[alabaster_punt]

> Which is why it's important that we present the truth right next to it, so people don't have to look elsewhere.

This still assumes that people will be willing to watch it.

> Well, it is available, in places where the truth isn't available, so I don't really know what you think taking it off YouTube has achieved.

It has achieved a lower spread of misinformation. Now nobody browsing YouTube will happen upon this video by chance and start believing something that is false and dangerous. Of course, those who are already embedded in these communities will still be able to access the information elsewhere. It is not a perfect solution, I don't think there is a perfect solution, but it does reduce the impact.

[kerkeslager]

> It has achieved a lower spread of misinformation.

Has it? I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion.

If kicking Sakora off YouTube causes his followers to become angry and go share his personal site through a bunch of different channels, that could easily outpace the impact of a YouTube channel where refutations are included.

If someone censored your views, what would you do? Why do you think people who disagree with you won't do all the same things?

[macintux]

YouTube is one of the largest disseminators of information in the world. No amount of small replacements with an existing audience of gullible fools can make up for the loss of audience of hundreds of millions of not-yet-introduced-to-this-garbage victims.

[kerkeslager]

None of his videos are on this page[1]. The idea that just being on YouTube gets you an audience of "hundreds of millions" is completely false. In fact, I have friends who make great content that is lucky to hit 1000 views.

Meanwhile, Fox News is the most popular news network in America.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_vi...

[alabaster_punt]

> Has it? I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion.

I explained in the comment you replied to. You seem to be deliberately ignoring that people who are not predisposed to the viewpoint could also be exposed. I do not believe that censoring on YouTube will prevent anyone who already believes this stuff from finding the content elsewhere, and I already admitted as such.

If two groups of people (those who actively seek the misinformation, and those who encounter it by chance) could access the misinformation, it stands to reason that preventing one of those groups from accessing the misinformation results in a lower overall spread of misinformation, even if the other group is unaffected.