|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On November 14 2022 19:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:35 Symplectos wrote:we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. First it is said that everything is always censorship, then it is said that it is argued whether it is censorship or not, and then it is simply stated as a fact that it was censorship. I might sometimes not even disagree with the ideas mentioned, but always stating "facts" based on personal beliefs doesn't lead to an open discussion, I am afraid. youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers Believing that something is true is never a good thing, especially not in a discussion about a scientific topic. im sorry, im sure you mean well and you wanted to sound profound in your post, but i dont understand anything youve just said
If everything is censorship, why is there a discussion whether it was censorship to take the video down or not?
The latter part of the quoted post is self-explanatory. You talked about "believing" what the producers said is true. Yet beliefs have no real place in a discussion about a scientific topic. Was that easier for you to understand?
|
On November 14 2022 19:40 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:26 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:16 Symplectos wrote:On November 14 2022 19:11 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative). Why does the reason it was taken down matter if your argument is that "if it freely gets reuploaded it isn't censorship?" Is your argument that it's not censorship because some random mirror was reuploaded that got a fraction of the views? Or is your argument that we're not sure why it got taken down so it might not have been censored? Or let's just assume it was taken down for "medical misinformation." Do you not call that censorship? What do you call it then? Suppression? I think, I am not sure, the argument is, as Makau is explaining, that we do not know the exact circumstances as to why the video in question was taken down. For your last question, from my point of view, removing medical misinformation is not censorship. I see no reason why we, as a society, should allow dangerous misinformation, which could endanger the life of many people, to be spread all over the internet. no, it would still be censorship. if the information was complete bullshit and did nothing other than bring harm to society, then the censorship would have been justified. like trump was censored on twitter for his stupid remarks, and i would agree that although it was censorship, it was the right course of action. we arent arguing about whether this was the right course of action or not, we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. a video that made serious allegations about the safety and integrity of the covid vaccine programs was gaining a lot of traction and the youtube reviewing team chose to remove it from its platform. but if some users here want to delude themselves that it was a copyright infringement (which if you know anything about youtube, would know that copyright infringement doesnt take your whole video down immediately), then whatever. as for whether it was the right course of action, that would be a debate for people who have actually watched the video, which seemingly none of us here have. as for me, i think based on what i saw in the video, theres enough credibility there that it shouldnt have been removed. On November 14 2022 19:19 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative). i commend you for being brave enough to side with jimmic. unfortunately you have just made yourself to look like a fool. im not gonna rehash why youre wrong, because its all already in the thread, but have you even watched the video yourself? or are you going to do what jimmi did and rely on your omniscience to just "know" that the video is full of shit, the reason the video was removed is false, and the producers are lying? the audacity of some of you to straight up try and discredit something you havent even given a minute of your time is hilarious. "oh i found a mirror, hahahah they were lying about the numbers." "oh so the numbers were correct. but they were lying about why the video got removed!!" "we dont know why the video got removed. i didnt watch the video but i know for sure that everything the producers are claiming is false!! it must have been removed for some other reason!!" I don't have to watch the video, because I made exactly 0 claims about the video's content one way or the other. I merely pointed out to you that a video being removed isn't censorship by itself, and that the fact that a second copy of the video is up on the exact same website with the exact same title shows that clearly. Youtube, very clearly, aren't trying to suppress this video, or the second video would have been gone as well. Intentional suppression is a mandatory part of censorship. I repeat. I have made 0 claims about the video's contents and the validity of said content, because it is completely irrelevant to the conversation of "was this censorship". I have also not tried to discredit the video, nor have I accused anybody of lying, or of numbers being incorrect. Please keep those arguments for the people who made those claims, it doesn't exactly help you to conflate what I'm saying with what Jimmi is saying. sure i could agree with your points if we were speaking about any random video in general. however its already been a long time since we established that there is an official reason given for the removal and the contents of the video is consistent with what irrational people might think as 'anti-vax'. so your point that the video could have been removed for any number of reasons is moot. youre too late to the conversation to stick to those guns now; youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers and/or youre making blind assumptions like jimmi without even having reviewed the content. Just because you repeat the same nonsense for a few pages doesn't mean it's any more true now than it was a few pages ago. And I like how you're saying you agree with my point in general, but claim it's different for this particular video without giving any actual reasons why (outside of it fitting your narrative).
however its already been a long time since we established that there is an official reason given for the removal and the contents of the video is consistent with what irrational people might think as 'anti-vax'.
theres the reason. directly in the post you quoted.
i like how youre yet to give any actual reason as to why the reason provided by the producers, which i am relying on, is my "narrative". once again, have you watched the video? have you assessed for yourself the credibility of the producers? have you assessed whether their reason is consistent with what the content of their video is and how a mainstream institution may react to it? do you have a specific reason as to why you feel compelled to not accept the reason provided by the producers?
i know the answer is no to all of the above. youve just showed that you are indeed a fool, for doing the exact same thing jimmi did and youre not even realising it.
