Youtube bans all anti-vaccine misinformation

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by zamler

It's hardly that simple. Google controls 95% of all internet searches that gives them enormous power to use and abuse. Google gets to be both a publisher and platform at the same time meaning they cannot be sued for whatever ends up on their platform, but then gets to censor at will and in general decide what you can and cannot see.

Combine that with Alphabet Inc.'s hooks into government and it's the perfect system for corruption. I don't believe for 1 second Google is censoring because they care about everyone so much and want to protect them. They are doing it solely for their self interest.

Right, and their self interest is being affected because the mass majority are tired of misinformation and algorithms pumping anti-science bull#### into our society.

See, the free market works.

[81MC]

I understand, but don’t agree.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

From the guy worried about how much truth he can get from YouTube.

Get lost, loser.

Thanks for confirming.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Facebook is the real issue in my opinion. I've been seeing a lot of anti vax, muh freedom stuff showing up on my newsfeed lately from those suggestions things. Youtube never really offers it up to me unless I search for it.

Facebook allowed their platform to be used to incite genocide in Myanmar. Do you honestly think they give a ##### whether or not anti-vaxx info is posted?

These companies are in it to make money, and have largely been completely okay with almost anything that happens on their platform.

It is also the reason we should be skeptical as heck when they start saying they will start fact checking.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I've applied for the position. You're the first to get banned if I get it (and then Locke, for fun).

I'm fine with that as long as Locke goes as well.

Isn't it a thing to come back on CP with a new user name?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by zamler

Thanks for confirming.

When you're doing having a pout about YouTube, may I suggest checking out Wikipedia? You're going to have an absolute fit when you realize anyone can edit an internet encyclopedia.

It's wild man, get ready.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm fine with that as long as Locke goes as well.

Isn't it a thing to come back on CP with a new user name?

I suggest Eruza when you come back. Nobody will know.

[TheIronMaiden]

People are behaving like youtube wasnt always censoring content. It is well documented theyve been doing this at the behest of their largest sponsors.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

And of course we should let you decide what is misinformation & what isn't.

No, I was going to let the mods do it, at least until Bingo sells me the site. The mods who, iirc, already censor speech here.

It's not particularly difficult to distinguish misinformation from opinion so long as you are diligent about accepting only objective fact to mark out he former. If you want to worry about the commissars coming to police your thoughts, the problem starts with disallowing opinions, not misinformation. That repressive regimes try to confuse the two by labelling opinion as misinformation doesn't mean they aren't separate any more than naming a nation a "People's Democratic Republic" invalidates democracy.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Joe Rogan should start his own video service for all of his friends who will be censored on Youtube now.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I know private companies don't fall under the free speech umbrella, but considering their scale and the impact on our lives, I'm really not a fan of any of these social platforms deciding what is right and what is wrong for us to consume. In our society, people should be free to consume whatever ideas they wish, even if they are wrong or not in their long-term interest. Do we no longer believe the old phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

I'm a skeptic at heart. I don't trust most of the idiots rambling on YouTube. But I also don't trust the low-level peons who will be in charge of fact-checking.

The problem is that these platforms, driven purely by profit through engagement, have utterly changed the game in how information is disseminated by utilizing complex algorithms. This isn't going to the library or watching different 5 o'clock news programs. This is force-feeding you different flavors of the same food all day, every day.

They have essentially created an information bubble factory that makes thicker and thicker bubbles the more you indiscriminately use it. That age old adage is dying in the face of relentless tribalism.

With the power of these platforms, in consideration of how people access information in 2021 and the media illiteracy of the general population, they absolutely need to be regulated.

[Ozy_Flame]

Not even just about access. The algorithms involved in these platforms are configured so that if you go down a rabbit hole, you're going to be served up even more content to continue going down rabbit holes. And it becomes a perpetuating, compounding experience. It's at the point where people are surrounded by content they want and expect to see, rather than what they should see (or not).

How content is served up to you - personally - is just as important as the platform that enables it.

[TheIronMaiden]

The trouble is that someone can watch a 10 minute video with no peer review or footnotes and accept it as fact.

This is not a big deal when it comes to Warhammer lore, or cooking advice, but when it relates to white supremacy or public health it becomes concerning.

The difficult this is there is no satisfying way to publish knowledge ( peer review for example is deeply flawed).

The way I see it, youtube trying to "protect" children from "harmful content" misinforming parents about their children's health is potentially harmful.

Nevertheless, the real failure here is public health experts building meaningful relationships in communities that develop trust in their knowledge base. in the 21st century health is not about developing relationships, its about processing sick people as if they were widgets. This is the foundation to the widespread acceptance of health misinformation.

[zamler]

YT AI (if you can call it that) makes it so you miss out on some great content. If you're not using this addon you should it makes your browser have separate cookie containers I use 3-4 for Youtube it's amazing how quickly the algorithm learns and starts feeding you a narrow range of topics. If I feel like watching automotive related stuff then it quickly thinks that's all I'm interested in.

There is odysee.com but I rarely go there for whatever reason.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

The difficult this is there is no satisfying way to publish knowledge ( peer review for example is deeply flawed).

I don't know if peer review itself is flawed so much as it is that people don't understand the function of peer review and its limitations. All good studies are generally peer-reviewed, but all peer-reviewed studies aren't necessarily good.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't know if peer review itself is flawed so much as it is that people don't understand the function of peer review and its limitations. All good studies are generally peer-reviewed, but all peer-reviewed studies aren't necessarily good.

Don't get me wrong, I think that peer review is good. But there are strong arguments about it's flaws. Mostly in the sciences - where knowledge is for profit, folks manipulate the review process to their own advantage, suppressing findings that compete with their own financial gain.

Its less of a problem in the humanities when there is much less $$ involved and disagreement is a part of the game.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Don't get me wrong, I think that peer review is good. But there are strong arguments about it's flaws. Mostly in the sciences - where knowledge is for profit, folks manipulate the review process to their own advantage, suppressing findings that compete with their own financial gain.

Its less of a problem in the humanities when there is much less $$ involved and disagreement is a part of the game.

I mean, I didn't think I'd have to do this when someone was discussing something as academic as peer review, but...

Citation please.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I mean, I didn't think I'd have to do this when someone was discussing something as academic as peer review, but...

Citation please.

Sure

Lee, Carole & Sugimoto, Cassidy & Freeman, Guo & Cronin, Blaise. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...in_peer_review

[Erick Estrada]

I'm not a fan of censorship but a good portion of the population is really gullible and on Facebook you have these anti-vaxxers post stuff like fake nurse declarations that they don't trust the vaccine and garbage like that fuels the paranoia. I am shocked at how dumb some of the people I went to school with are and how easy they are manipulated.

[zamler]