FranLab is getting evicted

[Simon]

censoring content based on the author, instead of the content itself

I agree that the ideal is not to do that, but if someone is consistently a nutjob then what are the chances that this one time they will be right? It could happen, but the probability is it won't. If you give everyone the benefit of the doubt then you waste an inordinate amount of resources hiding the better stuff, don't you? And because the conspiracy theory stuff is better received, allowing that to propagate unchecked just increases the number of people taken in.

I think this is one area where we cannot have either extreme, but positioning towards one end is better than plonking down in the middle.

People who clearly make it their business to be dishonest to the point their chosen profession threw them out are not worthy, if the bar is well one day he may be right even though he is know to be by profession a lying crook then no one will get their stuff thrown out. However in Youtube universe when a guy tries to point out that this person has been professionally discredited and is telling obvious lies (well obvious to people with normal levels of intelligence) his video get's banned, it just gets worse! People do already get banned, but on youtube it seems to be 50/50 as to if it's the lyer on the one exposing the syer.

[Towger]

Now back to our regularly scheduled program already in progress....

Her last two videos are of the Big Clive 'take apart cheap tat' genre.  Will she she be happy with how the big bad algorithm suggests them to potential viewers?

[m k]

Will you stop trolling? we are not talking about the effectiveness of masks in the covid context.

Are you taking something personally?

"You" there was an academic bystander making observations.

[nctnico]

Will you stop trolling? we are not talking about the effectiveness of masks in the covid context.

fact: man who is not a doctor claims to be one
fact: he lied!
Fact: the already discredited individual claims that a face mask used by doctors all over the world, a commonly used everyday item will basically suffocate you.
fact: what he said is a lie. That is all the point I was making, what the hell are you on about?

So are you saying that there is scientific uncertainty about whether or net an item used for many decades without problem is suddenly going to start sufocating people?

No sane person is claiming the latter. But what can be questioned is the effectiveness of using face masks by the general public without the required training on proper usage, is actually going to be helpfull. And this circles back to wanting answers for questions that don't have an immediate answer. Governments are made up of people and they coerced answers from health experts that just didn't know so just gave an answer that is likely to be accepted. And then the nay-sayers, complot theorists, etc come in abusing the knowledge vacuum to start spreading FUD. Given the widely varying governmental requirements nobody really knew whether or not using face masks was effective. At some point we didn't need to wear facemasks in the NL while in Germany the FFP2 masks where required. Go figure 

[james_s]

When you have someone claiming to be a doctor telling people that a facemask will kill you due to the CO2 you will breath back in you have a problem.

What's the problem?
If somebody is dumb enough to actually believe that, there's no helping them. If you silence that voice, they'll just actively seek another voice that tells them the same thing because it's what they want to hear. Silencing them also gives them legitimacy, it gives the appearance that they were speaking the truth that someone doesn't want someone to hear.

Telling lies is absolutely protected free speech. You can't make incorrect claims about a specific person, that's slander, but there's no law against lying.

[sokoloff]

The core problem is that the general public wants answers. Doesn't matter if the answer makes sense or is right/wrong. In the past this was filled in by religion. During the past decades modern media like TV and more recently, internet has taken over that role.

Just look at TV when a dissaster happens. You get an endless amount of talking heads, most of which are self appointed experts, spouting their wild theories & speculations simply to give people the sense the situation is being handled.

I don't think they're trying to give people a sense that it's being handled. In fact, that might work against their goals, which I think are to maximize viewing minutes [and ads watched].

One of my favorite self-owns on the exaggeration angle:
 

[AVGresponding]

And you have just fallen for the trap.

No, my post was about the fact that science provides no facts or truths.  You yourself wrote "thunderfoot's video explaining the truth".  Truth based on what?

I simply stated that there was this nutty guy that was firstly a lyer and a fraud before he even started talking about masks, what he had to say about masks is easily found to be yet another lie.

Problem is, all those adjectives are opinions, not verifiable facts.  Especially "Easily found to be", when I just linked to a recent study that explicitly says we do not have reliable data on this.  See?

Just because you (or I) feel something is obviously true, does not make it objectively true.

My point is, whatever you think is obviously the truth or obviously a lie, is relative to your opinion.  If you start censoring based on that, no matter how good intentions you have, it will sooner or later devolve into a corrupt system where only correct opinions are allowed.  No such censoring system has ever, in the known history, been able to avoid becoming a corrupt one.  Not even the academic ones.

The most dangerous path is when you start censoring content based on the author, instead of the content itself.  It is itself a corrupt method, anti-scientific, because instead of the content of the message, it examines the messenger.

As a media, the only correct option is to avoid having to mark posts "true" or "false"; and not to try and filter or censor them using "truth" as a criteria.

Will you stop trolling? we are not talking about the effectiveness of masks in the covid context.

fact: man who is not a doctor claims to be one
fact: he lied!
Fact: the already discredited individual claims that a face mask used by doctors all over the world, a commonly used everyday item will basically suffocate you.
fact: what he said is a lie. That is all the point I was making, what the hell are you on about?

