News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking al... by mbesto on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:52PM (#28696375)
> If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous

If the you argument proposed (blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices) was factual and I'm asking you to provide evidence of such how is that disingenuous?

> I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton

> Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf,

These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies).

> Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors

Agreed, but who's the other good faith actor you're referring to here? YouTube?

Re:YouTube is banning anti-vaccine activists and blocking al... by gameman144 on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:21PM (#28700744)
> These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies).

This seems the same to me.

A book with a flashy cover or title is more likely to be purchased because it's attention grabbing. Action movies have trailers with explosions and one-liner quips because they're attention grabbing. Cereal boxes say "new and improved!" because it's attention grabbing. Magazines and cable news ask "Does Jell-o cause cancer?" because it's attention grabbing.

Controversial content gets more clicks because it's attention grabbing, so I would absolutely expect that to be more enticing than the same information packaged less flamboyantly (just like I'd expect more attention-grabbing books, movies, cereal, and magazines to perform better as well.)