Youtube sucks the biggest balls

Ok, tell me what you want and you can't find by simply searching it with google. I'll run the words for you, pick one of the results from the first page and be done with this nonsense.

"

Exile009 wrote:

Besides, studies are published in scientific journals. That isn't barred here.

Actually I wish that were true.

We cant discuss climate change or COVID for example... because I guess science is inflammatory?

I would disagree with that sentiment, but unfortunately GGG feels otherwise.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

simply searching it with google. I'll run the words for you, pick one of the results from the first page

Lol, for someone who talked big about misinformation and proper sources, this is your grand display of your methodology?!

You know you wouldn't be in this hole so bad if you'd just eaten some humble pie earlier. But no, you had to pretend yourself the authority on 'facts' and the 'obvious' and condescendingly dismiss and infantilize whole swathes of humanity. Well, you're in the hole now. Make the most of it.

Here's the requirements again -

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?...

And no, merely linking google search results won't cut it. If you want to take the moral high ground, then do the work of earning the position.

But like I said above, there is an easy way out - just eat some humble pie. Stop looking down on everyone. And stop taking your worldviews for granted.

Btw, as a light-hearted but also somewhat relevant personal aside, my favorite animal is the Peregrine Falcon. It's famous for being the fastest animal in the world. When it sees prey, it swoops down at over 300 km/hr to smash into and grab its prey. I'm also much more fond of cats over dogs, btw. ;)

Dude, I am a media analyst, this is literally my job. [Removed By Support]

1. Run through google
percentage of people believing in conspiracy theories

the second link is something I can't post here but it does show just how many conspiracy theorists are there in the world and their rough share among developed/developing countries

2. Run through google
censoring misinformation

again, the second link, a study which says what I've been saying - censorship is a short-term solution while "Focusing on understanding and studying the problem of misinformation, education and promotion of a virtuous use of social media and information" is a long-term one.

3. This is worthless. All censorship employed by social media and other websites is the same. I already said that a post with a link inside might disappear on Facebook as well.

but for the hell of it

Run through google
facebook covid censorship

the second result, it is something I am not allowed to say but it shows that if anything they should censor more

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

Dude, I am a media analyst, this is literally my job. [Removed By Support]

More condescension. Might as well answer it with some some then - you're not a media analyst, you're unemployed (by your own admission). [Removed By Support]

At least you've admitted you're not willing to do put in the effort now. So then eat some humble pie and stop talking down to everyone.

As for your google searches, I already told you you'd have to do better than that. Besides, for a media analyst, you seem remarkably ignorant about how google works. Did you perhaps forget that search results are personalized?

Come now, I know you can do better. But that would require you to care. Not for the rest of us, but at least for backing up your own ego? Provide the data. Provide the evidence. Don't tell us to 'do our own research' to back your claim.

And if you don't feel you can do that here, then you're kinda serving as an exhibit for some of the harm censorship causes. And no, you don't get to fall back on fallacious No True Scotsman arguments to weasel out of it.

Oh come on, that post was beautiful, why delete it? I completely expected the know-it-all to come up with the PM argument and he failed but I PMed him anyway because I am such a good guy.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

I completely expected the know-it-all to come up with the PM argument and he failed but I PMed him anyway because I am such a good guy.

Ironically, you're the one who's pretended to know better than others. I'm the one who's been arguing for respecting other people's maturity.

But I did get your links. And even they fail you -

1) Fails to show the majority believes in any of the conspiracy theories it asked about - in fact it shows the opposite! The only question on which there was a somewhat even split between believers and skeptics in countries concerned a certain controversial ... popularity contest for high office. And even on that it was a roughly even split. And for plenty of questions EVERY country had only a minority of people on board with the idea (climate change, aliens, aids, the moon landings). The results demolish your thesis.

Tbf, even you admitted it probably wouldn't be a majority. But you were still okay subjecting everyone to censorship in order to get back at this minority.

Good luck making the case for making the internet suck for everyone in order to combat a minority of people. And is it even effective? Let's see -



2) The second link concerns Covid alone, unlike the larger group of conspiracy theories covered by the survey mentioned above (which didn't cover Covid). It literally starts off admitting censorship isn't simply about misinformation -

"

These categories are not only often broader than the exceptions to the freedom of speech entrenched in legislations of democratic countries, but also implicitly vague and leave plenty of room to interpretation. Indeed, an analysis of content banned on social networks suggests that the moderation is often politically biased.

It then spends several paragraphs demolishing the "social media platforms are private companies" defense, using multiple lines of argument (deception, monopolization, vulnerability to state control).

Then it shifts to its main thesis of Covid misinformation -

"

medical topics such as COVID-19 may seem to belong to a different category—not political, but rather one of science, where information can be objectively judged based on scientific evidence. At a closer look, however, this does not seem to be the case.

It also acknowledges similar doubts to what some here have raised before ("who exactly defines and how which information is deemed to be false or harmful?"), although I'm not going to pursue that issue much as own case is less about health authorities than it is about the platforms doing the censoring. I'll grant the health authorities their needed leeway, but not the platforms.

