I hope this applies also for content in other languages than English, there are helluva many Finnish antivaxxers spewing their garbage for example.
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.
YES. FINALLY. TOOK THEM LONG ENOUGH
Yes this is a good thing, but it was done too late.
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.
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.
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 points 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 sloppy 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?
I’d have to say I’m with the other commenters. If you know someone is lying, you tell them to shut up.
Youtube is shutting up a bunch of liars that don’t listen to people telling them to shut up. Youtube also has no responsibility whatsoever to carry anything they don’t like. We all understand it’s a corporation with whatever rules they like (as long as they’re not illegal), right?
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.
What more accountability do you believe they should have? They have to abide by the laws in the places they operate, but beyond that, they provide a free service and can operate on any kind of ruleset they like. I don’t agree with all their decisions, but they’re not beholden to us.
Judging by the amount of antivax stuff on some PeerTube instances, I thought YouTube® was already doing it.
