For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I do appreciate that Google and co have a difficult line to walk sometimes, but they've definitely overstepped the mark in terms of taking stances that they don't need to and silencing voices that deserve to be heard. It does them and us no favours, because all it succeeds in doing is pushing these specific voices onto platforms that end up especially appealing to those testing the boundaries of even those alternative services; essentially snuffing out 'normal' conversations and encouraging untethered ones. It would be better if Youtube allowed for wider debate, then people on all sides would be able to get more nuanced takes rather than 'this echo chamber or that one'.

Youtubes attitude towards say potential covid treatment Ivermectic (in censoring and demonetising Bret Weinstein and co for talking about it) is disturbing as it encourages a kind of 'state sponsored' view of medicine that may be detached from reality. This treatment is being used in several countries and granted we need our own studies, but the idea what we can't talk about something that looks promising on the surface is absurd.

Edited by BlueJay (30 Jun 2021 11.15pm)

They appeared to get especially trigger happy with warnings when people didn't in their view offer enough caveats or weight to treatments already in place. That was in the reply specifically sent to him. I just feel that where there is clear disinformation fair enough, but in some cases they've moved beyond that.

Youtubes actual policy states that people should not recommend the use of Ivermectin or claim that it is an effective treatment. I do not believe this is a reasonable stance, as at this point we don't have the answer to some of these questions so people should not face consequences just for holding a view that isn't exactly 'out there'.

Like I said, I would prefer Youtube to do a tough job better as in the long run it's to their detriment if they don't. There are clearly entirely anything goes video platforms but due to the nature of why they even came about, it's mostly conspiracy sh!t and nutcases (the 'Captiol crowd' and people who have zero problem with neo nazis but faint at typical everyday views). You're more likely to get a death theat than a critique if you have anything half normal or nuanced to say, so I'd rather Youtube keep things as broad and open as possible rather than drive people to places that tip them into a social and psychological no-mans land.

Edited by BlueJay (01 Jul 2021 4.15pm)

Attachment: E4kg0fLXMAM-wPV.jpg (185.73Kb)

This is quite simply a one sided view.

Everything you oppose, you claim is dangerous.

How much more dangerous can you get than censoring opinion, including that of the former democratically elected POTUS.

We have a few individuals deciding what we can see and how we should think.

Once upon a time, we fought wars to stop that sort of stuff.

Joe Biden lied about his knowledge of his son's business dealings and the mainstream media are currently protecting him.

[Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Apparently he supported this athlete’s actions.

[Link]

[Link]

Edited by Spiderman (01 Jul 2021 10.08pm)