[adamsea]

tl;dr You assume both side argue in good faith. When one side doesn’t argue in good faith they can hack our classic understanding of freedom of speech.

We need a word for flooding a space of discourse with so much noise that the truth is obscured and hidden.

It’s not censorship in that it’s removing speech, but it’s as effective in undermining free speech.

It’s obviously what is happening now.

I think the error in what you say is you assume both side are arguing in good faith.

But when one party doesn’t argue in good faith, it means they are saying things they don’t truly believe, or that they don’t respect or care about having a fair discourse.

Like how during the debates Donald Trump continuously attempted to talk over Biden, and essentially control the discourse via bullying.

Just making shit up in order to shut someone else down isn’t okay, and we need to figure out how to protect our traditional values of free speech while also combating when people attempt to destroy our freedom of speech by using this technique at a mass scale in our modern media environment.

[chordalkeyboard]

I think its more accurate to say there are bad faith actors on both sides. Thats why its so dangerous to let someone shut down one side of a debate because of bad faith actors. You're also shutting down the good faith actors on that side, while leaving the bad faith actors on the other side still able to participate in bad faith.

[adamsea]

> I think its more accurate to say there are bad faith actors on both sides.

Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill.

0. Trumps lies about Covid and the pandemic crisis which have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans 1. The racist birther conspiracy. 2. The vast number of well-documented lies Trump told over the last few years. 3. The baseless lies about election fraud or whatever.

But you know all this. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and I think you’re full of shit. Because, after these last four years saying “bad actors on both sides” means that you’ve chosen to either obscure or deny reality.

What you’re doing is dangerous to democracy and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I’m not saying YouTube removing this content is the right move, but your logic only holds up in a fantasyland devoid of fact or context.

[chordalkeyboard]

Thanks for the reply.

> Bullshit, because at this moment that comparison is a mountain vs a molehill.

Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side."

> But you know all this. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith and I think you’re full of shit.

Then why did you reply to me? What value is there in engaging in some bad faith bullshitter on the internet? Don't you believe that I'm going to respond with more bad faith bullshit and further confuse anyone who isn't rational and detached enough to see the truth?

> Because, after these last four years saying “bad actors on both sides” means that you’ve chosen to either obscure or deny reality.

After all this you're not even able to see how there could be bad faith actors on both sides? You don't think that bad faith actors on your own side might harm your cause or detract from your message? Or you don't think they exist?

> What you’re doing is dangerous to democracy and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I get that you're passionate about this so can you explain this statement? If me sharing my opinion is so dangerous then why is it safer to let me vote? I'm genuinely curious how you can think that its good for the common person to cast a ballot but its bad for the common person to share their opinions on the integrity of the election.

> I’m not saying YouTube removing this content is the right move, but your logic only holds up in a fantasyland devoid of fact or context.

What's the error in my logic? Is trump uniquely bad so the normal rules don't apply, or is there something dangerous about the idea that people who decide whose opinions should be heard are potentially bad faith actors who could corrupt the discourse?

[croon]

> Regardless, my point in replying to you was to assert that the existence of bad faith actors doesn't justify silencing good faith actors who seem to represent the same "side."

But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side.

There is no silencing of good faith actors, although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk.

[chordalkeyboard]

> But as the case stands right now, Youtube isn't shutting down good faith actors on one side, but bad faith actors, who happen to be on one side.

How are they determining bad faith in an objective, reliable, and verifiable way? The policy is to delete content that alleges that there was widespread fraud. That doesn't reference the sincerity or faith of the actor, but the object-level claims that are being made. It would seem that means they are deleting content they disagree with, regardless of whether it is put forth in good faith or not.

> There is no silencing of good faith actors

Can you support this statement? It seems like an article of faith to me. How would you know that all the videos that had been removed are put forth in bad faith?

> although I wholly agree in concept that it's a thin line to walk.

Does that mean you acknowledge the possibility of error in judgment with respect to this issue?

[hhas01]

The burden of proof rests on the claimant. There’s a reason US courts of law keep throwing out these claims of widespread fraud: because the claimants consistently fail to provide the widespread evidence to back their claims up.

What there is widespread evidence of, however, is bad-faith actors that are both highly active and plentiful.

Therefore I would suggest the few good-faith actors who find themselves unfairly suppressed first take it up with those dirty lying bastards for sullying ALL their reputations, and secondly ask themselves what they must do to fully disassociate themselves from the scum and rebuild their negative credibility to a level where people are willing to listen again.

Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent. They can fix it or they can whine. And which they choose speaks volumes too.

[croon]

> How are they determining bad faith in an objective, reliable, and verifiable way? The policy is to delete content that alleges that there was widespread fraud. That doesn't reference the sincerity or faith of the actor, but the object-level claims that are being made. It would seem that means they are deleting content they disagree with, regardless of whether it is put forth in good faith or not.

How many cases of fraud has there been in this election? 1? There has been 0 evidence of widespread fraud. The only possible way any argument could be made in good faith is if you have the naivete of a child. I'm not saying that as a value judgment, but as a matter of fact.

> > There is no silencing of good faith actors

> Can you support this statement? It seems like an article of faith to me. How would you know that all the videos that had been removed are put forth in bad faith?

I can not prove a negative, other than the absence of evidence of the contrary. Do you have any examples of good faith actors being silenced that we can discuss the merits of?

> Does that mean you acknowledge the possibility of error in judgment with respect to this issue?

Yes, but I have seen no evidence of this, so I reserve that hypothetical for when it happens.

[alxndr]

This characterization of flaws in political discourse reminds me of the SEO arms race discovering flaws / hacks in Google's search results rankings.