On November 14 2022 19:42 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:35 Symplectos wrote:we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. First it is said that everything is always censorship, then it is said that it is argued whether it is censorship or not, and then it is simply stated as a fact that it was censorship. I might sometimes not even disagree with the ideas mentioned, but always stating "facts" based on personal beliefs doesn't lead to an open discussion, I am afraid. youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers Believing that something is true is never a good thing, especially not in a discussion about a scientific topic. im sorry, im sure you mean well and you wanted to sound profound in your post, but i dont understand anything youve just said If everything is censorship, why is there a discussion whether it was censorship to take the video down or not? The latter part of the quoted post is self-explanatory. You talked about "believing" what the producers said is true. Yet beliefs have no real place in a discussion about a scientific topic. Was that easier for you to understand?
who the hell said anything about everything being censorship? what...?
as for my "belief" in the producers, im referring to my lack of reason to doubt their claim. dont tell me i have to explain to you that the word belief here doesnt refer to some spiritual faith in their gospel. jesus christ
|
On November 14 2022 19:19 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative). i commend you for being brave enough to side with jimmic. unfortunately you have just made yourself to look like a fool. im not gonna rehash why youre wrong, because its all already in the thread, but have you even watched the video yourself? or are you going to do what jimmi did and rely on your omniscience to just "know" that the video is full of shit, the reason the video was removed is false, and the producers are lying? the audacity of some of you to straight up try and discredit something you havent even given a minute of your time is hilarious. "oh i found a mirror, hahahah they were lying about the numbers." "oh so the numbers were correct. but they were lying about why the video got removed!!" "we dont know why the video got removed. i didnt watch the video but i know for sure that everything the producers are claiming is false!! it must have been removed for some other reason!!" I don't have to watch the video, because I made exactly 0 claims about the video's content one way or the other. I merely pointed out to you that a video being removed isn't censorship by itself, and that the fact that a second copy of the video is up on the exact same website with the exact same title shows that clearly. Youtube, very clearly, aren't trying to suppress this video, or the second video would have been gone as well. Intentional suppression is a mandatory part of censorship. I repeat. I have made 0 claims about the video's contents and the validity of said content, because it is completely irrelevant to the conversation of "was this censorship". I have also not tried to discredit the video, nor have I accused anybody of lying, or of numbers being incorrect. Please keep those arguments for the people who made those claims, it doesn't exactly help you to conflate what I'm saying with what Jimmi is saying.
"Youtube, very clearly, aren't trying to suppress this video or the second video would have been gone as well."
No, not necessarily. It could just mean that this obscure random channel that uploaded a mirror of a video hasn't gained enough traction yet to find someone that cares enough to flag it for misinformation. It seems obvious that censoring videos for medical misinformation is not something that youtube has automated due to how difficult that would be and the fact that there are literally billions of videos about covid and vaccines. The first video had a million views(?), this one has 5,000 views.
Also I think it's just a really really bad argument to say that "It's not censored because you can still watch it if you looked for it." WombaT said it more eloquently. When you delete a video with a million views it kills all the links that have been shared. It kills it from the "recommended for you" algorithms. Sure it's still there, but if you don't think the fact that the original has a million views and the mirror has 5,000 views is pretty compelling evidence that it has been suppressed then I don't know what to tell you.
|
Norway28673 Posts
Yeah, censorship isn't intrinsically negative. While there's generally a negative connotation, there are also examples of censorship most people agree with. Like, I think it's a good thing that when some terrorist with some manifesto undertakes some terrorist action with the goal of spreading his manifesto, that this manifesto does not get widely circulated -> that this manifesto is censored.
And it's fair if people think medical misinformation should also be censored. While it's a little bit less clear cut (how 'severe' must the misinformation be before it constitutes a threat to public health + it does sometimes happen that medical advice evolves over time), there's no question that certain types of medical advice constitutes a threat to public health. Weighing public health against freedom of speech is a difficult calculation, one that imo must be made on a case to case basis - but if one suppresses information under the logic that said information represents a threat to public health, then that is censorship, even if it's done with good intentions (or even if one agrees that the consequence is ultimately positive).
