>Why do you care that they (or any other weird conspiratorial videos) exist at all?
They think their judgement is better than people they disagree with. Therefore someone should exercise paternalistic control over those they disagree with, so those wrong people will stop disagreeing with their obviously-right opinions so darn much.
They also don't foresee the resentment this will generate among the scolded and/or think they can contain that resentment. Which tells me their judgement was actually untrustworthy all along, and regardless of the advisability of censorship they should not be allowed to wield it.
> If you say wait a second, but one of those is a fact about the world and the other is an insane conspiracy theory, then to them you're now a censor, an opponent of Free Speech.
No, if you remove the video from YouTube on the grounds of "removing false information" you're a censor. This is what has happened to e.g. Alex Jones, Milo, and many others for example.
By all means, leave a comment denouncing their idiocy. Make a response video showing why they're wrong. Whatever. But don't remove the video FFS. It just makes them believe it more.
You said it yourself: "the other is an insane conspiracy theory". That's obvious to you, and its obvious to 99% of people. So why do you feel the need to remove it?
> They don't want people to see it because it will motivate copy cats.
The problem with that line of argument is that even if it's true, it undermines democracy. Democracy is based on the equality of all citizens. But you're segmenting people into two groups: those with superior intrinsic qualities and moral and intellectual strength that they can watch the problematic video without turning into copycats. People usually include themselves in that group and believe this group can work in the censorship office.
And then the other group, which is perceived as weak and in needs of protection (usually included: people we don't like).
Note that you must make the judgement who belongs in which group before anyone is allowed to see the problematic video. Note who makes the official judgment.
> You let the other side talk in order to create a common trust that they will let you talk.
Oh they’ve been talking. We’ve all heard.
> Good faith and bad faith environment is about trust.
Not so. Someone acting in bad faith is by definition untrustworthy.
You seem to want to equivocate. I don’t know if YouTube choosing to censor this content is wise, but since the content is false, spreads disinformation on purpose, nutty, and dangerous to democracy and the lives of civil servants, I can understand why.
>>> If I were and could get my message out (people are trying on youtube; they're being censored), well, no doubt my life would be worth girl scout cookies. I'd be unpersonned at the very least.
>> Otherwise it sounds like you're talking vaguely about what I can only interpret as a conspiracy theory of some kind but I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
> There's a great Mitchell and Webb sketch called "are we the baddies" -google (or better yet, qwant) it. If you can't put yourself in their shoes, well, you'll never get it.
It would be helpful if you precisely specified which ideas you think are getting censored on youtube and could cause you to get "unpersonned" before you start throwing around vague insinuations like that. Otherwise what you say has very little credibility.
> but there's bigger rappers that have been peddling conspiratorial, third eye awakening wish-wash for at least 20 years.
> This is a weird video to target
So we can all agree that YT isn't arbitrarily censoring anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories, but is specifically censoring conspiracy theories related to COVID? This seems like a good thing, that they are casting a narrow net, no? Would you prefer they censor ALL anti-authoritarian conspiracy theories?
Of all the scenarios where censorship could be called for, fighting misinformation harmful to public health in a global pandemic seems like a reasonable fish to fry.
I say this for emphasis, not to personally attack you: Whenever I read or hear this it makes me extremely suspicious, because it often doesn't come from those who will do the sacrifice themselves.
Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. Perpetrators of lies will even hide behind this, and create a false image of rebellious heroism, instead of facing public discourse and the consequences thereof.
YouTube is a private entity but they correctly assess that they have a significant responsibility here. But curating social media content is not unheard of, Wikipedia manages it surprisingly well. Instead they could for example certify and emphasize content that is grounded in science and verify content creators of such. This is from the top of my head but there are certainly other people who have smarter ideas that don't involve straight up censorship.
Talk is talk. Actions should have consequences, which is why we have rules and agreements in the real world. I also very much doubt that censorship achieves what it is supposed to. People don't suddenly become enlightened (depending on context it might be the other way around) when you ban that stuff. It can easily become worse.
> Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with?
That is explicitly what I'm avoiding saying, because obviously that's an illiberal and unworkable idea. In fact, I'm not trying to mandate anything at all. Not every observation is a criticism, not every criticism is a threat.
> the massive risk remains censorship by state actors
the state actors are to an extent, elected by the people. The big corporates have no accountability.
