[toyg]

Maybe some topics should simply be legislated away as incompatible with “youtubery”: health and history, imho. Forbidding those would remove 90% of the problematic content (quacks, antivaxx, holocaust deniers, truthers etc).

Health has specific laws to deal with digital storage, it’s not inconceivable to admit that it needs extra protection on social platforms too.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

simply be legislated away

This is one of the most dangerous phrases I've read in a long time.

[toyg]

Germany and Italy have had bans on specific material since 1946 and the sky has not fallen. I understand the concern, but the ban doesn’t need to cover all media, only the ones that are extremely accessible. A bit like pornography is forbidden on mainstream tv during the day, but you can still buy it freely elsewhere at all times.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

It's not about the specifics about your comment. It's a concern based on using the words "simply" and "legislated" in the same sentence.

I'm of the belief that legislation is not something to be entered into lightly and should generally be considered a last resort if better solutions don't exist.

[toyg]

I do not disagree! My “simply” was just indicating a resigned acceptance that there isn’t a technological solution, so we might as well reach for good ol’ fashioned political instruments - with all the complexity those entail.

[lonelappde]

It's already illegal to practice medicine without a license. Banning information sharing is not a solution.