[josephcsible]

I'm not familiar with this channel. But even if it is really "harmful pseudoscience", is that really a reason to ban it? And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content, and what happens when they're wrong?

[rosndo]

It all comes down to the exact nature of the content, which you admit to not be familiar with.

Do you genuinely believe that youtube should host videos attaching various involuntary physical traits to criminal behaviour?

It’s obviously not okay to say that “this guy is black, so he’s probably guilty”. But is it okay to say “this guy is jittery under stress, he’s probably guilty”? Why should it be okay to say one or the other? Both will result in equally harmful outcomes.

[effingwewt]

These are long-closed cases, not on-going, and even if it were, any 'pundit' talking on any channel would likely say as your example, JCS does not do this.

I seem to recall 'Judge' Janine Pirro going on pretty crazy rants, also Nancy Grace. Where were the 'harmful content' bans or nptices then?

[tanseydavid]

>> It all comes down to the exact nature of the content

It seems evident to me, from the reading the HN comments, that there is hardly any sort of agreement about what the "exact nature of the content" actually is.

[dragonwriter]

> But even if it were really "harmful pseudoscience", is that really a reason to ban it?

It is really a reason to decide not to distribute it.

> And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content

Anyone who is asked to actively participate in the chain of distribution.

> and what happens when they're wrong?

If someone disagrees with their decision not to distribute, they seek some other distribution. Except when it is a decision to distribute and the content is harmful in a way which produces liability, their decision being “wrong” in any authoritative sense isn't really an issue, only disagreement.