[Barrin92]

>What gives Google/YouTube the justification to silence them?

The fact that it is their platform.

>Fauci can defend himself,

Fauci is a 79 year old man busy working 20 hours a day trying to stop more people from dying, he doesn't have the time to debunk garbage on the internet.

Youtube is completely within their rights to remove dangerous disinformation from their platform and I hope they take an agressive stance going forward.

[thdrdt]

I know it's their platform so they can do what they want.

But why not show a warning like "the following content has false and dangerous information"?

Now it is gone so it can't be discussed.

And I also think you take away responsibility of the viewers if they don't need to be critical about any information.

[loceng]

"And I also think you take away responsibility of the viewers if they don't need to be critical about any information."

This is exactly the problem currently though - the general population doesn't have either the time or critical thinking developed to understand this.

Daniel Schmachtenberger on Eric Weinstein's The Portal episode #27 said: “... and the most awesome thing of the current system [of suppressing unruly people] we don’t even have to deal with protestors with tear gas or bean bags or whatever mostly, because mostly addiction, and student debt, and information overwhelm and those things deal with the people adequately so they don’t actually understand enough or care enough or have the capacity to organize very meaningly."

Eric replied: “We just legalize weed and make porn free and everyone’s de-motivated.."

- timestamped link to talk https://youtu.be/_b4qKv1Ctv8?t=3780 - but I'd highly recommend watching the whole interview.

The goal has to be getting the population healthy enough to be responsible and reasonable, rational enough, otherwise these hierarchal systems lead by people are guiding this like parents raise children until people are mature enough; the extreme of this would be CCP controlling China's population.

[skuthus]

I think if you disagree with what they have done, you should express that fully and also stop using the platform in favor of others who share your views.

[thdrdt]

Well I was just pointing out there are other options besides removing content.

[gccxsse]

>dangerous disinformation

What does this even mean?? Have we forgotten the importance of free speech?

[loceng]

Do you believe that the system of censorship by the CCP for China's population is worse than what YouTube did, and do you understand that the two doctors weren't detained by authorities and that they could find a host to post the video on again that isn't YouTube - and so how are they being prevented from speaking?

Distribution is very different than freedom of speech, and distribution of their video is allowed on the internet - however the internet is a platform to allow decentralized moderation, so then platforms on top of the internet can moderate depending on what they believe is [hopefully] best for society - and based on that people, viewers, will decide what platforms they will trust or watch content from and give their attention and support/money to - whether through shallow manipulative ads or payment.

[slenk]

Free Speech allows you to say whatever you want, not guarantee you no repercussions.

Besides, private businesses don't need to allow free speech...

[chaostheory]

It's called private property. YouTube can do what it wants on its private platform. It's not a monopoly. There are other video platforms.

[vanniv]

That's why putting everyone under house arrest is so effective.

The left owns the online media, and they ban all non-left thought.

Meanwhile, if you try to speak in person, the cops come and beat you up.

[chaostheory]

We have a free market. Anyone can build a video platform. PayPal existed before Stripe.

[vanniv]

You're welcome to build your own video platform.

Of course, if Google doesn't approve your content, nobody can find it, and if Cloudflare doesn't approve of your content, it isn't actually online.

And, with everybody locked up, you can't go advertise it in the physical world.

So, basically, unless Google and Cloudflare like your content -- or the major media bullies them into liking your content -- your content does not exist.

[kostko]

Same goes for news you see over TV, it does not have to be true. Its their platform. How can you make an informed decision is all you’re being told is manufactured truth?

[chaostheory]

You read and watch the media that gives you the data you need. Ignore the others once you can verify the information. Wash, rinse and repeat. It’s supposed to be a free market. There’s no guarantee that government mandates will make the data any better

[jonny_eh]

> What does this even mean??

Misinformation that can lead people to doing dangerous things.

[djsumdog]

There was a time when saying black people where just as intelligent as white people was considered misinformation and a dangerous way to think.

There was a time when many leaders considered homosexuality dangerous and magazines promoting homosexuality was misinformation.

It's easy to say something is misinformation now, but the standard of truth does not come now, it comes 20 years from now when history judges this moment.

[washadjeffmad]

You've failed to justify your equivalence. How many neo-Nazis, homophobes, self-styled "truthers", and xenophobic racists came to their conclusions naturally, without any external guidance or rhetoric?

We don't exist in a vacuum, and people are socialized into their beliefs. Either these doctors weren't given the faculties to distinguish fact from fiction in their education, they lack the mental and social capacities to protect themselves from falling for twisted logic and half-truths, or they're intentionally manipulating those vulnerable members of society for their own gain.

[philipov]

Because the constitutional amendments only place restrictions on the government, we don't get to have free speech if we rely on private platforms to be the primary means of political expression.

[hkai]

Is this desirable?

[ric2b]

I would say no, which is why net neutrality is important.

[jeegsy]

> Distribution is very different than freedom of speech

Whenever these dabates arise it would save a whole lot of time if participants assume as a given that everyone understands the first amendment as written. IMHO it will be far more useful to discuss the point of having this amendment in the first place. The idea that everytime someone has a remotely controversial idea, they have to setup an internet video company with global reach in order to propagate said idea is ridiculous. Even if you agree that Youtube has the right (which they do) to take down this video, their reasons for doing so should trouble everyone who in some way contributed to their near monopoly of internet video. Also, consider that they didnt even have to provide a reason. They provided one in the belief that the public actually favors censorship!

[krapp]

>The idea that everytime someone has a remotely controversial idea, they have to setup an internet video company with global reach in order to propagate said idea is ridiculous.

This isn't an idea that anyone is actually proposing to you, it's a strawman of your own making. The picture you're trying to paint whereby it's almost impossible for anyone to spread their ideas on the internet without Youtube's consent doesn't remotely correspond to reality. Every website has global reach, and plenty of controversial content has been spread on the internet in text form. You don't need video to propagate controversial ideas, but even then, video distribution existed on the internet before youtube. Filesharing and torrent sites exist, as do other streaming platforms which also have a global reach.

>They provided one in the belief that the public actually favors censorship!

The public does favor censorship. Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent and hateful speech to proliferate without check or consequence, is a minority view.

[jeegsy]

I wasn't trying to create a strawman, I only described things the way I did as a shorthand due to my belief that it was obvious to all the outsized role that youtube plays in public discourse. Just as was said on another informative thread I saw recently on HN, your facts (torrents, filesharing, non-neccesity of video etc) are correct but irrelevant.

> Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent and hateful speech to proliferate without check or consequence, is a minority view.

I appreciate your illustrating what an actual strawman looks like.

[krapp]

>Just as was said on another informative thread I saw recently on HN, your facts (torrents, filesharing, non-neccesity of video etc) are correct but irrelevant.

So you're simply refusing to acknowledge anything which contradicts your narrative.

Well, good to know there's no point in continuing this conversation with you further. Good day.

[heddon]

You make the excuse to remove the video with no actual proof that this is dangerous misinformation. In fact, YouTube, and the media are the real danger.The biggest threat to Americans in the history of all.