Understand your response is guilty of the same argument. You consider your own sources (whatever they might be) to be more factual then the ones presented by onyx_. Both of you will not agree. More troubling is that you require their sources to be held to a higher standard than your own. I assume both of you are not experts or journalists in the field, so do not conflate your truth as superior because someone else relies on their own de facto truth. You are in fact both several degrees removed from the source.
Scrutinize their sources, but likewise your own.
> Shutting down speech does not lead to "facts" or "truth", it leads to uncertainty
I do agree that shutting down speech only adds fuel to the flames. You're right. I also think companies are not faultless judges of the truth.
> If you're so confident, then let those people speak and use arguments (even your ludicrous wall of links) against them. That's rational and dare I say it, scientific.
Here is where the discussion on YouTube (social media in general) censorship should start.
The problem is that these people (the left as well) use "post truth" arguments and tactics to draw circles in the sand. Isolating discussions into talking points presented by their own side. Shrouding the herd from other arguments by claiming them to be "Fake News". Inflaming individuals to argue at (not with) everyone. This is immeasurably harmful as this information needs no fact checking and can be presented with a facade of reasonableness.
People will find these arguments faster, more digestible, more appealing, and more viral than traditional news media. No discussion will occur. Even onyx_'s list of sources will not persuade them.
> YouTube is basically the Catholic church, claiming they know the facts, they know the truth, and Galileo is spouting nonsense.
Here's the crux, you are scared of Google's knowledge of the "facts" and biases, but you show no interest in gathering the whole truth yourself. Onyx_ did give a list of sources, that could be true or false. You dismissed them immediately in your comment. But more telling is what position you place your knowledge. Is it above sources, officials, experts, scientists(?), journalists, news agencies?
Can you confidently verify the same authenticity of your sources?
We should not fool ourselves. Tomorrow, just like today, no meaningful discussion tainted by politicization will be held by both sides again.
Scrutinize their sources, but likewise your own.
> Shutting down speech does not lead to "facts" or "truth", it leads to uncertainty
I do agree that shutting down speech only adds fuel to the flames. You're right. I also think companies are not faultless judges of the truth.
> If you're so confident, then let those people speak and use arguments (even your ludicrous wall of links) against them. That's rational and dare I say it, scientific.
Here is where the discussion on YouTube (social media in general) censorship should start.
The problem is that these people (the left as well) use "post truth" arguments and tactics to draw circles in the sand. Isolating discussions into talking points presented by their own side. Shrouding the herd from other arguments by claiming them to be "Fake News". Inflaming individuals to argue at (not with) everyone. This is immeasurably harmful as this information needs no fact checking and can be presented with a facade of reasonableness.
People will find these arguments faster, more digestible, more appealing, and more viral than traditional news media. No discussion will occur. Even onyx_'s list of sources will not persuade them.
> YouTube is basically the Catholic church, claiming they know the facts, they know the truth, and Galileo is spouting nonsense.
Here's the crux, you are scared of Google's knowledge of the "facts" and biases, but you show no interest in gathering the whole truth yourself. Onyx_ did give a list of sources, that could be true or false. You dismissed them immediately in your comment. But more telling is what position you place your knowledge. Is it above sources, officials, experts, scientists(?), journalists, news agencies?
Can you confidently verify the same authenticity of your sources?
We should not fool ourselves. Tomorrow, just like today, no meaningful discussion tainted by politicization will be held by both sides again.