But even setting aside the challenges of science, it ends that section of the study with an ominous line

"

other factors influence decisions to remove content. Questions about the commitment to the freedom of speech of the social media providers and risk of manipulation of public opinion are therefore relevant also in case of information about COVID-19.

It then opens the next section with this, which pretty much disparages your support for censorship -

"

censorship of scientific information does not seem to be an adequate solution to the problem of false medical news on social media, what then is a fitting remedy to the “infodemic”?

It then goes on about more education being a better approach (which is why you sent this link to me I suppose), which is funny because I never said a word against your support for digital literacy effort, just your supposedly stopgap solution of censorship until some vague future time when you're finally satisfied that it's no longer necessary (whenever that may be...). The article doesn't think highly of censorship either. Here's the very first line of the closing paragraph -

"

Although the censorship on social media may seem an efficient and immediate solution to the problem of medical and scientific misinformation, it paradoxically introduces a risk of propagation of errors and manipulation.

Given how completely this article demolishes your position, including with some arguments that even I didn't make (such as that it introduces its own errors and manipulations), I wonder if you even bothered to read it before sending it to me? Given how quick your message was, and that you admitted to getting it from a cursory google search, I suspect not. This is digital literacy? Really?! And I haven't even gone through the proper process of vetting the article for its sources, funding or other biases (notably the article is from just one author). I don't need to. The article itself contradicts you. And you didn't realize that cos you didn't bother reading it.



3) Your third link is a statement released by the govt. calling on Facebook to censor more. Gee, really?! What in The Maven's name were you hoping to show with this? How does this "show" anything? The third question was as follows -

"

prove YT's censorship has produced positive results.

This doesn't do that, doesn't even TRY to do that. It doesn't even address it!



So in short, you've yourself shown that 1) the majority of people in the 21 countries covered by your survey don't believe in the various conspiracy theories it asked them about. 2) Censorship has a whole bunch of issues, and apparently isn't thought well of even by the scientist whose article on it you sent me - and this is on something as scientific as Covid, let alone other kinds of conspiracy theories. 3) No proof of the efficacy of censorship was provided, merely a canned govt. statement calling on Facebook to "do more".

Bruh, you just played yourself. This is embarrassing. Give up.

Btw, if anyone else wants the links, I'd be happy to forward them on to you.

None of them are particularly long reads, don't worry.

And protip - don't bother questioning their findings or credibility. You don't need to. They THEMSELVES undermine his argument, so don't let him switch tracks.

You are going to bring this to the bitter end don't you? Ok then

"

Fails to show the majority believes in any of the conspiracy theories it asked about - in fact it shows the opposite! The only question on which there was a somewhat even split between believers and skeptics in countries concerned a certain controversial ... popularity contest for high office. And even on that it was a roughly even split. And for plenty of questions EVERY country had only a minority of people on board with the idea (climate change, aliens, aids, the moon landings). The results demolish your thesis.

The conspiracy theory that there is a shadowy entity controlling everything is the reason people refuse to believe in medicine and science. This is even more evident nowadays, because groups of like minded individuals can simply say that both scientists and doctors work for this entity. It is also the most ludicrous one because there is absolutely no way a single group of people controls every country in the world.

Your question was "You have to prove incapability among the majority of the population". You cannot get better than this

"

The second link concerns Covid alone, unlike the larger group of conspiracy theories covered by the survey mentioned above (which didn't cover Covid). It literally starts off admitting censorship isn't simply about misinformation -

This happens to be the thing that is most talked about and about which there are the most conspiracies. Also, the REASON Facebook and Youtube had to put the pedal to the metal and start censoring information. But bet you didn't know that either, what a surprise.

And I do believe you completely miss the point of this and similar studies - there are no other solutions which can deal with the problem. No immediate ones at least.

"

Prudence in using the Internet, including critical attitude towards information, should be inculcated as early as possible by parents and teachers, since the young may be more prone to fall prey to the strategies employed by the online communication platforms. What is related to this, efforts should be taken to introduce classes tackling these topics in school and university curricula as well as to develop research to increase understanding of the problems related to the use of social media, including the issue of misinformation, and its impact on society.

This literally says what I've been saying and what I labelled as long-term. There is no other solution. You yourself have none to offer. Do keep in mind that while the study bashes censorship it does NOT focus on misinformation and the damage it causes. It looks at one side of the coin.

But no worries, I will provide you with information about that soon enough.
Here is a little piece because you probably shouldn't read all of it:

"

In conclusion, this study reveals that as of September 2020, in both the the UK and the USA, fewer people would ‘definitely’ take a vaccine than is required for herd immunity, and that misinformation could push these levels further away from herd immunity targets. This analysis provides a platform to help us test and understand how more effective public health communication strategies could be designed and on whom these strategies would have the most positive impact in countering COVID-19 vaccine misinformation.

"

Your third link is a statement released by the govt. calling on Facebook to censor more. Gee, really?! What in The Maven's name were you hoping to show with this? How does this "show" anything?

What more do you want? Some rando asking for more censorship? I already stated which sources I find to be of the highest authority, you cannot go higher authority than this. I not only showed you that censorship, according to the govt, is necessary, the social networks need to do more of it.