way up. Some may have found their way easier than others, but that doesn't change where they began, or the general direction they had to take. Left foot, right foot, we all march, and those who had a harder time of it may be better off for making it through that (not that I want this to happen, I'm just saying it can be a result of enduring hardship). Not to mention, science is meant to be disseminated. If you just put it up to be read rather than discussed, nobody is going to understand it. It's okay if people misinterpret things, that is part of how we learn.

otikik 4y ago
No. I have explicitly mentioned that a single comment by someone doesn’t amount to anything. When 60% of the comments are like that, that is when this becomes a problem. Then it simply isn’t science any more. Just like when my site was flooded by memes, the original goal of the channel has been compromised.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > No. I have explicitly mentioned that a single comment by someone doesn’t amount to anything. When 60% of the comments are like that, that is when this becomes a problem. Then it simply isn’t science any more. Just like when my site was flooded by memes, the original goal of the channel has been compromised. Here's the thing. You won't show us the content of those 60% comments. You will only describe your perception of them. You're here saying 60% of comments are "folkloric", which I assume means you consider them to be useless, but the nature of secretive censorship means two things: (i) the authors are not able to defend themselves, since they are unaware of the removals, and (ii) the victimization you present here, that such comments disrupt your conversations, means that you are unwilling to be transparent about what was actually removed, since sharing the comments would give them the publicity that in your view they don't deserve. And in that case, nobody here can evaluate the truth of what you say. You might then say "checkmate", but I think the reality is it's checkmate for the people because they can see this happening. The more you remove, the more obvious the source of the problem becomes.

by rhaksw 4y ago

otikik 4y ago

No. I have explicitly mentioned that a single comment by someone doesn’t amount to anything. When 60% of the comments are like that, that is when this becomes a problem. Then it simply isn’t science any more. Just like when my site was flooded by memes, the original goal of the channel has been compromised.

rhaksw 4y ago
> No. I have explicitly mentioned that a single comment by someone doesn’t amount to anything. When 60% of the comments are like that, that is when this becomes a problem. Then it simply isn’t science any more. Just like when my site was flooded by memes, the original goal of the channel has been compromised. Here's the thing. You won't show us the content of those 60% comments. You will only describe your perception of them. You're here saying 60% of comments are "folkloric", which I assume means you consider them to be useless, but the nature of secretive censorship means two things: (i) the authors are not able to defend themselves, since they are unaware of the removals, and (ii) the victimization you present here, that such comments disrupt your conversations, means that you are unwilling to be transparent about what was actually removed, since sharing the comments would give them the publicity that in your view they don't deserve. And in that case, nobody here can evaluate the truth of what you say. You might then say "checkmate", but I think the reality is it's checkmate for the people because they can see this happening. The more you remove, the more obvious the source of the problem becomes.