Youtube sucks the biggest balls

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

"

Uh huh. For someone so dedicated to 'facts', you seem rather reticent to back them up. Probably cos you subscribe to the same self-serving ethos that says you can call your opinions 'facts' and get away with it. And also partly because backing up said 'facts' would require you to actually do some work i.e. research, to find the evidence. But no, I'm not gonna let you go so easy.

Google digital literacy and see how many people are digitally literate and how many aren't. Its not hard. As with any other "literacy" you learn it. You can't immediately go to Facebook after you purchase your first phone and manage to find your way through the piles of fake news.

Bruh, we're not here to do your work for you. I said you'd be too lazy to do it, and you chose to prove me right?! Also, that isn't even what I asked of you.

Don't claim 'facts' if you can't back them up. If you want to wax eloquent about misinformation, how about misrepresentation? Cos so far all you've done is misrepresent your opinions as 'facts'. That's dishonest. Followed up by lazy.

This entire thread seems to be getting distractingly diverted into a discussion on just misinformation.

As a reminder, YT and other sites are NOT only censoring information. There's plenty of stuff being censored that aren't factual statements, merely personal expression. You could be discussing your thoughts on Star Trek online and suddenly you're silenced. And, ironically, also links to sources.

This is NOT just about misinformation. It's about online censorship in general.

"

Exile009 wrote:

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

"

Uh huh. For someone so dedicated to 'facts', you seem rather reticent to back them up. Probably cos you subscribe to the same self-serving ethos that says you can call your opinions 'facts' and get away with it. And also partly because backing up said 'facts' would require you to actually do some work i.e. research, to find the evidence. But no, I'm not gonna let you go so easy.

Google digital literacy and see how many people are digitally literate and how many aren't. Its not hard. As with any other "literacy" you learn it. You can't immediately go to Facebook after you purchase your first phone and manage to find your way through the piles of fake news.

Bruh, we're not here to do your work for you. I said you'd be too lazy to do it, and you chose to prove me right?! Also, that isn't even what I asked of you.

Don't claim 'facts' if you can't back them up. If you want to wax eloquent about misinformation, how about misrepresentation? Cos so far all you've done is misrepresent your opinions as 'facts'. That's dishonest. Followed up by lazy.

I am not going to share any link because I want you to do your own research. It all starts with the advent of the Internet and then of social media. Nowadays we are more connected and receive way more information than 50 years ago. This necessitates a new set of skills to be able to find the necessary information instead of getting lost in the sea of misinformation. The pandemic increased this process further because it forced us to stay at home more.

Now there are talks about creating an entire school subject dedicated to digital literacy. Digital literacy trainings for the elderly. Specific bots which help with important questions. It is a pretty fascinating topic. A pretty massive one too. You can start with Wikipedia. Although it is not the most reliable source, the information there is easy to understand.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

I am not going to share any link because I want you to do your own research.

Followed by a whole lot more condescension. Here, let me fix that for you -

"

I am not going to share any link because I don't want to put in the work to back up my claims.

And I know what digital literacy is btw. I've taken courses in digital literacy (from the Poynter Institute, creators of the International Fact-Checking Network). So this is yet more condescension - and not just against me, but the majority of the human race. I didn't ask you for a definition of digital literacy, not that you even provided that since you're still trying to palm off the responsibility for backing up your claims on others. I asked you to -

"

back up your claim that people are incapable online and need censorship like YT's to protect them, preferably also that YT's censorship has actually achieved what you believe it has.

There are several parts to that -

1) You have to prove incapability among the majority of the population.

2) You have to prove censorship protects from said incapability.

3) You have to prove YT's censorship has produced positive results.

All with cited data from authoritative sources, of course. We wouldn't want you to be spreading misinformation now, would we?...

1. Why the majority? Its pretty obvious that the conspiracy theorists are not the majority, but they are growing in numbers. Even if we say millions that is still millions too many.

2. Censorship is a short-term solution to the problem. Certain websites and information needs to be censored. In fact, I believe it is not censored quickly enough because with enough exposure every conspiracy can gain major momentum. Of course, there is a long-term solution too - education. But while we educate the next generation there is still the massive problem of said millions of conspiracy theorists.

