[fwn]

> This is not a philosophical debate, people are literally dying.

That's a bit like "let's not think about what we're doing, people are literally dying".

The gravity of the situation only increases the need for evaluation of our behavior as a society.

Public discourse isn't an optional nice-to-have in times in which everything is fine, it's one of the cornerstones of democratic societies.

[zouhair]

No, public discourse in a technical matter is out of the question. Equating the opinion of 2 random doctors to the thousands of epidemiologists worldwide is not helping democracy in any shape or form. It actually destroys it.

We need to stop this insanity. Ignorant people's opinion is not worth the opinion of an expert.

[fwn]

I don't even know what "equating opinions" is supposed to mean in that context? We're talking about removing videos.

It's not about equating anything, but allowing people to express themselves.

> Ignorant people's opinion is not worth the opinion of an expert.

That's a very reasonable opinion to have but it's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about whether we should let Google make the decision on an opinions worth by removing videos.

Real discourse does not come with a bouncer, and even if we would try to dream up one that wouldn't outright delegitimize the discourse it certainly wouldn't be a US American for-profit without recourse or checks and balances.

I think it's popular to argue that it's the free press that serves the role of an evaluating institution. ..but here again: not a singular tech monopoly and not by removing those opinions, which just makes every evaluation questionable by default.