That was one example everyone knows about. Talk about Ivermectin, or previously, WIV lab release hypothesis... all censored at the time. (now they have allowed some discussion again, but the damage is done and agenda realized).
The censorship isn't limited to YouTube. Scholarly articles from large collaborations have been censored from peer-reviewed journals when they received too much public attention:
Yes, it's now the second very visible example of the censorship model failing to correctly inform people (many examples, but 2 really recent major ones). The lab leak theory being the other egregious example.
But... we're literally discussing a book written on the subject. It wasn't censored. Neither were discussions here on this site, where lab leak arguments were very popular.
Are you really sure you aren't confusing controversy (the fact that an opinion can be a minority one with which most experts disagree) with suppression?
Huh? What got censored on social media was the idea that this was an engineered bioweapon. This isn't even the same lab people were pointing fingers at.
It was facebook[1] stated policy to prevent all discussion, so even if there was not a user level bann they were removing all posts and discussions about it
Twitter banned lots people for it (and other COVID "misinformation") it would be hard to point to a perfect example as often people that wanted to discuss lab leak also talked about masking, masking policy, vaccine efficacy, and Vaccine mandate policies. All of which were also forbidden topics. If you dared to speak out against "The Experts" at the cdc or WHO then you were either shadow-banned (i.e posts hidden, de-ranked, etc) or outright banned
Evidence of bioweapon is significant. So much so that facebook et al instaban posts about it. If you understand censorship then you know its only used on truth the gov/corps dont want getting out. Censorship is to stop evidence from being shared.
Could you explain the censorship on apparently controversial topics? The person that claimed a block on Acinetobacter baumannii for example? Wikipedia tells me it is a hospital infection, and also something that IEDs are known to be associated with infections.
And yet you could only get real data re: the potential COVID Lab leak from 4Chan for quite awhile. It was deemed misinformation and bad for our health to read. Maybe censorship is what is actually "problematic"..
And I think some platforms (specifically, I believe YouTube and Twitter, but maybe others) prevented or de-funded etc., content that was contradictory to CDC guidelines.
What sort of topics are currently being censored? I haven't seen examples of things being suppressed, but that's also why I'm asking; because I wouldn't have seen things that got suppressed.
The truth and I have actually been harmed by censorship of this very topic. My aunt tried to send me a link to a video discussing this, wanting my opinion. Of course the link was dead by the time I tried to view it. Which required going back and forth, what's the title of the video, what author, oh that's the one, etc. In the end I was able to view it (my takeaways: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22797275), but obviously the better the censorship machinery functions, the more effort it takes to get on the same page to address misinformation! And blind blanket assertions that the whole topic is nonsense is just a path to increasing polarization.
Meanwhile the author of the video played with and mocked the censorship regime to market themselves. Spelling words out, writing them on a whiteboard, talking up how many times this information has been taken down, etc. The more a topic is censored, the more the nonsensical narratives look like forbidden knowledge. It plays directly into the conspiracy angle.
If something technological needs to be done to address misinformation, it revolves around viral sharing, filter bubbles, and most importantly basic scientific literacy. Swiping at the video hosting itself is an ineffective blunt instrument from the same exact toolbox that regressive dictators always reach for.
When Dr. Joseph Ladapo shared an alarming study on increased heart-related deaths in young males who took mRNA vaccines, his post was immediately censored by tech platforms. But the takedown didn't last long: within hours, the censors must have realized that they'd just tried to silence the actual Surgeon General of Florida.
Social media actively censored such discussion and Google also manipulated autocomplete, etc. The WHO and CDC dismissed the theory at the time. The CCP actively scrubbed data which would affect the effectiveness of any subsequent investigation.
This lab theory has been systematically censored across the internet for the last week or so. For me it has been fascinating to watch content on it pop up and then disappear.
reply