|
On November 14 2022 19:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:40 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:26 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:16 Symplectos wrote:On November 14 2022 19:11 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative). Why does the reason it was taken down matter if your argument is that "if it freely gets reuploaded it isn't censorship?" Is your argument that it's not censorship because some random mirror was reuploaded that got a fraction of the views? Or is your argument that we're not sure why it got taken down so it might not have been censored? Or let's just assume it was taken down for "medical misinformation." Do you not call that censorship? What do you call it then? Suppression? I think, I am not sure, the argument is, as Makau is explaining, that we do not know the exact circumstances as to why the video in question was taken down. For your last question, from my point of view, removing medical misinformation is not censorship. I see no reason why we, as a society, should allow dangerous misinformation, which could endanger the life of many people, to be spread all over the internet. no, it would still be censorship. if the information was complete bullshit and did nothing other than bring harm to society, then the censorship would have been justified. like trump was censored on twitter for his stupid remarks, and i would agree that although it was censorship, it was the right course of action. we arent arguing about whether this was the right course of action or not, we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. a video that made serious allegations about the safety and integrity of the covid vaccine programs was gaining a lot of traction and the youtube reviewing team chose to remove it from its platform. but if some users here want to delude themselves that it was a copyright infringement (which if you know anything about youtube, would know that copyright infringement doesnt take your whole video down immediately), then whatever. as for whether it was the right course of action, that would be a debate for people who have actually watched the video, which seemingly none of us here have. as for me, i think based on what i saw in the video, theres enough credibility there that it shouldnt have been removed. On November 14 2022 19:19 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative). i commend you for being brave enough to side with jimmic. unfortunately you have just made yourself to look like a fool. im not gonna rehash why youre wrong, because its all already in the thread, but have you even watched the video yourself? or are you going to do what jimmi did and rely on your omniscience to just "know" that the video is full of shit, the reason the video was removed is false, and the producers are lying? the audacity of some of you to straight up try and discredit something you havent even given a minute of your time is hilarious. "oh i found a mirror, hahahah they were lying about the numbers." "oh so the numbers were correct. but they were lying about why the video got removed!!" "we dont know why the video got removed. i didnt watch the video but i know for sure that everything the producers are claiming is false!! it must have been removed for some other reason!!" I don't have to watch the video, because I made exactly 0 claims about the video's content one way or the other. I merely pointed out to you that a video being removed isn't censorship by itself, and that the fact that a second copy of the video is up on the exact same website with the exact same title shows that clearly. Youtube, very clearly, aren't trying to suppress this video, or the second video would have been gone as well. Intentional suppression is a mandatory part of censorship. I repeat. I have made 0 claims about the video's contents and the validity of said content, because it is completely irrelevant to the conversation of "was this censorship". I have also not tried to discredit the video, nor have I accused anybody of lying, or of numbers being incorrect. Please keep those arguments for the people who made those claims, it doesn't exactly help you to conflate what I'm saying with what Jimmi is saying. sure i could agree with your points if we were speaking about any random video in general. however its already been a long time since we established that there is an official reason given for the removal and the contents of the video is consistent with what irrational people might think as 'anti-vax'. so your point that the video could have been removed for any number of reasons is moot. youre too late to the conversation to stick to those guns now; youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers and/or youre making blind assumptions like jimmi without even having reviewed the content. Just because you repeat the same nonsense for a few pages doesn't mean it's any more true now than it was a few pages ago. And I like how you're saying you agree with my point in general, but claim it's different for this particular video without giving any actual reasons why (outside of it fitting your narrative). Show nested quote + however its already been a long time since we established that there is an official reason given for the removal and the contents of the video is consistent with what irrational people might think as 'anti-vax'. theres the reason. directly in the post you quoted. i like how youre yet to give any actual reason as to why the reason provided by the producers, which i am relying on, is my "narrative". once again, have you watched the video? have you assessed for yourself the credibility of the producers? have you assessed whether their reason is consistent with what the content of their video is and how a mainstream institution may react to it? i know the answer is no to all of the above. youve just showed that you are indeed a fool, for doing the exact same thing jimmi did and youre not even realising it. Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:42 Symplectos wrote:On November 14 2022 19:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:35 Symplectos wrote:we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. First it is said that everything is always censorship, then it is said that it is argued whether it is censorship or not, and then it is simply stated as a fact that it was censorship. I might sometimes not even disagree with the ideas mentioned, but always stating "facts" based on personal beliefs doesn't lead to an open discussion, I am afraid. youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers Believing that something is true is never a good thing, especially not in a discussion about a scientific topic. im sorry, im sure you mean well and you wanted to sound profound in your post, but i dont understand anything youve just said If everything is censorship, why is there a discussion whether it was censorship to take the video down or not? The latter part of the quoted post is self-explanatory. You talked about "believing" what the producers said is true. Yet beliefs have no real place in a discussion about a scientific topic. Was that easier for you to understand? who the hell said anything about everything being censorship? what...? as for my "belief" in the producers, im referring to my lack of reason to doubt their claim. dont tell me i have to explain to you that the word belief here doesnt refer to some spiritual faith in their gospel. jesus christ
It would be helpful if you reread your own posts, or the posts that had been made before, or directly after.