3. Before said censorship YouTube and Facebook were one of the two major sources of conspiracy spread. What do you propose they should do then? No censorship and let the tumor grow?

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

1. Why the majority? Its pretty obvious that the conspiracy theorists are not the majority, but they are growing in numbers. Even if we say millions that is still millions too many.

2. Censorship is a short-term solution to the problem. Certain websites and information needs to be censored. In fact, I believe it is not censored quickly enough because with enough exposure every conspiracy can gain major momentum. Of course, there is a long-term solution too - education. But while we educate the next generation there is still the massive problem of said millions of conspiracy theorists.

3. Before said censorship YouTube and Facebook were one of the two major sources of conspiracy spread. What do you propose they should do then? No censorship and let the tumor grow?

1) Because you're imposing changes that don't affect a minority, and don't even affect a majority of people. They affect EVERYONE. Every. Single. Person. You don't have a leg to stand on if you believe it's okay to ban all knives in order to prevent any stabbings. A cure worse than the poison is no cure at all. I gave you an easier task - I didn't ask you to show everyone is incapable, I said majority.

Also because you're still looking down on everyone who isn't you or people who agree with you. A reality check would do your character a lot of good.

Btw, "it's pretty obvious"? IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS?! What kind of self-respecting defender of the truth goes all 'IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS'?! This is what I meant when I said you're just using the word 'facts' to elevate your opinions.

2) Opinion. So much opinion. Even your long-term solution is opinion, as it is based on a precedent that you still have failed to establish. With elitist attitudes like yours, I'm not even sure if you'll ever think people are 'educated' enough, unless a day comes when everyone just echoes your thoughts.

And need I remind you that you're also censoring plenty of stuff that isn't conspiracy theories - stuff that isn't even information in the first place. This isn't just about misinformation, and no matter how much you try to ignore that it will not be forgotten. Your 'cure' impedes all sorts of conversation.

Your duplicitous tactics are not getting anywhere. They're obvious and will be called out everytime.

3) Like I said, more duplicitous tactics. First establish your premise. Hell you even mentioned a solution, your vaunted education. Educate all you want then. But it's not your place to force down a 'solution' to an issue you haven't even properly established in the first place, that's worse than said issue. You think calling the stuff you don't like a 'tumor' makes your point? What do you think the others in this thread feel about your censorship? Your solution to said 'tumor' is to chug down a whole jug of drain cleaner.

Oh, and here's another reminder that you're putting your faith in the very corporations that you blame for being the biggest purveyors of the problem in the first place. Rather self-contradictory that. If Youtube and Facebook are so bad, what makes you have such confidence in them for this?

You're literally trusting a company that's been found trying to manipulate people over and over again - and those are just the times it was caught!

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds

Now stop wasting time and weaseling out of your responsibility. You think I'm not wise to your shenanigans? Do the work, or accept the lesson in humility.

You've looked down on the populace throughout this thread. Earn that privilege

Since we're on the next page, and the above doesn't even respond to all elements of the challenge, I'll copy over the requirements -

1) You have to prove incapability among the majority of the population.

2) You have to prove censorship protects from said incapability.

3) You have to prove YT's censorship has produced positive results.

All with cited data from authoritative sources, of course. We wouldn't want you to be spreading misinformation now, would we?...

1. Are you serious? If we take your knife analogy - if the knife wielder uses it inappropriately this knife is taken away from him. Knife is information in this case. If you use it inappropriately - you get censored. This is the idea. Learn your analogies before you try to use them.

2. Once again, you can't be serious. Censoring something harmful is not an opinion. It is not something new. It is not some novel concept that is implemented for the first time. Here is a spoiler alert for you: not every information is good information. Not every information deserves to be shared and become popular. The only problem is that the automatic algorithms are not advanced enough to properly remove it, which I already admitted.

3. I have not properly established an issue? Are you not aware of the world around you? Are you not aware of misinformation and the harm it does? Guess I was right when I said awhile ago that you have no clue what you are talking about.

"

You're literally trusting a company that's been found trying to manipulate people over and over again - and those are just the times it was caught!

