[huijzer]

Nobody is forcing anyone to watch it. Many people watch it voluntarily. If we are so sure that these media are so bad for people, why are so many people still watching it?

If the answer is that these media "hack" the human brain, then I don't think that banning the producers is the right way to go. The root cause is that people are too easily tricked. Banning the producers will only cause other media, such as YouTube or Facebook, to fill the gap.

[sproffle]

Exactly right. The solution to a mass movement toward an ignorant and blind viewpoint isn't to censor it, it's to dismantle it with an opposing viewpoint and to provide a less ignorant way forward. Censorship of any kind doesn't solve anything despite what people want to think about Alex Jones or any others.

[jpalawaga]

Nobody was forcing anyone to drive cars fuel powered by leaded gas either, could it have been so bad? And if it was so bad, why were so many people using it?

I would say that the answer to solve this is education, but unfortunately many states have decided that education is the bad thing, instead of blantantly misleading information. Even if you could teach it successfully in school, how many adults are going to go back to school to learn the media they're consuming is bad? If you're an ardent fox news viewer, how will you view that information?

It's not a solve but it's a help.

[goda90]

> Nobody was forcing anyone to drive cars fuel powered by leaded gas either, could it have been so bad? And if it was so bad, why were so many people using it?

I wouldn't say this is a great analogy, because leaded gas was the only gas available, and alternatives to cars were disappearing in many cities. If you wanted to participate in the economy, you pretty much had to use gasoline.

[cmrdporcupine]

I mean, you're not really correct. The first 10 years of my life every gas station had both "leaded" and "unleaded" options and it was regulations that forced car manufacturers to remove the the requirement for the former type of fuel.

You could argue the market would have gone there anyways, but it's actually insane how much damage to human health and the environment was done in the interim until regulation forced the matter.

[jeegsy]

I suppose its important to know when manufacturers became aware of the danger in lead.

[ziddoap]

>If we are so sure that these media are so bad for people, why are so many people still watching it?

Although I don't have an opinion on this particular podcast situation, this statement doesn't hold any water. You are implying that if people do something, it must not be bad for them because.. people continue to do it.

There are tons of things people do that are objectively bad for them. Hard drugs (fentanyl, etc.) being an easy example.

[SiempreViernes]

So instead of banning the bad products, do you propose modifying the human genome or pretending that there's no problem at all?

[sojournerc]

The point is there is not and will never be consensus on what is "bad", so it ultimately is decided by power imbalance rather than some higher moralilty.

In a liberal society we allow things we don't like in order to maintain individual freedom as a higher good than "perfect" society.

Those who do envision "perfect" society and pursue it with the power of the state are the worst sort of authoritarians, because it's all done "for your own good", no matter what you think.

[bhdlr]

Tons of people were using lead paint and asbestos insulation, why did we ban those products?

[pard68]

Not to mention "hacks" would go both ways.

[AlexandrB]

It's not necessary to hack the human brain if you can hack the YouTube algorithm. I get recommended this crap once in a while even though I have zero interest. Starting with a "Private" browsing window, it was pretty common to hit Andrew Tate shorts extremely quickly 6 months ago or so. Jordan Peterson's over-dramatic rants are another favourite YouTube recommendation.