Most people are also well aware of the difference been "faith" and a "belief", and still, a lack of reason on your side, to doubt their claims, is still your belief, and not a fact. Don't tell me I have to explain to you the most basic principle of the scientific method?
|
On November 14 2022 19:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah, censorship isn't intrinsically negative. While there's generally a negative connotation, there are also examples of censorship most people agree with. Like, I think it's a good thing that when some terrorist with some manifesto undertakes some terrorist action with the goal of spreading his manifesto, that this manifesto does not get widely circulated -> that this manifesto is censored.
And it's fair if people think medical misinformation should also be censored. While it's a little bit less clear cut (how 'severe' must the misinformation be before it constitutes a threat to public health + it does sometimes happen that medical advice evolves over time), there's no question that certain types of medical advice constitutes a threat to public health. Weighing public health against freedom of speech is a difficult calculation, one that imo must be made on a case to case basis - but if one suppresses information under the logic that said information represents a threat to public health, then that is censorship, even if it's done with good intentions (or even if one agrees that the consequence is ultimately positive).
Thank you for this clear and well-written post / answer, and your continued ability to nagivate this thread without falling victim to anger, as I sometimes do.
|
On November 14 2022 19:57 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:46 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:40 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:26 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:16 Symplectos wrote:On November 14 2022 19:11 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative). Why does the reason it was taken down matter if your argument is that "if it freely gets reuploaded it isn't censorship?" Is your argument that it's not censorship because some random mirror was reuploaded that got a fraction of the views? Or is your argument that we're not sure why it got taken down so it might not have been censored? Or let's just assume it was taken down for "medical misinformation." Do you not call that censorship? What do you call it then? Suppression? I think, I am not sure, the argument is, as Makau is explaining, that we do not know the exact circumstances as to why the video in question was taken down. For your last question, from my point of view, removing medical misinformation is not censorship. I see no reason why we, as a society, should allow dangerous misinformation, which could endanger the life of many people, to be spread all over the internet. no, it would still be censorship. if the information was complete bullshit and did nothing other than bring harm to society, then the censorship would have been justified. like trump was censored on twitter for his stupid remarks, and i would agree that although it was censorship, it was the right course of action. we arent arguing about whether this was the right course of action or not, we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. a video that made serious allegations about the safety and integrity of the covid vaccine programs was gaining a lot of traction and the youtube reviewing team chose to remove it from its platform. but if some users here want to delude themselves that it was a copyright infringement (which if you know anything about youtube, would know that copyright infringement doesnt take your whole video down immediately), then whatever. as for whether it was the right course of action, that would be a debate for people who have actually watched the video, which seemingly none of us here have. as for me, i think based on what i saw in the video, theres enough credibility there that it shouldnt have been removed. On November 14 2022 19:19 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative). i commend you for being brave enough to side with jimmic. unfortunately you have just made yourself to look like a fool. im not gonna rehash why youre wrong, because its all already in the thread, but have you even watched the video yourself? or are you going to do what jimmi did and rely on your omniscience to just "know" that the video is full of shit, the reason the video was removed is false, and the producers are lying? the audacity of some of you to straight up try and discredit something you havent even given a minute of your time is hilarious. "oh i found a mirror, hahahah they were lying about the numbers." "oh so the numbers were correct. but they were lying about why the video got removed!!" "we dont know why the video got removed. i didnt watch the video but i know for sure that everything the producers are claiming is false!! it must have been removed for some other reason!!" I don't have to watch the video, because I made exactly 0 claims about the video's content one way or the other. I merely pointed out to you that a video being removed isn't censorship by itself, and that the fact that a second copy of the video is up on the exact same website with the exact same title shows that clearly. Youtube, very clearly, aren't trying to suppress this video, or the second video would have been gone as well. Intentional suppression is a mandatory part of censorship. I repeat. I have made 0 claims about the video's contents and the validity of said content, because it is completely irrelevant to the conversation of "was this censorship". I have also not tried to discredit the video, nor have I accused anybody of lying, or of numbers being incorrect. Please keep those arguments for the people who made those claims, it doesn't exactly help you to conflate what I'm saying with what Jimmi is saying. sure i could agree with your points if we were speaking about any random video in general. however its already been a long time since we established that there is an official reason given for the removal and the contents of the video is consistent with what irrational people might think as 'anti-vax'. so your point that the video could have been removed for any number of reasons is moot. youre too late to the conversation to stick to those guns now; youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers and/or youre making blind assumptions like jimmi without even having reviewed the content. Just because you repeat the same nonsense for a few pages doesn't mean it's any more