6 ms·
this is legitimately dystopian. only can mention side effects that have been "recognized by health authorities" ? how would whistleblowing even be possible in
by grillvogel 5y ago
this is legitimately dystopian. only can mention side effects that have been "recognized by health authorities" ? how would whistleblowing even be possible in this environment?
- joe_the_user 5y agoThe thing is, youtube is crappy place for "whistle blowing" because video is a terrible medium for people evaluating information critically - any references a video might have will slip by a person, the general demeanor of a presenter can matter more than their content or credentials, etc. It's not unreasonable for youtube to refuse non-mainstream health theories even if those theories deserve an airing somewhere.
- grillvogel 5y ago>video is a terrible medium for people evaluating information critically yes, but this is the world we live in currently. getting information from the "factual" videos will still be encouraged
- jolux 5y ago> Also, the policy states some exceptional cases such as countervailing views with a support from medical experts, firsthand experiences, etc.
- grillvogel 5y agoits obvious that contrary opinions will be banned first with option to appeal coming after. im sure that will be a totally open and transparent process.
- thesagan 5y agoMisinformation should be put out in sunlight or else the public may lose the ability to think critically in some respects. Then they’ll be dependent on these companies to steer dialogue and be truth-tellers.