YouTube removes video of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Jordan Peterson for vaccine misinformation
YouTube removes video of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Jordan Peterson for vaccine misinformation
Kennedy, an anti-vaccine crusader, is seeking support for a Democratic presidential run.
Kennedy, an anti-vaccine crusader, is seeking support for a Democratic presidential run.
You're viewing a single thread.
Regardless of your opinion of RFK Jr, censorship has no place in a free society. I'm not comfortable with Google and other megacorps being the arbiters of truth.
I'm not comfortable with Google and other megacorps being the arbiters of truth
Understood. There's a couple of aspects that I'll present solely from devil's advocate.
- If they leave the information up they can be found liable for that information should someone decide to file suit. Do they not have a right to protect themselves from such suits?
- Are they the sole arbiters of truth? In strictly this action, are they acting in a manner that a majority of people wouldn't already agree with?
I expect our government to not participate in censorship. But I think we muddle a line between "government" and "corporation" when we attempt to hold companies to the same standard as the Government. Perhaps we are already too far in that government and megacorps are just so intertwine that it's all the same, IDK. I think that's a bit of a deeper topic than I'm willing to get into at the moment.
So that aside. The video is looking for hosting on a private company's server. I wouldn't want the Government to say "NO YOU MUST SHOW THAT VIDEO!!" to Google. We have to remember that the "free society" thing is a two way street. So I rather not have censorship in general (thus I completely understand your lack of comfort) and I expect no censorship from my government. But for private everyday people and up to megacorps, I expect them to be free to do what they so wish (but I wish for an open discussion rather removal of videos, but removal of video I still would say is a tool in Google's tool chest, but they should use it last, not first. But it isn't my company so my opinion matters next to zero in that regard). But I completely understand where you derive your statement from. I completely respect that point of view, but I disagree with it somewhat.
But in all honesty, that is simply my unsolicited opinion on this matter.
As for RFK Jr. the guy has about as much understanding of science and medicine as a rusted fire-hydrant. The amount of seriousness that should be given to that man on any of those two topics is indistinguishable from the absolute value of zero. But again, that is just my unsolicited opinion on that particular guy.
I agree that government shouldn't dictate what a company can or must host on their platform. I'm still going to criticize a company or platform that silences opposing viewpoints. That's why I think we should be ditching these giant tech companies for decentralized platforms where the user decides what they want to see and engage with.
Medical denialism is not simply an "opposing viewpoint", it's a lie that will kill people.
YouTube doesn't just have the right to remove this trash from their platform, they have an obligation to.
The same way you would have an ethical obligation to issue a retraction and cease sales if you, for instance, published a book including an article from one of these wackos.
I'm still going to criticize a company or platform that silences opposing viewpoints.
So your ideal platform is basically a 4chan-like situation?
How do you feel about people falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? That's not allowed under USA's freedom of speech laws, because it has -- objectively -- more potential to harm than help. I think medical disinfo falls into the same category.
I'd rather leave moderation to a user or local community. I'm not super familiar with 4chan, but I don't think there's a way to filter content on an individual or community basis, so I'd say no.
I'm not aware of any US law that says speech becomes illegal if it has "more potential to harm", that seems very subjective and open to exploitation. As for any type of "disinfo", I don't want a tech monopoly deciding that for me, which is why I use and recommend decentralized alternatives instead.
Be less lazy with your comments. You've been given a VERY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for a reason. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#:~:text=Laws%20were%20enacted%20in%20some,or%20different%20character%2C%20while%20the
We've been holding people accountable for inciting harm with speech for over 100 years. This anti-vax craziness is the exact same.
They are corporations and they have the right to control the content on their platforms. That's why decentralized forums are much better but even then any admin of any server can do whatever they want with their instance.
So to the classics...
Yelling "fire!!!" in a crowded theater or "bomb!"/"gun!" At a crowded concert where people can be trampled to death or vigilantes carrying can start getting trigger happy with any "suspicious" behavior is cool with you? Those folks should see consequences.
This action from YouTube is consequence after the fact, same as those situations. It should be regulated carefully, but there is a line where you are actively putting lives at risk. We agree to uphold that subjective standard collectively - that's what a society is.
Yelling fire in a theater isn't actually illegal, contrary to common belief. It's a flawed paraphrasing of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling, Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that speech which would be likely to incite imminent lawless action, such as a riot, is not protected under the First Amendment. Now if someone was injured due to a stampede they could and should be held liable, but the speech itself is not illegal.
To your second example, if some idiot started shooting because someone yelled "gun" or "bomb" they would be charged with murder / manslaughter, or at the very least reckless use of a firearm, and lose their right to carry.
I'm not opposed to removing videos that advocate violence, but I don't think this video falls under that category.
The "fire in a theater" example is the most overused and misunderstood argument and I hate how people use it to argue against civil liberties.
You mean like local governments and jurisdictions passing laws to prevent harmful speech like "fire" in a theater? There is over 100 years of history of laws being passed to prevent harmful speech. You don't get to say something that harms people any more than you get to smoke a cigarette right next to me.
No, I mean the case people are quoting was overturned. For being unconstitutional.
Your interpretation is incorrect as it my earlier link, there are clear local jurisdiction examples of laws that have been passed over the last 100 years to prevent this type of harmful speech. What is the purpose of government but to protect citizens from harm? There is no reasonable debate amongst any credible physician or scientist with an ounce of statistical knowledge that vaccines cause autism.
So what do you want to be different here? Are you saying YouTube should allow blantant and harmful misinformation? If that's not what you're saying, then please clarify.