true now than it was a few pages ago. And I like how you're saying you agree with my point in general, but claim it's different for this particular video without giving any actual reasons why (outside of it fitting your narrative). however its already been a long time since we established that there is an official reason given for the removal and the contents of the video is consistent with what irrational people might think as 'anti-vax'. theres the reason. directly in the post you quoted. i like how youre yet to give any actual reason as to why the reason provided by the producers, which i am relying on, is my "narrative". once again, have you watched the video? have you assessed for yourself the credibility of the producers? have you assessed whether their reason is consistent with what the content of their video is and how a mainstream institution may react to it? i know the answer is no to all of the above. youve just showed that you are indeed a fool, for doing the exact same thing jimmi did and youre not even realising it. On November 14 2022 19:42 Symplectos wrote:On November 14 2022 19:37 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 14 2022 19:35 Symplectos wrote:we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. First it is said that everything is always censorship, then it is said that it is argued whether it is censorship or not, and then it is simply stated as a fact that it was censorship. I might sometimes not even disagree with the ideas mentioned, but always stating "facts" based on personal beliefs doesn't lead to an open discussion, I am afraid. youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers Believing that something is true is never a good thing, especially not in a discussion about a scientific topic. im sorry, im sure you mean well and you wanted to sound profound in your post, but i dont understand anything youve just said If everything is censorship, why is there a discussion whether it was censorship to take the video down or not? The latter part of the quoted post is self-explanatory. You talked about "believing" what the producers said is true. Yet beliefs have no real place in a discussion about a scientific topic. Was that easier for you to understand? who the hell said anything about everything being censorship? what...? as for my "belief" in the producers, im referring to my lack of reason to doubt their claim. dont tell me i have to explain to you that the word belief here doesnt refer to some spiritual faith in their gospel. jesus christ It would be helpful if you reread your own posts, or the posts that had been made before, or directly after. Most people are also well aware of the difference been "faith" and a "belief", and still, a lack of reason on your side, to doubt their claims, is still your belief, and not a fact. Don't tell me I have to explain to you the most basic principle of the scientific method?
reread my posts, and nope, still dont know what youre talking about. feel free to quote where i said "everything is always censorship".
also i never claimed that the reason provided by the producers was fact. i believe what they said because the burden of proof lies with the person who wants to prove that the reason is false. i could see no reason as to why the producers would lie about the reason, when they certainly didnt lie about the numbers. i also noticed that the producers clearly went to a lot of effort in the video to make the production as professional and credible as possible. lying about the reason for removal would be inconsistent with the rest of their actions. notice how everyone else in this thread that wont accept the video was censored has failed to present a single legitimate reason as to why the producers' claim should not be taken at face value? the best they came up with was "a mirror is still available on youtube".
|
i believe what they said because the burden of proof lies with the person who wants to prove that the reason is false.
This is unfortunately not true. If someone claims that something is true, they have to prove it with publicly verifiable evidence, or data. Based on that data, a discussion can then be had. It is not "my" job to disprove something that has not been proven yet.
i could see no reason as to why the producers would lie about the reason, when they certainly didnt lie about the numbers.
Just because they didn't lie about the numbers, doesn't mean they are correct about everything else.
I can't say whether the information in the video are correct, or wrong, but maybe, to have a more fruitful discussion, one could start with talking about some of the claims made in the video, one by one, including the evidence, data or logical proofs they give for their claims.
|
On November 14 2022 18:23 Symplectos wrote:See, I am actually a very polite person, but after countless years of having to explain basic scientific principles to people who never listen and then just ignorantly shout whatever sentimental feelings they have about a subject, caused change in my attitude.You opted to write Show nested quote +"Common explanations of fertility change during the pandemic do not apply in its aftermath." Instead of using the entire quote Show nested quote +Common explanations of fertility change during the pandemic do not apply in its aftermath. The association between the onset of mass vaccinations and subsequent fertility decline indicates that people adjusted their behaviour to get vaccinated before becoming pregnant, as societies were opening up with post-pandemic life conditions. And then you said Show nested quote +
While they stop short from blaming vaccine itself for this and provide other possible reasons, this is (to my knowledge) so far harshest statement regarding vaccine from any official government agency.
While the paper you link clearly speaks about vaccine progams, and not the vaccine itself:Show nested quote + In some cases, there may have been a more direct effect of the vaccination programme as such, as some prospective parents may have postponed a decision to have another child until after securing a vaccination for themselves. This happened countless times over the last years, papers are misrepresented, some quotes are taken out of context, and then mixed with personal feelings and emotions to stir up anger or dissent.Show nested quote +Italic 2: Fact that you believe, that someone posting something you disagree with does so "to provoke anger", gives somewhat interesting insight into state of your mind. You didn't post a fact, or even an idea I could disagree with. I simply oppose your willful misrepresentation of a study.
