[totony]

>This seems demonstrably true for vast swathes of users, who have become enamored with Flat Eartherism and other such nonsense.

The alternative you're condoning is to make decisions for these people and tell them what to think; that is tyranny.

E.g. By not assuming good cognitive ability for people, you are setting them up to be controlled, that you agree with censorship or not.

[ardy42]

> The alternative you're condoning is to make decisions for these people and tell them what to think; that is tyranny.

TIL not repeating lies is tyranny.

[totony]

You're being disingenuous. But I think you know that.

[ardy42]

> You're being disingenuous. But I think you know that.

No I'm not. Transmission is a kind of repetition, but some people seem to think that YouTube has some obligation to transmit (i.e. repeat) their lies about "widespread election fraud." It's not a government service, so there's no First Amendment aspect to this at all, and the allegations themselves are disingenuous lies, so YouTube's moral obligation is on the side of removal.

[totony]

Youtube has been bullied by governement officials into adopting this policy. This is hardly about "forcing someone to repeat lies".

Also my argument wasn't even about this, it was that if you assume stupidity of a big portion of the population, you have no alternative but to turn to tyranny.

[rebelos]

I rather categorically did not condone anything. You've made some truly astounding logical leaps here.

[totony]

Is it such a big leap? How do you propose we deal with people who cannot think for themselves but to tell them what to think?

[ecf]

A couple hundred years ago these people never would have a platform and would be relegated to the depths of society, as their idiocracy rightly deserved.

Now the uneducated masses can yell and yell and yell, which gives other uneducated masses the false belief that their opinions are to be respected.

[totony]

Yes, and the superior, educated mass (that agree with me) should have all the say?