How many times? This is an exploitable plan. Simply refuse to accept all evidence disproving claims that the election was stolen and continue to demand additional debate forever. Your method would only work if people were actually spreading these ideas in good faith. "Debate" instead becomes a hijacked channel for people to spread propaganda until the rest of time.
Then what do people want? I'm not hearing simultaneous complaints that it is important for youtube to host these. "debates" so that the social media community can address wild claims and also that it is a worthless effort.
If random internet commenters can't make productive change in the crazy beliefs held by some people then great! I actually agree that is the most likely outcome. This means that nothing is lost if youtube says "we don't want to be the home to this debate".
That's right. I do believe that booting white supremacist content off youtube is good and booting blm content off youtube is bad. The merits of the content are meaningfully different. If people want to argue the white supremacist content is merited, they can certainly try.
The game is already dangerous, even if youtube decides to host literally everything its users upload.
Thanks god you and google will take all those decisions for me.Thinking is hard , paraphrasing Barbie(oops more white supremacism).
It's absolutely not. Whether the president's claims are true is another matter entirely. When he makes a claim with no specifics, no explanation of how it occurred, and no evidence, that's a baseless claim. And it does not deserve equal representation in the media merely by virtue of it having been said.
These claims have been made on an ongoing basis for a month -- arguably more than a month, since Trump and his allies spent time before the election promoting the idea that Trump losing is itself de facto evidence of fraud. And they keep being disproven. Over, and over, and over.
At what point is it okay for a publisher -- or whatever we wish to call YouTube -- to say "enough is enough"? Must any and all arguments be endlessly re-litigated on any platform?
It is impossible to disprove conspiracy theories. No matter how many judges laugh Trump out of court millions of people will believe for the rest of their lives that their was massive voter fraud.
The whole point is that this is a biased assumption. You can't prevent people from making counterpoints, and then say "completely baseless claims." For the conversation to be fair, you need to allow the claims to be made, and then disprove them.
This way of thinking is part of the problem.