As I said, you could have opted to faithfully state what the paper claims, instead of leaving out the important little bits, just to frame it in a different light.
Bolded: for someone who uses phrases like: "pure evilness", "provoke anger" and "scream" you are quite boldly accusing me of "ignorantly shout whatever sentimental feelings they have about a subject"
as for "but after countless years of having to explain basic scientific principles" wouldnt that be foremost to familiarize yourself with the actual study?
Thats what it actually states:
"Based on the descriptive associations presented in this study, we
interpret the post-pandemic change in childbearing behaviour as a reaction to the changes in
life circumstances that were anticipated as societies were to open up to non-pandemic
conditions. In some cases, there may have been a more direct effect of the vaccination
programme as such, as some prospective parents may have postponed a decision to have
another child until after securing a vaccination for themselves."
Noticed the small difference between what you quoted and above?
Italic: Indeed my bad, I should state vaccine rollout. They also quite clearly state "we interpret"
Bolded 2: I didnt misrepresent study. I posted link title and source. Then I quoted parts which I believe were significant. What I found significant about them is that this were to my knowledge harshest statements regarding vaccine rollout from any official government agency.
On November 14 2022 18:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Does this paper in any way shape or form claim that vaccines have influenced the fertility of women, or is it claiming that the vaccination program has influenced people's decisions regarding when to have children, or is it claiming that during covid, time-frame wise coinciding with when vaccine programs were happening, quite some people for various reasons decided to delay having children?
The first would be a huge statement/finding (and I'd want corroborating studies, but also expect that corroborating studies would happen to see if the findings replicate), the middle would be hm, mildly interesting, I wonder why, and the third would be something I accept at face value.
Paper claims that there is strong correlation between onset of vaccination programme and fertility decline 9 months after.
"is it claiming that the vaccination program has influenced people's decisions regarding when to have children"
It states that may have affect some people decisions:
"some prospective parents may have postponed a decision to have
another child until after securing a vaccination for themselves"
"is it claiming that during covid, time-frame wise coinciding with when vaccine programs were happening, quite some people for various reasons decided to delay having children"
this is what it claims however it excludes economic and health related factors.
"Other well-known explanations of fertility change during the course of the pandemic, such as
the impact of health-related and economic factors seem not to be associated with the timing
of fertility decline in 2022. Based on the descriptive associations presented in this study, we
interpret the post-pandemic change in childbearing behaviour as a reaction to the changes in
life circumstances that were anticipated as societies were to open up to non-pandemic
conditions"
"Does this paper in any way shape or form claim that vaccines have influenced the fertility of women"
It doesnt claim, or even suggest that at all.
|
On November 14 2022 19:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:04 Gorsameth wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? The youtube algorithm being shit? This entire discussions feels like its not an actual discussion about censorship but just a complaint about Youtube being Youtube. I'm not sure what that means. Can you elaborate? Its an automated algorithm that removes video's because of certain words and it, somewhat frequently, makes mistakes. No one decided that this video is dangerous and should be supressed anymore then someone decided a chess channel should be banned because of inappropriate race discussion.
The argument shouldn't be about whether or not this is censorship but that Youtube needs to do a better job at screening its content.
|
On November 14 2022 20:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 19:35 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 19:04 Gorsameth wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? The youtube algorithm being shit? This entire discussions feels like its not an actual discussion about censorship but just a complaint about Youtube being Youtube. I'm not sure what that means. Can you elaborate? Its an automated algorithm that removes video's because of certain words and it, somewhat frequently, makes mistakes. No one decided that this video is dangerous and should be supressed anymore then someone decided a chess channel should be banned because of inappropriate race discussion. The argument shouldn't be about whether or not this is censorship but that Youtube needs to do a better job at screening its content.
What evidence do you have that it was taken down by an automated algorithm? If it's automated why wouldn't it have taken the mirror down as well?
|
Northern Ireland25419 Posts
On November 14 2022 13:59 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 07:40 WombaT wrote:On November 14 2022 01:46 JimmiC wrote:On November 14 2022 01:40 WombaT wrote:
I’m gonna hard disagree with you on this one Jimmy.
Razyda went to the effort of finding the particular thing on web archive. Seems pretty clear it was pulled, as to why I don’t know.
Conversely, at a time where Hunter Biden’s laptop was trending on Birdbook, amongst others, claims of suppression seem somewhat bogus given the overall story is out in the public domain, and those curious can find it.