So are you saying that there is scientific uncertainty about whether or net an item used for many decades without problem is suddenly going to start sufocating people?

Context is everything; while the claims of this YT charlatan are obviously (to anyone with basic logic skills) false, put a mask on and then run up (and I mean run, not walk) a few flights of stairs. You will find yourself oxygen deprived.



EDIT: Just a quick edit to point out this isn't due to breathing CO₂ back in, it's airflow restriction.

[jonovid]

when the talking heads seen on live video becomes 110% artificial & scientific truth becomes yet another lie.
because of opinions, factfailure to maximize viewing. and ads watched. no problem if no one believes it is a problem.
so what happens if a snake trys to swallow itself. anything with one eye has no depth perception.  fuzzy logic becomes fuzzyfacts.

[EEVblog]

So it is fairly obvious that this video was pure lies. But youtube let it stand.

You have to be willing to accept that. There is absolutely no practical way to ban "incorrect" people and not have the system abused, ever. That system has been proven that it can't work.
You have to find another way.
Like I said, the way the Twitter Community Notes system works is the best compromise system I've seen so far.

[EEVblog]

When you have someone claiming to be a doctor telling people that a facemask will kill you due to the CO2 you will breath back in you have a problem. If thunderfoot can find out that the guy was actually struck off for malpractice I think youtube can. But thunderfoot's video explaining the truth was taken down while the fake doctors video remained despite his best attempts to explain it to youtube. These are the same facemasks that surgeons wear for hours to do operations. You need humans in the loop, algorithms can't do it and a free service cannot pay enough quality humans to moderate.

You've just described the Twitter Community Notes system.

[Simon]

When you have someone claiming to be a doctor telling people that a facemask will kill you due to the CO2 you will breath back in you have a problem.

What's the problem?
If somebody is dumb enough to actually believe that, there's no helping them. If you silence that voice, they'll just actively seek another voice that tells them the same thing because it's what they want to hear. Silencing them also gives them legitimacy, it gives the appearance that they were speaking the truth that someone doesn't want someone to hear.

Telling lies is absolutely protected free speech. You can't make incorrect claims about a specific person, that's slander, but there's no law against lying.

Yes, unfortunately, science cannot sue for slander.

[Simon]

Will you stop trolling? we are not talking about the effectiveness of masks in the covid context.

fact: man who is not a doctor claims to be one
fact: he lied!
Fact: the already discredited individual claims that a face mask used by doctors all over the world, a commonly used everyday item will basically suffocate you.
fact: what he said is a lie. That is all the point I was making, what the hell are you on about?

So are you saying that there is scientific uncertainty about whether or net an item used for many decades without problem is suddenly going to start sufocating people?

No sane person is claiming the latter. But what can be questioned is the effectiveness of using face masks by the general public without the required training on proper usage, is actually going to be helpfull. And this circles back to wanting answers for questions that don't have an immediate answer. Governments are made up of people and they coerced answers from health experts that just didn't know so just gave an answer that is likely to be accepted. And then the nay-sayers, complot theorists, etc come in abusing the knowledge vacuum to start spreading FUD. Given the widely varying governmental requirements nobody really knew whether or not using face masks was effective. At some point we didn't need to wear facemasks in the NL while in Germany the FFP2 masks where required. Go figure 

Now you are at it! we were talking free speech, now we are talking about something else. Humans have such short attention spans... A line has to be drawn somewhere, lets start with the low hanging fruit. And yes there is a problem with this stuff, even if "no sane person" would believe it, when this stuff is unchallenged it starts to set a new baseline of what reality is for many people. And we all have to live with these people. It's happened before with disastrous consequences. You will find that there are plenty of people in society that are not that sane. Remember once upon a time people who were certainly sane were being put to death because they had sane ideas, the stupid masses lead by those that ran a fantasy cult which could only exist because of adherence of the masses were murdering people who would otherwise advance knowledge an civilization. We sort of go over that a while ago but humans have not changed that much.

[.RC.]

You will find that there are plenty of people in society that are not that sane.

Don't they become psychologists, lawyers, politicians, bleeding heart hypocrites, everyone is a victim (except the people that stand on their own two feet), etc? 

I often wondered, if the US constitution was being written with the knowledge of today, the free speech portion, would they have made it so it would be forced upon the likes of youtube and so on?

But with rights come responsibilities and there seem to be plenty who want the rights, but not the responsibility that goes with it.

I certainly do not like the way youtube operates, but there are many many mega corporations the same.

[m k]

put a mask on and then run up (and I mean run, not walk) a few flights of stairs. You will find yourself oxygen deprived.



EDIT: Just a quick edit to point out this isn't due to breathing CO₂ back in, it's airflow restriction.[/color][/font][/b]

You may waste your breath, do it differently next time.
Start breathing abnormally deep and continue doing so when running.
In case you have to think your breathing too much check your steps also.

