Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
> Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
> Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
Wait, you can't just posit something, argue as if it's fact, and then ask someone who challenges it to do the legwork of disproving it. If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous to then say "happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise"; I'm the one that asserted that.
> They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point.
There's a difference between losing eyeballs to bad faith actors because they steal some of your market, and having your market banned because there are also bad faith actors in it.
I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton due to forced labor, but wouldn't say that the solution to that is too ban all cotton products, even those responsibly produced.
Perhaps a more relevant analogy: Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf, but I'd hope they wouldn't ban books discussing why Hitler's platform and rhetoric were appealing to the Germans of the time. Frankly speaking, I wouldn't want even Mein Kampf to be banned: silencing bad or evil ideas makes them enticing (note the popularity of "check out/buy a banned book" events throughout libraries and bookstores).
Good faith actors being harmed by bad faith actors is always going to be a thing. Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors seems like something we shouldn't be okay with, though.
> If my argument proposed that fifteenth century blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices, it seems a little disingenuous
If the you argument proposed (blacksmiths weren't allowed to discuss unsafe anvil practices) was factual and I'm asking you to provide evidence of such how is that disingenuous?
> I could argue that Wal-Mart should stop selling Xinjiang cotton
> Amazon might decide to ban Mein Kampf,
These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies).
> Good faith actors being punished by other good faith actors
Agreed, but who's the other good faith actor you're referring to here? YouTube?
> These are bad examples because you are explicitly paying for these items as opposed to clickbait / attention grabbing content which gets more viewership the more controversial it is (which has been proven by various studies).
This seems the same to me.
A book with a flashy cover or title is more likely to be purchased because it's attention grabbing. Action movies have trailers with explosions and one-liner quips because they're attention grabbing. Cereal boxes say "new and improved!" because it's attention grabbing. Magazines and cable news ask "Does Jell-o cause cancer?" because it's attention grabbing.
Controversial content gets more clicks because it's attention grabbing, so I would absolutely expect that to be more enticing than the same information packaged less flamboyantly (just like I'd expect more attention-grabbing books, movies, cereal, and magazines to perform better as well.)
>Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
Just to confirm, are you claiming that the US government actively suppressed anti-vaccine views when the polio vaccine came out?
>Would or should?
sorry, should.
>They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
And what do you think about that? Specifically, good faith actors getting swept up by bad faith actors? Is that fine? Should we do something about it?
Sounds like a misunderstanding then. Your initial comment was
> > We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail?
>When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky?
The quoted poster seemed to be anti-censorship, so when you replied in opposition to that, it gave the impression that you thought there was actually censorship going on for polio vaccines.
>but isn't that precisely what YT is doing..? They're banning bad faith actors here, no?
They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped.
> They're banning everyone, bad/good faith actors alike. That's bad and should be stopped.
Are you sure? From the article: (emphasis mine)
> YouTube is taking down several video channels associated with high-profile anti-vaccine activists including Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who experts say are partially responsible for helping seed the skepticism that’s contributed to slowing vaccination rates across the country.
> As part of a new set of policies aimed at cutting down on anti-vaccine content on the Google-owned site, YouTube will ban any videos that claim that commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous. The company previously blocked videos that made those claims about coronavirus vaccines, but not ones for other vaccines like those for measles or chickenpox.
That sounds like to me they are discretionarily deciding who gets banned, no?
Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
> Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.