> I suggest we in the short term we encourage people like YouTube to censor more evil idiocy
You say that because in this narrow issue, you agree with youtube.
What is the short term?
Have you thought through all the consequences? and still, things will happen that you have not accounted for.
everyone is against evil or idiocy. The question is who decides what is?
The media's propaganda can and is being used to brainwash the people, and the results are clearly out for all to see.
> You listed off a bunch of nonsense - do you really think people actually believe that crap or are you the one fooled into thinking someone actually believes that? The more outlandish they sound, the better case for censoring, right? These cases just sound like a reporter went on 4chan, decided they dont like this so they must be the 'other side'. And it was enough to convince the majority that censorship is the way.
I personally know someone who believes about half of that. It sure doesn't feel unusual.
> It is troubling enough to see these ideas on social media
I think the attempts to censor conspiracy theories are far more troubling. They are works of political fan fiction or at worst someone's erroneously held opinion. Sometimes they even turn out to be true. Censorship is completely indefensible in any case.
> You should stop ascribing motivations to people without evidence.
I very much agree, however doing that first requires that one is able to perceive reality without making errors, and that is a lot harder than it seems.
As for censorship: all platforms have it, including HN, and opinions (aka: reality) vary on which approach is best.
> he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not
How do I know what anyone says is true? Why should I trust what you're saying about Sikora?
I should be able to watch a video on youtube and decide for myself because censorship is inimical to free thought.
You should take a moment to consider that most of the examples throughout history of censorship were carried out by decidedly bad people. Truth can stand on its own!
> Neither of these situations are ideal, nor are they catastrophic
No, no, this is actually quite catastrophic. Someone else is deciding what is and isn't acceptable for you to consume by default. Establishing the precedent that someone else knows better than you, what content is acceptable for you to view. That's absurd.
Christopher Hitchens had a very poignant[1] part about why the path to hell is paved with censorship, and I think it's worth a watch.
> A. Even if true, that is still a price worth paying to avoid having a central arbiter of truth that political factions can fight over and eventually control.
"The rise of neo-Nazism and other forms of militant, hard-right reactionary ideology, as well as vaccine deniers, and the hundreds of thousands of lives they have provably cost us, are a price worth paying to make sure that no one can tell me I can't post whatever videos I want on a privately-owned video hosting site."
> Wouldn't it be suddenly obvious that these videos must be taken down immediately, accounts banned and platform owners are responsible?
It is obvious that you have a totalitarian mindset and believe in one 'objective truth'. A Free society that holds to the free speech principle should do the opposite. After all, this principle is not about protecting views that you agree with, but those that you don't.
History has shown time and again that censorship never resulted in a positive long-term outcome, and you are repeating past mistakes.
Also, coming from a totalitarian USSR and now living in a totalitarian Russia, I tell you this, fellow Americans: most of you here don't seem to understand the value of free speech and harm that censorship does to society.
Quick example: beside vaccine deniers, youtube now also bans users who doubt the official election results. What could possibly go wrong with that, right?!
> ... and is clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video that has no valid “free speech” argument,
Strong disagree. That kind of content is very effective at changing attitudes and shifting political pressures, which is the core purpose of first amendment protections. I completely understand not wanting to see it, but disagree with preventing others from choosing to see and share it.
The idea that content that is "clearly an unbelievably, and unambiguously traumatic video" is justification for censorship is backwards, since that content has particularly large potential to drive change.
> If people got encouraged to not get vaccinated, that would be bad?
Yea of course, and thats my point. I think banning these videos and the ability to show discontent makes the problem worse and further divides us on political lines. What exactly is your argument here?
> You that that it is barbaric that a dislike button is not available on one platform?
The removal of the dislike button is another step in an undeniable trend toward censorship against anything mega corps and governments decide is not moral or truthful.
People can tell when they are being herded around and silenced, and they dislike it.
They think their judgement is better than people they disagree with. Therefore someone should exercise paternalistic control over those they disagree with, so those wrong people will stop disagreeing with their obviously-right opinions so darn much.
They also don't foresee the resentment this will generate among the scolded and/or think they can contain that resentment. Which tells me their judgement was actually untrustworthy all along, and regardless of the advisability of censorship they should not be allowed to wield it.
reply