It’s a fact that a lot of people believe the misinformation. I don’t understand what’s so remarkable about pointing this out.

Who decides what information is

Why does the public get to decide what a private company hosts?

They do via proxy of government laws. The public vs megacorp is not a balanced relationship anyway and will eventually get regulated.

Actually, shareholders do get a say in what a publicly traded company hosts!

That's not the public. But I'm fine with owners of a company deciding what they would like to host.

It often does. You want it to, in many cases.

Because this publically traded company (not private) invites the public to view and share content. Now the public is voicing concern over who they are censoring.

If Google doesn't like it they are free to shutdown the service.

The same people who decide that 2+2=4 and that the sky is blue.

If only the virgin mary were contrary. Science has lost it's power. Someone will choose an interpretation that benefits themselves over the truth. It's normal. Too many tech people are coasting on the libertarian dream of the past.

So I was correct when I said you don't believe in science.

You are the person choosing your own interpretation.

I believe in science, what I don't believe is that people will listen to truth when it is presented. They are two different things. Science has lost its power to object to a higher cultural malaise.

If you understood what it meant for the virgin mary to be contrary, you would understand the words I wrote on the page and my meaning.

You were not correct, you didn't understand my post. Stop dreaming. There are real truths being expressed here.

Great, I agree on both those things and now I'm deciding that the election was frauded by Elvis.

Uncited fact?

Anyways, I honestly can't blame "them". Less than a year ago, the mainstream media was full of "information" like, masks don't work, it's racist to think that hugging a Chinese could make you infected, and people questioning the origin of the virus were deemed conspiracy theorists. Now some of these are suddenly considered "misinformation" or "COVIDiots" and you have "conspiracy theory" on front page of Washington Post

What's someone who's not 100% plugged in supposed to think?!

Let this be a lesson that a lot of people are susceptible to all sorts of "remarkable" ideas, including objectively dangerous ones like believing that Covid is a hoax.

I'm unironically inclined to agree with it, but I'd be interested in reading a more substantial refutation.

There's no refutation because there's no argument to refute. It's always some form of "There are bad people doing bad things and we need to stop them."

Notice how every thread here is about acting against alleged disinformation agents? It's not about any argument at all. It's a generic outgroup argument.

Should we expect people to just never question elections? It's completely bizarre.

Come on. That same group questioning elections 1) has spent 4 years decrying the questioning of an election 2) actively prevented measures being taken to secure elections and 3) hasn't come up with any proof of vote changes. We should expect people to come at things in good faith, which is clearly not the case in this discussion.

Why? Its true.

If you don't believe it's true, then explain to me how Measles, something that was more or less a solved problem, suddenly had a huge resurgence, leading to 50% increase in the number of deaths from 2016 to 2019?

While flat earthers are mostly harmless, other misinformation have real tangible cost. People are literally dying due to the anti-vaxx and anti-mask misinformation. Not blocking these videos is equivalent to having blood on your hands.

You do realize that the largest outbreak of measles in 2019 was not because of Anti-Vax YouTube Videos or other misinformation right? It was directly linked to religious fundamentalism that barred a large group of people from getting vaccinated

So all the YT censorship in the world will not stop that unless you are going to advocate prohibition of religion as well which I feel you likely will not get as much support for

YT and online misinformation is a good scapegoat, much like Usenet was in the 1990's for people that do not understand the real, actual problem

you are not going to fix these problems by censorship

> It was directly linked to religious fundamentalism that barred a large group of people from getting vaccinated

And it just happened to be perfectly in sync with the rise of anti-vaxx content on social media? You do realize these "religious fundamentalism" with fringe ideas also use Youtube, FB and other sites to share their anti-vaxx ideas and have their own ideas re-affirmed?