General > General Technical Chat

Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back

<< < (56/61) > >>

james_s:

--- Quote from: coppice on May 05, 2022, 10:33:44 pm ---So, you think they are going to crack down on all the garbage the US government has been spouting recently, that oscillates from month to month? I doubt it. I would be amazed if they did anything other than treat Orwell's works as operations manuals. Remember the US government has been doing things like labelling people who question how well we understand never before widely deployed technologies like mRNA pseudo-vaccines in the same way they label the people who question long term very well understood classes of true sterilising vaccines.

--- End quote ---

mRNA vaccines are not new, the technology was first developed as far back as the 1960s and has been studied over the next several decades, it has been used in animal vaccinations for years according to my vet and the Covid pandemic was motivation to further develop the technology. Calling it a "pseudo-vaccine" is silly, and based on what? That it isn't 100% effective? If you redefine the word "vaccine" to mean something that is 100% effective then no true vaccine exists. Yes any vaccine or other medication has risks, the long term risks take a long time to learn, but diseases also have risks and those risks also take a long time to learn. I really don't understand the controversy around the Covid vaccines, especially since the handful of people I've known that refuse to get it don't seem bothered by taking other medications, particularly some medications that are not approved and/or are known to have potentially serious side effects. I don't think opposition to the Covid vaccine is rational or scientific in any way, it is political, and rooted in the fact that people don't like being told what to do, myself included. If they had told that group that they were not allowed to get vaccinated they'd be lined up at the door with pitchforks and torches demanding a shot. The only reason there is pushback against the idiots that refuse to get it is that vaccines (of any sort) only work when a large enough segment of the population gets vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. My mom was around when the Polio vaccine was developed and remembers lining up in a big line as a nurse walked down the line and gave each person a jab. People trusted science back then and there was no pushback that she can recall, everyone just got it and countless lives were saved or improved by it.

coppice:

--- Quote from: james_s on May 05, 2022, 11:34:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: coppice on May 05, 2022, 10:33:44 pm ---So, you think they are going to crack down on all the garbage the US government has been spouting recently, that oscillates from month to month? I doubt it. I would be amazed if they did anything other than treat Orwell's works as operations manuals. Remember the US government has been doing things like labelling people who question how well we understand never before widely deployed technologies like mRNA pseudo-vaccines in the same way they label the people who question long term very well understood classes of true sterilising vaccines.

--- End quote ---

mRNA vaccines are not new, the technology was first developed as far back as the 1960s and has been studied over the next several decades, it has been used in animal vaccinations for years according to my vet and the Covid pandemic was motivation to further develop the technology. Calling it a "pseudo-vaccine" is silly, and based on what? That it isn't 100% effective? If you redefine the word "vaccine" to mean something that is 100% effective then no true vaccine exists. Yes any vaccine or other medication has risks, the long term risks take a long time to learn, but diseases also have risks and those risks also take a long time to learn. I really don't understand the controversy around the Covid vaccines, especially since the handful of people I've known that refuse to get it don't seem bothered by taking other medications, particularly some medications that are not approved and/or are known to have potentially serious side effects. I don't think opposition to the Covid vaccine is rational or scientific in any way, it is political, and rooted in the fact that people don't like being told what to do, myself included. If they had told that group that they were not allowed to get vaccinated they'd be lined up at the door with pitchforks and torches demanding a shot. The only reason there is pushback against the idiots that refuse to get it is that vaccines (of any sort) only work when a large enough segment of the population gets vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. My mom was around when the Polio vaccine was developed and remembers lining up in a big line as a nurse walked down the line and gave each person a jab. People trusted science back then and there was no pushback that she can recall, everyone just got it and countless lives were saved or improved by it.

--- End quote ---
Robert Malone did the first work towards an mRNA vaccine in 1987. So, I don't know what your 1960s reference might be. I call it a pseudo-vaccine because just a couple of years ago an mRNA vaccine was described as a gene therapy, and not a vaccine. Then the naming suddenly shifted when it was commercially convenient.

I was around when polio vaccines were launched, and had early inoculation with one of them. So early the first dose was injected, and by the second dose they had realised you can squirt it on a sugar cube. They were used with somewhat limited testing, but for a disease with truly awful consequences. I was at school with people who were debilitated for life by polio before those inoculations arrived. You can't compare the cost benefit tradeoff for treating polio with a disease like COVID.

ve7xen:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 06:27:12 pm ---If you feel you need an authority to tell you what is true and what is false, be my guest.  You will never, ever make me accept such an authority: I will make my own mind.
--- End quote ---

I guess you are responding to me here?


