YES. FINALLY. TOOK THEM LONG ENOUGH
I hope this applies also for content in other languages than English, there are helluva many Finnish antivaxxers spewing their garbage for example.
Yes this is a good thing, but it was done too late.
The Internet is a huge network that brings together all human knowledge, but unfortunately the main content is content from people with a flat EEG. This makes the information on the network unsuitable for people who do not have a minimum of reasoning ability, because it would only increase their ignorance and delusions of a flat Earth.
Judging by the amount of antivax stuff on some PeerTube instances, I thought YouTube® was already doing it.
No shit? Is there a way for admins to block instances?
I know I’m in the minority, but I think this is a bad thing. Maybe it will have a benefit of preventing some people from finding misinformation, but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves, as well as more ok with censorship.
Expressing support for freedom of expression is normally a meaningless thing to do. Most people would agree that there’s nothing wrong about saying that abstract art is overrated, but most people would also agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed. The question isn’t whether free speech should be allowed, but where to draw the line. At what point does the harm of one’s speech outweigh the benefits of having a free exchange of ideas?
The question one should ask oneself in this scenario now is “What harm do the antivax movement’s ideas do?”. The decision of not vaccinating against covid-19 can mean the deaths of many people who could otherwise have lived, including the deaths of people who have nothing to do with it (caused by the potential overcrowding of hospitals and appearance of dangerous covid strains we don’t have a vaccine for yet). Is freedom of speech really more valuable than the lives of people?
One should also note that there’s a difference between the spread of dangerous opinions (subjective claims) and the spread of false and dangerous factual information (objective claims). The banning of the later is a lot more justified than the former, because bearing false witness does not contribute to a healthy discourse, on which democracy is built, but rather endangers it.
but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves, as well as more ok with censorship.
The slippery slope argument, which boils down to “If saying this is illegal, imagine what will happen in a few years! Restricting our speech will allow the restriction of even more speech, opening the way to the establishment of a totalitarian regime!”, does not hold up with reality. Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?
Edit: Obviously not the “sloppy slope argument”, but the slippery slope argument. XD
shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (how creative of me) shouldn’t be allowed
I would say that if someone can be proven to have said fire while knowing full well that there wasn’t a fire, they could be prosecuted. But if they genuinely believed there was a fire, they should not. Also, it would be incredibly dangerous if you could somehow prevent anyone in a crowded building from shouting “fire” unless a fire was officially known to be occurring.
The slippery slope argument
The slippery slope fallacy fallacy. AKA the accusation of slippery slope to discredit an argument. It’s only a fallacy if you’re trying to form a syllogism. The fact is that some trends do get worse.
Would you say that most of Europe has become a reincarnation of Nazi Germany or is on its way towards it, just because denying the Holocaust and the expression of some other ideas is illegal?
Not at all. Just because some speech is banned doesn’t mean crazy amounts of speech will necessarily be banned. But sometimes you can see a trend toward something and be worried about it. Or worried about what it implies in a broader context.
Overall, I think the danger is that if speech can be banned, you better trust the people banning it. And I don’t know of anyone I trust with that power over society. As an example, Youtube recently banned Russian opposition leader Navalny. Unfortunately, Youtube can and does censor content as it pleases, and there’s not much point being mad about it. The only solution is to support alternatives.
deleted by creator
The problem is who gets to decide whats misinformation. In this case its a private company that is completely unaccountable. And that makes it very easy for them to delete a channel they dont like, claiming that its because of covid misinformation.
Except YouTube has already been censoring information. I know that YouTube has forced ML creator Hakim make some of his videos unlisted. Since we are already on that slippery slope, I am fine with YouTube also coming down on anti-vaxxers.
deleted by creator
How does censoring misinformation contribute to people being less able to think for themselves in your opinion?
I think the best situation is when people are exposed to a wide range of ideas and are able to think through them and decide what they makes sense. Maybe I shouldn’t have so much faith in people, but I don’t know what else there is to have faith in—those who happen to have power over information? Youtube’s algorithm?
Moreover, people just being exposed to antivax ideas doesn’t make them into antivaxers, it’s when they get sucked into echo chambers and aren’t exposed to real attempts to convince them of the opposite. I know multiple people who were vaccine skeptical and very quickly were convinced to get the vaccine as soon as someone actually tried to convince them by appealing to their ability for reason. The people who won’t hear reason are the people who have made an identity out of being antivax. And censoring them will only reinforce that identity.
None of it holds up to scrutiny and it’s just a way of enabling people’s worst impulses instead of actually fostering critical thinking.
That is why I think it is possible for people to come to their senses when exposed to a variety of ideas and reason. The real problem in my estimation is that most people don’t have a conscious method for discerning truth. People are taught lots of information, but not told why they should believe that information other than that a teacher said it. Then, when they see someone who looks and talks like an authority, they assume what they say must be true because that’s the only method they’ve ever had for finding truth. If only they would hold out on forming an opinion until they actually understood an issue. But, I do think people tend to come to their senses when exposed to enough sides of something.
deletion might still be better than not doing anything.
It might be a good thing in the small immediate sense, but the fact that information is so easily censored, with such strong political will, I think is a bad thing for humanity.
I do not see it that way, it is much more dangerous to spread false and conspiracy news on serious issues, because it not only puts the lives of those who believe this at risk, but also that of others, as is the case with COVID. Likewise, we suffer a large part of the population from the consequences of fake-news interested in politics, social and economic affairs. It is not that some stupid believe anything, but the consequences it can have on the rest of the population.
I would support a democracy of idiots over a benevolent king. I support free speech of idiots over benevolent censors.
It’s not this. Of course, freedom of expression must prevail and everyone believes what they want. But everyone’s freedom has limits at the point when it conflicts with that of others. It doesn’t bother me that someone believes that the world is 6000 years old and started with Adam and Eve, but when they manage to implement this belief in teaching as a valid theory. The main thing in a society is to eliminate ignorance, not to encourage it, because without knowledge there is no freedom.
So free speech should be limited if people use it irresponsibly? Would you say the same of other types of freedom? If people vote for something harmful is it justified to remove their voting rights?
deleted by creator