So in that case, I think claims of ‘you can’t talk about this’ are bogus. But in this very specific instance it seems pretty indisputable that this video did get pulled, and prior to being pulled had a lot of traffic. There was never a moment where you could not see the video. Do you know why it was pulled? Was it that they were breaking terms of service and using bots to up viewer numbers? (Could be no one is watching the other video, even these really upset people) Was it trademark? Was it that it makes a bunch of bold lies? The last one is what people here have determined as fact. I think (notice how unlike the others I don't say know) it is another reason. And back to library example, no one is missing out on seeing this video that wants too. What is there to be mad about? I never claimed I put a ton of effort into this, I was pointing no one who is actually mad about it did, in fact they put in less then me since it took me 5 seconds to find the video that was "censored". Edit: The whole schtick is that there is all this information about how bad vaccines are that "they" are keeping people from seeing. This video is super accessible, people on this thread who are super into this sort of stuff couldn't even bother to watch it all because I'm guessing it was that bad. This video taken down, for any of a number reasons, is better for the cause, then it being up, because now it can be pretended that "they" did and there was actually all this good information that can not be seen. None of that is true. To censor is to " to examine in order to suppress" the video is not suppressed. (Suppress: keep from being publicly known) Now this company makes full revenue and even asks for donations on their site. Not being able to see this particular video, and not being able to easily see this video are two different things. In terms of how the content delivery pipeline works, something with 900k views and tons of engagement is considerably more accessible to those who don’t already know it exists. It’ll pop up in suggestions of people digging around similar topics, versus not registering there. I couldn’t be arsed watching it because I have zero interest in what emanates from the ‘skeptic’ corner of the internet, I have no opinion on the content. But the question is whether it’s judicious to censor it or not, as to whether it happened or not seems 100% cut and dry. For whatever reason that may be. If I was sufficiently driven I could find anything, government secrets, hell thru to child pornography. Being able to find something doesn’t mean it’s not censored I found 2 issues with bolded part: 1 - just because it was censored (and maybe because it was me who posted link here to it originally) you decided that: "couldn’t be arsed watching it"- you wont watch it "I have zero interest in what emanates from the ‘skeptic’ corner of the internet" - described it in a way which should be reserved for tinfoil hat videos. This, in a way, proofs that censorship works. 2 - Out of, let me call it 'your side" You, Jimmy, MagicPowers stated you didnt watch the video, Sermokala didnt say anything, but I am inclined to believe he didnt watch it either. I understand, video is almost hour long and I dont expect people will spend so much time on it. However how does it reflect on discussion when one side pretty much openly admits they are not even interested in other side arguments. Science you guys like to refer so much is based on arguments, counterarguments, questioning, researching not on the "yeah, lets everybody go with that" attitude which frankly you guys seem to adopt.
First in general, I don’t like the ‘watch this long video’ form of discourse. Even if it’s stuff I agree with. Just based on my personal routine, what free time I do have I don’t want to do that.
Articles, I can scan through, skip big sections and find what I’m looking for, return to them, etc. I probably should have specified videos in particular.
It’s really a twofold thing for me.
1. Unless it’s really egregiously wrong, I don’t have the science chops to fact check claims. I will generally defer to scientific consensus, and associated dissemination of what the current state is into more common parlance to try and establish a baseline.
2. What to do, is a very political thing. My mind isn’t going to radically change on some base positions. It’s a vanishingly small chance those change based on some video.
3. I’m frankly just burned out arguing/listening to arguments around the topic. Hence why I’m on record many times saying I pretty much rely on what filters through this thread.
To clarify I AM open to discussions on certain forums etc, I’m just checked out of doing much of it outside places like this. I don’t think to be open-minded one is obligated to listen to every argument coming from a sector of folks that have shown time and time again are incapable of understanding science, or argue in bad faith.
This particular video may be 100% fine, but ultimately if it’s making good, fact-aligned arguments I’ll probably have encountered those arguments already.
I’m not accusing you here man, this discussion emerged from a censorship discussion but like, far too many times people have expected me to watch an hour+ video without even giving me a small synopsis of what’s worth me finding in it.
|
Northern Ireland25419 Posts
On November 14 2022 20:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2022 20:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 14 2022 19:35 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 19:04 Gorsameth wrote:On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?
yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently. Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title. A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship. What do you call it then? The youtube algorithm being shit? This entire discussions feels like its not an actual discussion about censorship but just a complaint about Youtube being Youtube. I'm not sure what that means. Can you elaborate? Its an automated algorithm that removes video's because of certain words and it, somewhat frequently, makes mistakes. No one decided that this video is dangerous and should be supressed anymore then someone decided a chess channel should be banned because of inappropriate race discussion. The argument shouldn't be about whether or not this is censorship but that Youtube needs to do a better job at screening its content. What evidence do you have that it was taken down by an automated algorithm? If it's automated why wouldn't it have taken the mirror down as well?