I was once using a demolition hammer against concrete in pretty small space.
It was under a staircase where I had dust insulated few cubic meters.
There deep breathing through ffp something mask was not enough pretty fast.
Isolating eye mask was also fogging, from inside.
(and then there are those old coal mines)

[sokoloff]

A line has to be drawn somewhere, lets start with the low hanging fruit. And yes there is a problem with this stuff, even if "no sane person" would believe it, when this stuff is unchallenged it starts to set a new baseline of what reality is for many people. And we all have to live with these people. It's happened before with disastrous consequences. You will find that there are plenty of people in society that are not that sane. Remember once upon a time people who were certainly sane were being put to death because they had sane ideas, the stupid masses lead by those that ran a fantasy cult which could only exist because of adherence of the masses were murdering people who would otherwise advance knowledge an civilization. We sort of go over that a while ago but humans have not changed that much.

Inside this line of thinking is the problem. When "everyone knew the world was flat" some people, who appeared to the people of time to be crazy, were arguing that it was round. What should happen in that moment? Should the speech of those crazies who think the world is round be squashed as the low-hanging fruit of the patently crazy?

Ideas go from crazy and obviously wrong to mainstream with some regularity.

[PlainName]

The answer is: hindsight and a time machine. And perhaps some betting slips.

[NiHaoMike]

Given the widely varying governmental requirements nobody really knew whether or not using face masks was effective.

There's plenty of scientific evidence that the good ones are effective, cheap or improvised ones less so but still better than nothing.

[Simon]

I often wondered, if the US constitution was being written with the knowledge of today, the free speech portion, would they have made it so it would be forced upon the likes of youtube and so on?

But with rights come responsibilities and there seem to be plenty who want the rights, but not the responsibility that goes with it.

I certainly do not like the way youtube operates, but there are many many mega corporations the same.

I think that when it comes to putting things online etc it should be classed as publishing and come under different rules. Saying what you like is one thing, Your personal opinion should be your affair, air it with your mates down the pub, but as soon as you want to start broadcasting and publishing that crap to the masses then you better be prepared to deal with the consequences.

[sokoloff]

The original framers (and I tend to agree) thought that the rights of speech and press were equally worthy of protection.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Simon]

The original framers (and I tend to agree) thought that the rights of speech and press were equally worthy of protection.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The other way of looking at it is that sure, have your free speech, but lies shall not be tolerated. In the same way that free speech lets you slander someone who may sue to to remove the incorrect assertions, so should those slandering reality have to take the same risk. Because with freedom comes responsability!

[james_s]

The other way of looking at it is that sure, have your free speech, but lies shall not be tolerated. In the same way that free speech lets you slander someone who may sue to to remove the incorrect assertions, so should those slandering reality have to take the same risk. Because with freedom comes responsability!

Who gets to decide what is true and what is lies?

There's a name for people that want to silence others, they're called "tyrants".

Why do you feel a need to try to silence people? Surely you must know that trying to silence an idea only gives it strength, it creates an impression that it must be true because people are trying to keep others from hearing it. The obvious solution is to get more smart people speaking the real truth, you just have to accept that you absolutely cannot make an idea go away by force.

[Simon]

When people come up with junk science it is pretty clear cut. As I said youtube are already silencing people, and they tend to make a mistake often taking down videos that are not telling lies in favor of those that are spouting obvious nonsense. On this forum moderation is done by real humans, but if we follow free speech to the letter then all the porn, adverts, spam and general nut jobs get to stay up? I mean if free speech rules why are we bothering to moderate the forum? Why should youtube be expected to take down material from terrorists? I mean free speech?

As far as I am concerned people posting utter fake science are as good as the terrorists, they want to convince you of an alternative reality which fits their agenda, gives them power over you, allows them to manipulate you and ultimately harm the stupid that believe them. I don't have a problem with genuine scientific debate, but cmon, you are telling me that you have never seen clear cut junk science?

The concept of free speech was conceived to protect people from oppression in the very literal sense. If you were writing that stuff today you would probably talk about freedom of thought, when people were being killed for what religion they preached at some point this was deemed to be a bit much. In the modern age I can put any bullcrap online and reach as many people as there are with access to the internet, it is certainly not the same thing as evidenced by the fact that this forum is moderated, youtube is moderated if you can call the misfiring algorithm a moderator, just about every online discussion platform has and exerts the power to remove stuff. People are once again up in arms about something that a) already happens and b) if we took their view to the extreme then they would still be up in arms but for a different reason.

[sokoloff]

Governments restricting speech is massively more problematic than private platforms deciding what they want to allow.

If you or Dave delete one of my posts, my right to free speech hasn’t been infringed upon.

[Simon]

Governments restricting speech is massively more problematic than private platforms deciding what they want to allow.

If you or Dave delete one of my posts, my right to free speech hasn’t been infringed upon.

I thought we were talking about youtube.

[sokoloff]

Same for YouTube. They’re not the government; if they want to promote some videos over others, demonetize some, block others entirely, IMO, that’s they’re prerogative.