>I think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices
first, youtube isnt where open discussion by moderate voices happens. Its a cavalcade of endlessly random videos promoting everything from free energy to colloidal silver cures and get rich quick schemes.
Second, the topic of conversation is vaccination methodology during an ongoing pandemic in which a sizeable quantity of affected persons refuse to vaccinate. This is without a doubt a sensitive topic and likely shouldnt use Youtube as a forum. You should have a gatekeeper and there should be a minimum level of scientific competency and acumen required to participate in the conversation. A moderator should exist, and that moderator is not youtube.
Might i suggest matrix or signal? or perhaps even pleroma?
as an aside, the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" is puerile and absolutely should be banned. No reasonable person would evangelize healthy adults forego vaccination during a global pandemic.
the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" is puerile and absolutely should be banned.
This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs.
There's an object lesson they sometimes do in university classes or corporate retreats where two people are asked to push against each other's hands. It usually ends with "why are you pushing so hard?" "Because you were pushing so hard."
There's a human instinct that many of us have that is basically "fight makes right." That is, when vehemence in opposition to a thing goes beyond a certain point, the vehemence becomes "evidence" that the thing being opposed must have some legitimacy to it, or else there wouldn't be so much energy dedicated to opposing it.
> This type of categorical banning from public discussion never works. It just creates martyrs.
I see this, or forms of it, oft repeated but it's never synced up with reality for me. Sure, you will have some hard-core, dyed-in-the-wool proponents of someone/some topic that will follow them to the ends of the earth but you stop the radicalization of so many more than I have to count it as a net-win. I used to be staunchly 100%-free-speech, no-holds-barred but I am, and have been, coming to the realization that it's simply not tenable when you factor in technology/internet. Banning Parlor from App Stores and infrastructure absolutely cut down on their users. Sure, some will continue to use it but you cut off the on-ramp for radicalization. Same story with YouTube, actually it's even MORE compelling for YouTube since the majority people going to Parlor were people already inclined to think a certain way (aka: believe the election was stolen, COVID is a hoax, Democrats drink baby's blood, etc). With YouTube we have endless examples of people being slowly radicalized as YouTube's algorithm takes them further and further down the rabbit hole and, unlike Parlor, you can start down that path while watching something completely innocuous. See also: Reddit banning T_D or other subs promoting violence and hatred.
Suppressing the visible symptom of a cultural problem -- Parler, YouTube videos, whatever -- doesn't solve the cultural problem. It just means you don't have to look at it if you don't want to. People are still rolling coal with their flags flying if that's what they want to do.
It's kind of like pushing homelessness underground, except the phenomenon being suppressed has a lot more potential energy. You squish a balloon, and the air/water just moves elsewhere. Eventually the balloon pops though, and we actually get to see what we've been trying to hide from and suppress.
Ok, I understand what you are saying but I think this is a little different from “hiding the homeless” or putting them on a bus with a one-way ticket. I agree that people will just go further underground however it does stop the initial radicalization.
People are on platforms like FB, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc because they expect them to be safe (different people will define that differently of course). They also expect most (if not all) the content to be true (of course we know this isn’t always the case). Allowing lies, dis/misinformation to spread on one of these platforms legitimizes it for people.
As humans we are much more likely to believe content we see on a major platform vs myrandomthoughts.blogspot.com. That said, once radicalized on a major platform you might believe the afore mentioned site but you wouldn’t have given it a second look prior to that. So again, preventing the initial radicalizing by not allowing disinformation laundering on major platform does have an impact and stops the slide down for many, many people.
> There's an object lesson they sometimes do in university classes or corporate retreats where two people are asked to push against each other's hands. It usually ends with "why are you pushing so hard?" "Because you were pushing so hard."
Perfect example is the current crop of vaccination mandates being pushed by the federal government. Look up "New reported doses administered by day", and you'll see the number of vaccines being administered has been declining since the mandates were announced. If your goal is to get more people vaccinated and promote public health, it turns out forcing people to do so and censoring discussion actually has the exact opposite effect.
> and you'll see the number of vaccines being administered has been declining since the mandates were announced
Correlation is not causation. It's easy to suppose that causation in fact runs the other way - the mandates come to the fore at the point when doses given are already declining due to running short on willing unvaccinated people, and the vaccination drive is perceived as needing an "extra push".
Why doesn't it work? The goal is to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation among heavily used platforms. Of course some people are going to act like martyrs about it and move their following to some other platform. But it won't be one with the same potential to spread as much. Which is the goal.
Nah. I was raised in a religiously conservative environment and was taught all sorts of weird beliefs that was also married to right wing politics, and the demonization of the left you could hear everyday on AM radio and Fox News. They aren't disenfranchised. They have a faulty worldview that isn't based on critical thinking or scientific evidence, and has been fueled by propaganda for decades.
I used to be a big proponent of US-style free speech. Now I'm skeptical that it's such a good thing. It appears to me that some uses of certain forms of media are dangerous to a democratic society. Not just on the right, but in general.
So you were raised in a religiously conservative environment and clearly don't think much of it, but you've also internalised the idea that truth should come from authority.
That does a disservice to science IMHO. 'Scientists' are not simply priests with different regalia. Fundamentally, the invite their experiments to be replicated or they're not scientists. Anything can be accepted as truth with the threat of sufficient violence.
Knowledge comes from empirical verification and logical or mathematical arguments. Experts in relevant fields are more likely to be correct and capable of understanding the subject material than the average person who expresses skepticism. That doesn't mean infallibility, and experts often enough disagree with one another. Violence has nothing to do with it.
When there is a consensus around a well established scientific set of facts or model, skepticism isn't warranted by the general public. People pushing conspiracy theories under certain circumstances are a danger to the public on large media platforms. Therefore, I support them being removed.
Experts do disagree with one another often enough... unless they're all in the pay of a single interest group or our filter bubbles prevent us from seeing the experts on one side of the disagreement. You might not think either of those is happening, but if you trust the experts first how would you know if the former was happening? And wouldn't removing people make the latter failure scenario more likely?
> first, youtube isnt where open discussion by moderate voices happens. Its a cavalcade of endlessly random videos promoting everything from free energy to colloidal silver cures and get rich quick schemes.
Youtube also has people doing educational videos. I can watch recorded lectures there, if I want. Why do we need a gatekeeper for that?
It also has videos of people just sharing their experiences.
Should that be banned to, if those are negative about the vaccine? On what basis?
>>as an aside, the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist"
Well they change what "anti-vaccine" means [1], so now I am classified as a "person who has been vaccinated but is Anti-vaccine" because I oppose any and all governments mandates that would force a person to be vaccinated, or would impose conditions on them by government to participate in society.
private companies can impose them but government should not, not if we want to claim to be a free society.
Due to my position against authoritarian policies I am officially a "Vaccinated Anti-vaxxer" a oxymoronic label only government could come up with.
I never understood why vaccine mandates are so badly received. As long as there are solid exemptions in place, for proof of antibodies or twice a week testing, it should be normal to require it. The mandates themselves can be ok. I personally have a problem with the absolutely insane gaslighting that is happening in the US now. You are not allowed to question anything, or you get cancelled.
first, youtube isnt where open discussion by moderate voices happens. Its a cavalcade of endlessly random videos promoting everything from free energy to colloidal silver cures and get rich quick schemes.
Second, the topic of conversation is vaccination methodology during an ongoing pandemic in which a sizeable quantity of affected persons refuse to vaccinate. This is without a doubt a sensitive topic and likely shouldnt use Youtube as a forum. You should have a gatekeeper and there should be a minimum level of scientific competency and acumen required to participate in the conversation. A moderator should exist, and that moderator is not youtube.
Might i suggest matrix or signal? or perhaps even pleroma?
as an aside, the concept of an "anti-vaccine activist" is puerile and absolutely should be banned. No reasonable person would evangelize healthy adults forego vaccination during a global pandemic.