The processes are all quite opaque, I’ve spent quite some time figuring out a broad understanding, but it’s very black box.
Part of my issue with how moderation is done is due to its opaque nature. I suppose this does prevent people crafting workarounds, but in the flip side it makes it hard to make any qualified judgment on how biased or not the processes are.
In this instance, what I assume.
Automated content checking doesn’t get run on everything.
It likely gets flagged by a certain view count, or some kind of filter based on the traffic to it. If people hop from another offending video to another, it becomes suspect.
A certain amount of human users flagging things also triggers it. Not sure if we’re talking absolute numbers, or something more complex.
In this instance I would say, it has few views, and the vast majority of people viewing it, liked the previous one and were merely trying to find it again, so it lacks both the footprint to trigger automated moderation, and it’s viewers are unlikely to flag it to trigger anything either.
|
|
|
If I had the time, I'd watch the video, research the claims made, and show exactly why the removal was or wasn't justified.
Other people here have the same reason as I do to not watch the video: time. Some just don't want to watch it.
My proposal would therefore be that those who accuse Youtube of censorship in this instance provide definitive proof (not just a claim) for why the video in question was in fact removed, since they're the one making the accusation. Then other people can comment on the findings. That's what I would consider fair, not whatever shitshow this thread is having right now.
|
yeah this will indeed be my last response to you on this matter because your post confirms to me further engagement would be a literal waste of time.
your library analogy is as stupid as you are. the library isnt the one replacing the book they just removed, some random customer is. it also doesnt take away from the fact that the library had intention to remove the book and make it unavailable for its customers. if some random hooligan put another copy of the same book on a shelf somewhere and the library doesnt even know about it, how are they supposed to remove it? how are you struggling with these absolute basic ideas? as someone else already put it, its cut and dry.
as for the pile on. you guys piled on blackjack without having the intelligence to understand what he was even arguing for. guess what? the subject got dropped eventually when serm admitted that he wasnt too big to accept that he may have been wrong about blackjacks position. you guys were attacking him without merit.
now the same people are refusing to say a word about your current position, which also lacks merit. i see a correlation here.
once again, i dont see you or any of your supporters on this matter providing a single legitimate reason as to why you should not accept the producers' claims that the video was taken down for misinformation. too quick to take out your tin foil hats and rely on your omniscience to judge the video.
you like a library so much go read a book about what censorship actually is instead of deflecting the matter into some right wing garbage.
|
i dont see you or any of your supporters on this matter providing a single legitimate reason as to why you should not accept the producers' claims that the video was taken down for misinformation
Again, those who make a claim, have to prove it. There are several posts trying to find an explanation as to why it might have been removed, and also a few posters even willing to dicuss the content of the video, fact by fact.
Although I guess a fact-based discussion is not as easy as claiming victory in style :
your library analogy is as stupid as you are
|
On November 14 2022 22:33 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +i dont see you or any of your supporters on this matter providing a single legitimate reason as to why you should not accept the producers' claims that the video was taken down for misinformation Again, those who make a claim, have to prove it. There are several posts trying to find an explanation as to why it might have been removed, and also a few posters even willing to dicuss the content of the video.
i made a claim on this thread recently about an acquaintance i knew who died after getting her shot. do i have to back this claim up with proof too? would you like me to submit a death certificate and a signed affidavit from her family? get a grip.
also, an explanation as to why it may have been removed has already been given. by the producers. if you dont want to accept their explanation i expect you to have a better reason for doing so other than baseless speculation or judgments about the contents of a video you havent even watched.
anyways im done. sick of explaining simple concepts to brick walls
|
|
|
i made a claim on this thread recently about an acquaintance i knew who died after getting her shot. do i have to back this claim up with proof too? would you like me to submit a death certificate and a signed affidavit from her family? get a grip.
My condolences for your loss. I have no idea why you bring that up, but an anecdote of a person dying, no matter how tragic that is, is just that, an anecdote, and doesn't proof or show anything. I would actually feel more sympathy if you wouldn't act like an ass to everyone in every single post. It is also not my fault that you have no clue how to talk about a scientific topic. But if you are really this upset about the vaccine, maybe you should take a step back. The world is not out to get you, and people here are not arguing just to spite you.
also, an explanation as to why it may have been removed has already been given. by the producers. if you dont want to accept their explanation i expect you to have a better reason for doing so other than baseless speculation or judgments about the contents of a video you havent even watched.
And again, people gave you reasons as to why they think it could have been taken down. You simply reply that they are stupid - the only one judging based on feelings is you.
anyways im done. sick of explaining simple concepts to brick walls
Welcome to the world of so many scientists in the last few years / decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
