Youtube sucks the biggest balls

"

Chadwixx wrote:

"

awesome999 wrote:

From what I understand lying in media is not punishable.

It depends if they are journalists or entertainers. The people on CNN are journalists, held to a higher standard. While Sean Hannity is an entertainer and not held to those standards. Most people on fox are entertainers.

Remember the indian and the kid who went face to face. CNN lost 30-40 million over that one, they completely fabricated the event. The truth was his group was waiting for the late school bus to pick them up at that spot and the drunk guy came over and got into his face.

Kyle is also going to sue the hell out of them. Not associated with the lawsuit but CNN never mentioned the "victims". One of the dead guys should of been in jail for 5 counts of sexual battery on 9-11 yr olds. The family who took him got their sons raped. The other guy beat up his grandma multiple times.

Every media outlet has an agenda, to label only one side bias is foolish

Now ask him what ethnicity the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot were, and where he got that information. =^[.]^=

"

Chadwixx wrote:

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

"

Chadwixx wrote:

People seem to think misinformation only comes from one side LMAO

Rule of thumb - the more authoritative a source is the more they'll lose if it is revealed that they lie. Meanwhile small blogs and anonymous users can lie to you all they want and will never be punished, other than sometimes getting their posts deleted and accounts locked.

CNN disagree's. They have consistently lied, sued multiple times, ratings at an all time low yet they arent changing.

The highest rated late night talk show (johnny carson types) is now greg guttfeld on fox.

You seem to be drinking the coolaide on "misiformation", anything they/you disagree with is labeled that way. Like calling people a racist.

You say listen to the doctors, i posted the doctor who invented Mrna (not corona vaccine, you guys made that part up to discredit) and you laughed.

Misinformation is at an all time high and you dont even realize your a victim :(

And you are not biased, good sir? I posted a through information about your "doctor". I also remember saying that what I posted won't change your opinion at all and I was completely right. You are way over the deep end to care anymore, all you want is for your worldview to be the correct one. Sorry but its not that easy.

Also, so nice of you to bring up the usual divide and say I believe in CNN when I never even said a word about them. What are you afraid of? People who are quick to label and condemn are usually very afraid of something.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

And you are not biased, good sir? I posted a through information about your "doctor". I also remember saying that what I posted won't change your opinion at all and I was completely right. You are way over the deep end to care anymore, all you want is for your worldview to be the correct one. Sorry but its not that easy.

Also, so nice of you to bring up the usual divide and say I believe in CNN when I never even said a word about them. What are you afraid of? People who are quick to label and condemn are usually very afraid of something.

Deja vu.

Funny thing is I don't even watch TV. For news I rely on Reuters - dry and to the point information - just the way I like it.

But we gotta keep the black and white narrative going! If I disagree with Mr. Chadwixx I definitely watch CNN, hate FOX News, got a useless degree and am currently bitter and unemployed. Among many other things I bet.

"

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