Re:YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation
by quotemstr on Thursday October 15, 2020 @09:02AM
(#24788139)
> Banning obvious bullshit, albeit akin to censorship, is NARCAN.
I'll agree with your plan for banning "obvious bullshit" so long as I get to decide what constitutes "obvious bullshit". Don't like that idea? Then why should I like it when you get to decide? Or when some Google policy goon gets to decide? I never voted for you or for that policy goon.
Whenever you give anyone power to censor b"obvious bullshit", it takes a few milliseconds for "obvious bullshit" to become "political positions I dislike". That's how people work. The disruption to the free flow of information is more harmful than any amount of bullshit. Your "war for democracy" is in fact a war against democracy, since democracy is about building a distributed consensus about what constitutes truth, not about letting unelected censors control the public.
Anyone who tries to control what strangers say to each other is someone who wants to control your thoughts and rule over you. No thanks.
Social media is not some kind of existential problem. What you're claiming is a massive civilization-scale problem is what people claimed about the printing press. Oh no! Anyone can make a pamphlet! This terrible danger must be dealt with! We can't allow the bible to be published in lay people's language! They might misinterpret it if they can read it without the help of priests! Smash the presses! -- this is what people actually thought. Now we think this attitude is ridiculous, because it is.
The real danger we have right now is a few people using their influence over social media platforms to control public conversation and subvert democracy by manipulating the conversation. I am completely opposed to all SV attempts to decide for themselves what is true and what is false and censor eight billion people based on the result. No. They do not get to have that power.
I'll agree with your plan for banning "obvious bullshit" so long as I get to decide what constitutes "obvious bullshit". Don't like that idea? Then why should I like it when you get to decide? Or when some Google policy goon gets to decide? I never voted for you or for that policy goon.
Whenever you give anyone power to censor b"obvious bullshit", it takes a few milliseconds for "obvious bullshit" to become "political positions I dislike". That's how people work. The disruption to the free flow of information is more harmful than any amount of bullshit. Your "war for democracy" is in fact a war against democracy, since democracy is about building a distributed consensus about what constitutes truth, not about letting unelected censors control the public.
Anyone who tries to control what strangers say to each other is someone who wants to control your thoughts and rule over you. No thanks.
Social media is not some kind of existential problem. What you're claiming is a massive civilization-scale problem is what people claimed about the printing press. Oh no! Anyone can make a pamphlet! This terrible danger must be dealt with! We can't allow the bible to be published in lay people's language! They might misinterpret it if they can read it without the help of priests! Smash the presses! -- this is what people actually thought. Now we think this attitude is ridiculous, because it is.
The real danger we have right now is a few people using their influence over social media platforms to control public conversation and subvert democracy by manipulating the conversation. I am completely opposed to all SV attempts to decide for themselves what is true and what is false and censor eight billion people based on the result. No. They do not get to have that power.