What? This is supposed to be some revelation? Here is a new revelation for you - YouTube and Facebook are fine with misinformation being spread on their platforms. They are fine because it brings them traffic, it makes them money. They had to be forced to start actually doing something good - censoring misinformation. You are acting like censoring is something YouTube and Facebook came up with themselves - it is not. It is something that they need to do if they want their reputation to be kept afloat.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

1. Are you serious? If we take your knife analogy - if the knife wielder uses it inappropriately this knife is taken away from him. Knife is information in this case. If you use it inappropriately - you get censored. This is the idea. Learn your analogies before you try to use them.

2. Once again, you can't be serious. Censoring something harmful is not an opinion. It is not something new. It is not some novel concept that is implemented for the first time. Here is a spoiler alert for you: not every information is good information. Not every information deserves to be shared and become popular. The only problem is that the automatic algorithms are not advanced enough to properly remove it, which I already admitted.

3. I have not properly established an issue? Are you not aware of the world around you? Are you not aware of misinformation and the harm it does? Guess I was right when I said awhile ago that you have no clue what you are talking about.

"

You're literally trusting a company that's been found trying to manipulate people over and over again - and those are just the times it was caught!

What? This is supposed to be some revelation? Here is a new revelation for you - YouTube and Facebook are fine with misinformation being spread on their platforms. They are fine because it brings them traffic, it makes them money. They had to be forced to start actually doing something good - censoring misinformation. You are acting like censoring is something YouTube and Facebook came up with themselves - it is not. It is something that they need to do if they want their reputation to be kept afloat.

Looks like someone is still too lazy. ;)

1) "Inappropriately" lol? According to you? Cute little rhetorical trickery there, but you're still childishly transparent. In this case, you've presumed guilt. With information, you've presumed misinformation. With knives, you've presumed murder. No, such weak tactics won't work on me. And no amount of faux outrage is gonna get you across the line. Save that for Twitter.

2) I notice you're still pretending everything is about information lol. Btw, did I ever tell you I think your ideas are "harmful"? Cos I do. Touche! ;)

Still waiting for you to establish that precedent mon ami. Tick tock!

3) Ah yes, now you're falling back on Twitter tactics. The whole outraged 'I can't believe you don't share my opinion' routine. Cute. But transparent.

Doesn't change the elitism, condescension and now laziness on display.

"

You are acting like censoring is something YouTube and Facebook came up with themselves - it is not.

And you are acting like the righteous hand of god is guiding them. They're censoring as per their own visions fyi. A regime plenty of people, including most in this thread, have called out - as 'sucking the biggest balls'.

Even you claim that "YouTube and Facebook are fine with misinformation being spread on their platforms" and yet you believe in them censoring stuff?! Seems like one needs only to practice censorship of any kind to win your approval.

Still waiting to see you back up that elitism with some real research. ;)

1. It is not hard to prove whether a statement is true or not. Or whether a website is used to spread misinformation or not. If you argue that information is being deleted and accounts locked without proper investigation - this is not a real punishment. People can still make new accounts and post again. I myself posted a forbidden link through Facebook and it got deleted. Then I simply shared it through another means.

The point here is not to overexpose unreliable information. Or to use your knife analogy - there is no reason to let the people who wave knives around and talk about the end of the world on the streets.

2. Well, if your ideas amount to "lets not censor anything and let cults similar to the ones in the last century form online, but this time with thousands and millions of members" my ideas amount to "some Youtube posts being deleted which is not as important as the general idea and initiative behind it".

3. Once again, are you aware of how harmful misinformation is? For someone who claims to be educated on the matter you seem to not care at all about its long lasting effects. So, if you like questions answer this one - do you believe that spreading misinformation that not only erodes the trust in public institutions but also in medicine and science itself is fine?

"

And you are acting like the righteous hand of god is guiding them. They're censoring as per their own visions fyi. A regime plenty of people, including most in this thread, have called out - as 'sucking the biggest balls'.

Wow, I can't believe how truly misinformed you are. Facebook and YouTube censorship loses them money. It is not beneficial to them. Conspiracy theorists simply move to platforms that are less regulated. The big corps lose traffic. Does this fit with your worldview of corporations controlling the world? If this is the case why would they do something that harms them?