[psudmant]

The "slippery slope" is always a lazy argument w. little substance. It's easy to get induction wrong even in simple math problems let alone trying to pigeonhole humanity into tidy formula. The idea that the market will regulate itself because (... because what?) is also lazy. The bottom line is it really makes a great deal of sense to say,"hey, don't drink bleach," "hey, no Nazis on this platform please!", "hey, it's highly unlikely Hillary Clinton is a pedophile" - This is serious - this is real life and in good conscience we should all be supportive of this kind of "censorship" for the good of humanity.

[maaand]

You are essentially arguing, your preferred side should be allowed to perpetuate hoaxes, not your opponents.

[xmprt]

People always say there's a right and a wrong or that there are two equally valid sides to an argument but that's just plain wrong. The Earth isn't flat, the government isn't run by lizard people, and masks are effective at curbing spread of a airborne disease.

You make it sound like both sides are perpetuating hoaxes but YouTube is only censoring the hoaxes from one side.

[raxxorrax]

There are always different perspective on everything. You can determine the value of each for yourself and try to convince others of its merits. That is your freedom and your limit.

> You make it sound like both sides are perpetuating hoaxes

Which sides? Which hoaxes?

[mlang23]

But how unlikely is it really, given the history of her husband?

[j0ba]

The only thing that's lazy is imagining that all situations have obvious choices of what's right and wrong, and that people who don't agree with you are crazy, stupid, or bad people. What's much more likely is that you are highly ignorant to all the facts. Your "good conscience" would lead humanity into a hellish reality. Or was nazi germany an impossible "slippery slope"?