but overall it’s a dangerous trend that makes people at large less able to think for theirselves
How does censoring misinformation contribute to people being less able to think for themselves in your opinion? The whole schtick of most anti-vaxx content is throwing pseudo-scientific jargon or misleading partial information at you, so you can have your personal opinion validated in a way that SEEMS smart. None of it holds up to scrutiny and it’s just a way of enabling people’s worst impulses instead of actually fostering critical thinking.
I agree that education, setting the record straight and argumentatively dismantling false information is preferable and more likely to foster structural thinking than just deleting it. But that’s a loosing battle because spouting misinformation is by its nature way easier than dismantling it. Education is better than deletion, but deletion might still be better than not doing anything.
The problem is who gets to decide whats misinformation. In this case its a private company that is completely unaccountable. And that makes it very easy for them to delete a channel they dont like, claiming that its because of covid misinformation.
Except YouTube has already been censoring information. I know that YouTube has forced ML creator Hakim make some of his videos unlisted. Since we are already on that slippery slope, I am fine with YouTube also coming down on anti-vaxxers.
They can already delete any channel they want to, without repercussion, though. They don’t need to justify any moderation decisions.
I would think that leaving medical misinformation up, that can lead to someone’s death, puts them in an actionable position, that they would much rather avoid.
How does censoring misinformation contribute to people being less able to think for themselves in your opinion?
I think the best situation is when people are exposed to a wide range of ideas and are able to think through them and decide what they makes sense. Maybe I shouldn’t have so much faith in people, but I don’t know what else there is to have faith in—those who happen to have power over information? Youtube’s algorithm?
Moreover, people just being exposed to antivax ideas doesn’t make them into antivaxers, it’s when they get sucked into echo chambers and aren’t exposed to real attempts to convince them of the opposite. I know multiple people who were vaccine skeptical and very quickly were convinced to get the vaccine as soon as someone actually tried to convince them by appealing to their ability for reason. The people who won’t hear reason are the people who have made an identity out of being antivax. And censoring them will only reinforce that identity.
None of it holds up to scrutiny and it’s just a way of enabling people’s worst impulses instead of actually fostering critical thinking.
That is why I think it is possible for people to come to their senses when exposed to a variety of ideas and reason. The real problem in my estimation is that most people don’t have a conscious method for discerning truth. People are taught lots of information, but not told why they should believe that information other than that a teacher said it. Then, when they see someone who looks and talks like an authority, they assume what they say must be true because that’s the only method they’ve ever had for finding truth. If only they would hold out on forming an opinion until they actually understood an issue. But, I do think people tend to come to their senses when exposed to enough sides of something.
deletion might still be better than not doing anything.
It might be a good thing in the small immediate sense, but the fact that information is so easily censored, with such strong political will, I think is a bad thing for humanity.
How does censoring misinformation contribute to people being less able to think for themselves in your opinion? The whole schtick of most anti-vaxx content is throwing pseudo-scientific jargon or misleading partial information at you, so you can have your personal opinion validated in a way that SEEMS smart. None of it holds up to scrutiny and it’s just a way of enabling people’s worst impulses instead of actually fostering critical thinking.
I agree that education, setting the record straight and argumentatively dismantling false information is preferable and more likely to foster structural thinking than just deleting it. But that’s a loosing battle because spouting misinformation is by its nature way easier than dismantling it. Education is better than deletion, but deletion might still be better than not doing anything.
The problem is who gets to decide whats misinformation. In this case its a private company that is completely unaccountable. And that makes it very easy for them to delete a channel they dont like, claiming that its because of covid misinformation.
Except YouTube has already been censoring information. I know that YouTube has forced ML creator Hakim make some of his videos unlisted. Since we are already on that slippery slope, I am fine with YouTube also coming down on anti-vaxxers.
They can already delete any channel they want to, without repercussion, though. They don’t need to justify any moderation decisions.
I would think that leaving medical misinformation up, that can lead to someone’s death, puts them in an actionable position, that they would much rather avoid.
I think the best situation is when people are exposed to a wide range of ideas and are able to think through them and decide what they makes sense. Maybe I shouldn’t have so much faith in people, but I don’t know what else there is to have faith in—those who happen to have power over information? Youtube’s algorithm?
Moreover, people just being exposed to antivax ideas doesn’t make them into antivaxers, it’s when they get sucked into echo chambers and aren’t exposed to real attempts to convince them of the opposite. I know multiple people who were vaccine skeptical and very quickly were convinced to get the vaccine as soon as someone actually tried to convince them by appealing to their ability for reason. The people who won’t hear reason are the people who have made an identity out of being antivax. And censoring them will only reinforce that identity.
That is why I think it is possible for people to come to their senses when exposed to a variety of ideas and reason. The real problem in my estimation is that most people don’t have a conscious method for discerning truth. People are taught lots of information, but not told why they should believe that information other than that a teacher said it. Then, when they see someone who looks and talks like an authority, they assume what they say must be true because that’s the only method they’ve ever had for finding truth. If only they would hold out on forming an opinion until they actually understood an issue. But, I do think people tend to come to their senses when exposed to enough sides of something.
It might be a good thing in the small immediate sense, but the fact that information is so easily censored, with such strong political will, I think is a bad thing for humanity.