"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/01/28/bullshit-a...

I personally don't buy this "free speech" speech, since free speech applies to the government, not to a public entity.

Youtube is free to make any rules they want and to enforce them however they want. They don't owe you anything and you can stop using it at any point in time (which I actually encourage you to do - but for a completely different set of reasons). You watch content, they show you ads and get money for the ads. That's it. You don't like the content or the lack of content you are free to, again, move to another site/platform/social network/etc.

It's amazing to me how much people are willing to entertain this charade that was started after the elections. It's also amazing to see the mental gymnastics involved to explain some of the things that were done and/or said. This is not 4D chess.

Youtube should get to do what they want as long as they operate withing the laws of the countries they are running their service within. I still have not seen the law that was broken here.

But what if it’s not as simple as “this side is making everything up, and the other side is 100% honest”.

You could easily turn that argument around and say that the right is going to great lengths to have their evidence investigated, while the left is just trying to make it go away. Surely “energy expended” is not a great metric for judging bullshit.

Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not making a “free speech” argument. Of course YouTube is free to curate whatever they want to, and competitors are free to provide alternatives for users that want that. THAT is free speech.

My argument was not “YouTube can’t legally do this”, it was more trying to appeal to this notion some folks have that a topic of discussion merely existing is dangerous, and that somehow removing all of that discussion will eliminate that danger.

It also removes any possibility of the side removing the discussion from ever having to assess the validity of their facts, which logically and naturally means the other side will never have to assess and defend the validity of their argument either. Hello tribalism.

You don’t disprove flat earthers by telling them they aren’t allowed to ever talk about the shape of the earth, because naturally people will come up with the idea on their own, time and again, and forbidding it only lends itself to greater conviction.

Instead, sufficiently convince a large enough group of people through reason and evidence that the Earth is round, and those few people who willingly ignore the evidence will be too small and too fringe to be dangerous.

The danger is not in asking questions, the danger is in forbidding questions.

I agree with you on some points but as always there is a lot of nuance to things.

> But what if it’s not as simple as “this side is making everything up, and the other side is 100% honest”.

I don't think there are many absolute truths. Even in science, things that we thought were true change - all the time. It's not about being 100% correct. As far as honesty goes there is always an agenda.

> You could easily turn that argument around and say that the right is going to great lengths to have their evidence investigated, while the left is just trying to make it go away. Surely “energy expended” is not a great metric for judging bullshit.

I disagree. I don't see this as a right or a left issue. I see it as working with each other for an outcome that makes everyone's lives better. Energy expended is a great metric. Can you explain why all Americans had to pay attention all day, every day, to what I would describe as at best a clown? Why not put the American people ahead and do the right thing? Why did we turn an institution that is supposed to be one of the foundations of this country into a reality show?

There is a time and a place to investigate and ask questions and a time and a place to just, you know, accept reality. There was ample time to do this before the elections. Before judging if youtube could of, should of, let's ask ourselves what are the possible outcomes here? You either damage out democracy and freedom or you damage our democracy and freedom. Great choices.

> Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not making a “free speech” argument. Of course YouTube is free to curate whatever they want to, and competitors are free to provide alternatives for users that want that. THAT is free speech. My argument was not “YouTube can’t legally do this”, it was more trying to appeal to this notion some folks have that a topic of discussion merely existing is dangerous, and that somehow removing all of that discussion will eliminate that danger.

You are free to discuss whatever you want. We are all free to talk about what we think happened, what should have happened, what is wrong with x and y. The fundamental problem is that when you come into my house and start arguing with me I have the right to kick you out. My house, my rules. Swap my house with youtube. That's all. I didn't attach any moral value of good or wrong to what they did. Content is moderated and "censored" all day, every day and nobody bats an eyelid. But because it's Google (ie BigTech) w/ youtube let's climb on our moral high horse and talk principles.

> Hello tribalism. You know this but I'll point it out anyway. If you think that all people have the same experience when they google for something or when they watch youtube you're in for a shock. The same machines that censor you, learn what you like and surface content that is similar. We are all already in a bubble.

Imagine, for a second, that you saw something concerning. For argument’s sake, say you saw your boss doing something you perceived to be illegal.

Imagine, then, that you were told that asking about those things was dangerous, because it would cause everyone to lose faith in who they work for.

Now imagine that HR or a PR firm comes, only after trying hard to convince you that you shouldn’t ask any questions at all, and then tells you that they investigated and found nothing wrong.

Then imagine that, while some of the explanation given made sense, some of it did not, and maybe led to more questions.

Finally, imagine then being told that not only should you no longer question, but that anyone caught talking about it would be removed.

Now, we don’t know that something illegal did or did not occur.

But be honest... would that scenario convince you that nothing illegal happened, and that you should move on as instructed?

Keyword being "perceived".

But let's examine the premise. Do I have any evidence of this act? Do I have sufficent expertise to determine if what I saw was actually illegal? Where are my biases? Can I argue my case in a coherent and believable manner?

and most importantly in this particular case, are there literally thousands of other people who contradict my position?

Let's say multiple people observed a pattern of suspicious acts over a period of time from this boss. Maybe it's a big company, and you have hundreds of accusers, and hundreds of defenders of the accused.

So, you naturally have some people with flimsy testimony and inherent bias, and others who clearly don't know the law or policy. Then you have a few with valid testimony that the defenders of the accused are able to convincingly refute.

But you're still left with a core group of people with legit questions, hopefully trying to determine wrongdoing in honest, good faith, and they received flimsy evidence and inaccurate testimony in response from the defense. This core group still has questions unanswered... muddied, by the obviously false testimonies from those with bias, but still their core questions remain.

Deciding, at that point, that all discussion is to be silenced, does nothing to prove either side.

My point, though, really was not to draw a direct analogy, but to try, perhaps unsuccessfully, to get you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who, in good faith, has genuine questions. And to then imagine being told that your questions are so fundamentally offensive on their face, that you shouldn't even be allowed to further ask or discuss them, and that any explanation, regardless of how thorough or how flimsy, should be accepted without further scrutiny.

I think anyone who is being honest would admit that this would do nothing to satisfy you of no wrongdoing, but instead would probably convince you there was wrongdoing. Which, frankly, is a terrible way for cases of illegality to be decided, no matter which side you're on.

Personally, I'm happy for the cases to be decided in the courts and not by some dumbarse with a youtube channel sputing obviouse nonsense.

I'm fine with people being able to post opinions, but as soon as you start making factual claims... back it up with some evidence.