--- Quote ---If you insist that only information vetted by some arbitrary censor is allowed to be disseminated, I will oppose you.  It's that simple; free speech is that important.  In my own home country, it has already been lost to an alarming degree.
--- End quote ---

That is not what I am insisting. I am insisting that YouTube and similar have the right to choose not to host/publish whatever they want for whatever reason they want, and arguing that they don't have this right is absurd. It's a free hosting service provided by a private company. For the most part that's not what's actually happening though. They are taking even weaker action and just making it harder to find by not recommending it or including it in search results; the content is usually still available directly.

Free speech is that important, and I'm not arguing that it isn't. However, I do think those with the ears of the people, so to speak, have an ethical responsibility not to abuse that influence, and part of that is not saying things that are misleading or outright incorrect. In my view, that role falls to YouTube and so on in our current environment, so I have no problem with them choosing to become more ethical and strict on what they propagate, much like journalists are meant to. If folks want to spread their misleading and incorrect drivel, they can host it themselves and still reach their followers far easier than in decades past. This is not at all at odds with free speech; free speech is about freedom from persecution, not the 'freedom' to have someone else host and spread your speech for you.


--- Quote ---Am I the only one who has noted the lack of nuance in position in the things discussed in this thread?  That somehow, only two possibilities seem to exist?  That you either accept the Hunter Biden laptop proves Joe Biden is a crook, or you accept that it is a hoax?  Nothing exists in between.
"Either you are with us, or you are an enemy to be utterly destroyed before you destroy us."
--- End quote ---
I don't care about the Hunter Biden laptop and haven't really seen too many people commenting on that issue thankfully, because it is at best a diversion from the topic at hand. The source was extremely dubious, and I don't think it was compatible with journalistic ethics to publish about it (or at least about it's totally unverified contents) when it first came out because of how very suspicious the circumstances and timing of its surfacing were, and the fact that publishing it could easily influence the election which cannot be taken back with a retraction. Mouthing off about things like this when none of it has been verified is exactly what is eroding trust and integrity in journalism. Advocating for truth in reporting is directly at odds with this kind of mouth-running. Now some of it's been validated, at least they have something to ethically publish on, and the journalists you deride have done so in several prominent articles on what everyone can agree are top-tier sources of real journalism.


--- Quote ---There is no more search for the truth via journalism, only a demand that only factually verified non-offensive things should be allowed to be communicated. 
That the population should "trust media organizations and journalists to report exclusively on the truth [as] that is their role in society, and we should hold them to it", instead of considering journalism as a tool in discovering what is true and what is not; that it is for the journalists to report, and the readers to evaluate.
--- End quote ---

Why are you misquoting me to change the meaning of my statements? I did not say or suggest that the population 'should' trust journalists blindly, and in fact my statement was basically the opposite of how you have snipped my quote here. What I am saying is that journalists and journalism exist to report to us on their research into the truth so that we don't have to do that research ourselves. That is the one and only reason journalism exists: to provide a vetted secondary source of information on the events in the world so that we don't all have to do many duplicates of that same primary research. I am not saying this grants them the automatic and absolute trust of the people; it does not, and that is what I mean when I say we should 'hold them to it'; but that their job is to find and report on the truth and only the truth, and it is up to us as society to make sure they are doing it properly and ethically.

As it relates to the online platforms, I think the closest pre-Internet analogy that kind of works is with journalists / publishers, and the ethical considerations seem somewhat similar in my view. They are obviously not exactly the same thing, but there are a lot of parallels, and I think we are seeing the public start to call for similar standards of truth and ethics to be applied to the Internet publishers as we may previously have expected of book publishers. And similarly, there will always be counter-culture publishers and Internet platforms, and there's mostly nothing wrong with that.

Someone:

--- Quote from: ve7xen on May 06, 2022, 01:52:45 am ---I am insisting that YouTube and similar have the right to choose not to host/publish whatever they want for whatever reason they want, and arguing that they don't have this right is absurd. It's a free hosting service provided by a private company. For the most part that's not what's actually happening though.

...I think we are seeing the public start to call for similar standards of truth and ethics to be applied to the Internet publishers as we may previously have expected of book publishers. And similarly, there will always be counter-culture publishers and Internet platforms, and there's mostly nothing wrong with that.
--- End quote ---
That should all be pretty obvious to most people, cant believe it needs restating. Where it gets interesting is that these platforms want it both ways: "we choose who/what appears" while simultaneously "we are not responsible for what appears as it was someone else". Quickly gets political!

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: ve7xen on May 06, 2022, 01:52:45 am ---That is not what I am insisting. I am insisting that YouTube and similar have the right to choose not to host/publish whatever they want for whatever reason they want, and arguing that they don't have this right is absurd.
--- End quote ---

But Youtube gets legal protection as a Platform, but wants the benefits of being a Publisher too. This is the big legal delemma.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod