Youtube sucks the biggest balls

"

Exile009 wrote:

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.

They do? Even though they say exactly what I've been saying? Are you deliberately assuring others to make them not want to check the information themselves? What a sly move

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

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

Which admits you failed to prove it. Your own numbers are against you. Unless you don't know what a majority is...

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

Spoiler

"

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.

What are you even arguing here? "Prudence in using the internet"? "Critical attitudes towards information"? Bruh, no one is even arguing about education.

This is an argument over censorship. Your own article bashes censorship. You are not being asked to merely show misinformation exists, you are being asked to justify censorship. And you have failed miserably at it. This thread wasn't started cos someone was pissed at their digital literacy class, it was started cos EVERYONE is being subjected to more censorship, despite even your own data showing only a minority of people even believe in conspiracy theories - and so far you have also completely failed to prove, or even address, that censorship even helps. Even your latest paper only talks about Covid misinformation and what level of impact it has - it literally doesn't mention censorship even once in the entire paper! You're presuming censorship, taking it as the default. You don't get that privilege. You were asked to justify censorship. You have failed to do so repeatedly, and done everything possible to avoid it.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

"

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.

Lol, a govt. media statement asking vaguely for more censorship is 'proof'? And you consider yourself a digital literate? I don't want anyone merely asking for more censorship, I want proof that censorship works. Especially the one that YT is implementing, since that's what started this whole thread. You were given 3 explicit questions -

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

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

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

You've addressed one of them - which showed the opposite - and completely ignored the other two. Firstly failing the first point means you don't even have much of a leg to stand on to begin with, as you're pushing to change the internet for everyone in order to fight a minority. Second, you disingenuously did not even try to justify censorship by proving its efficacy, instead just banging on endlessly about misinformation existing. Thirdly you've also disingenuously continued to pretend as if this whole thing is about information despite repeated reminders that even non-factual content is being censored. And fourthly you continue to put your faith in the very corporations that you yourself blame for helping spread misinformation in the first place.

You have failed, and now you're just embarrassing yourself.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

"

Exile009 wrote:

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.

They do? Even though they say exactly what I've been saying? Are you deliberately assuring others to make them not want to check the information themselves? What a sly move

No they don't. That's a bald-faced lie. You have been defending censorship, while none of your articles support that. And it's a strange accusation to make that I'm encouraging people to not check the info themselves when I literally just offered it to them. Nor did I tell them not to check it.

Rather I said not to question their findings or the credibility of the institutions. The reason is because I know there is one here who'll latch on to some of the questions especially asked in the first article (the survey) and go on a rant about how they might actually be true (I had a particular forum member here in mind - it's for him that that request was made). I see that as a distraction, and especially I didn't want him to give you an escape route by allowing you to change the subject AGAIN (as if you're not trying to weasel out of this argument enough already) to discussing any of those conspiracy theories. In other words, there is someone here who might dispute whether all of those ideas are conspiracy, and I didn't want that to give you an opening to escape from being cornered as you are currently. Your own articles have caught you out, and I'd like to see the vice stay tight. I'm not here to dispute any of those things as conspiracies or not. Like the falcon, I have a sharp focus - the issue is the justification for censorship, and I simply wished to stay on topic, not allow you to weasel away again.

"

Which admits you failed to prove it. Your own numbers are against you. Unless you don't know what a majority is...

You not being able to understand the subject matter is not my problem. By the same token I could argue with a quantum physicist and in the end say that he failed to prove anything because I couldn't understand a thing.

"

This thread wasn't started cos someone was pissed at their digital literacy class, it was started cos EVERYONE is being subjected to more censorship, despite even your own data showing only a minority of people even believe in conspiracy theories.

You are straight up lying here. My data showed that in some countries, including supposedly first world ones, more than half of the population believes in the global conspiracy. Millions of people who have their own pull and cause their own problems.

"

and so far you have also completely failed to prove, or even address, that censorship even helps.

Good thing there isn't just a single study on the matter now, is it? I will send you one more, the last one because you are arguing from your own position - picking holes at what I say to prove that I am wrong. You haven't done anything constructive during the discussion, I am the one looking and presenting information to you. I am not here to be your teacher.

"

Lol, a govt. media statement asking vaguely for more censorship is 'proof'? And you consider yourself a digital literate? I don't want anyone merely asking for more censorship, I want proof that censorship works. Especially the one that YT is implementing, since that's what started this whole thread. You were given 3 explicit questions -

Another blatant lie. It is not a statement by a government media, it is a statement by a media critical of the government about a government statement. You try to spin this as some journalist's words. It is not

"

You have failed, and now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Same to you, my friend. I told you multiple times that you clearly don't have any clue what you are even arguing about. You showed me that you will do everything to prove your point, including lying.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

"

Which admits you failed to prove it. Your own numbers are against you. Unless you don't know what a majority is...

You not being able to understand the subject matter is not my problem. By the same token I could argue with a quantum physicist and in the end say that he failed to prove anything because I couldn't understand a thing.

"

This thread wasn't started cos someone was pissed at their digital literacy class, it was started cos EVERYONE is being subjected to more censorship, despite even your own data showing only a minority of people even believe in conspiracy theories.

You are straight up lying here. My data showed that in some countries, including supposedly first world ones, more than half of the population believes in the global conspiracy. Millions of people who have their own pull and cause their own problems.

"

and so far you have also completely failed to prove, or even address, that censorship even helps.

Good thing there isn't just a single study on the matter now, is it? I will send you one more, the last one because you are arguing from your own position - picking holes at what I say to prove that I am wrong. You haven't done anything constructive during the discussion, I am the one looking and presenting information to you. I am not here to be your teacher.

"

Lol, a govt. media statement asking vaguely for more censorship is 'proof'? And you consider yourself a digital literate? I don't want anyone merely asking for more censorship, I want proof that censorship works. Especially the one that YT is implementing, since that's what started this whole thread. You were given 3 explicit questions -

Another blatant lie. It is not a statement by a government media, it is a statement by a media critical of the government about a government statement. You try to spin this as some journalist's words. It is not

"

You have failed, and now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Same to you, my friend. I told you multiple times that you clearly don't have any clue what you are even arguing about. You showed me that you will do everything to prove your point, including lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVd5jF0mBYY

I love reading a nice reasonable first page on a thread, then skipping to the end and seeing a literal gladiatorial bloodbath of a post chain.

I wonder how much longer this thread will survive for lmao.

"

Zionyaru wrote:

then skipping to the end and seeing a literal gladiatorial bloodbath of a post chain.

Welcome to pvp in poe :D

"

Chadwixx wrote:

"

Zionyaru wrote:

then skipping to the end and seeing a literal gladiatorial bloodbath of a post chain.

Welcome to pvp in poe :D

Yeah, it's a great spectator sport.

It's pretty fun seeing people use the Rhetoric - Brutality - Bloodthirst 3 link to really spice up their arguments. Tbh I would personally run the setup with either Ruthless or Cruelty as a 4 link for maximum PvP potential, although I do appreciate that the mana cost might be a bit too much for some people's brains to handle.

Maybe we should establish a new conspiracy theory:

-You all know that when you log in to a game/service one of those captchas.
-Google knows that private companies are allowed to be authoritarian.
-Google requires a steady stream of relogins to feed the bot with instructions about roadsigns and housenumbers to educate it, thats why they accidently forget that you have cookies on your computer every other month.


That means:
-Google is happy.
-The company is happy because it gets its users constantly confirmed.

That also means:
-People that play League of Legends with their LoLspeech are responsible for programming your selfdriving car.
-I will never buy one of those because they will always have this stupid tendency to destroy themselvs in a ditch.
-Getting a temporary kickout from the captchagame is a given.

there no alternative for utub... nothin els