The examples the company cited include "promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11."
King Mob wrote: » It depends. If they are still promoting the idea that corona virus can be cured by staring at the sun or drinking bleach, then they should at the very least not be allowed to monetise their videos on that subject. Also their videos should not be promoted with the same weight as medical doctors and actual experts I don't believe they should be prevented or barred from making videos though. If Youtube bans them, they can host their own videos else where. Could you please go back and explain why you found Nal's example of staring at the sun so alarmist and nonsense compared to the real example of drinking bleach?
nullzero wrote: » I'm asking you if somebody is discussing conspiracy theories without encouraging nonsensical behaviour or selling harmful products, should they be allowed to have their say. I think that was reasonably clear.
I don't believe they should be prevented or barred from making videos though.
nullzero wrote: » The Nal hadn't qualified their original statement with the bleach drinking post when I said what they said was alarmist. I stated that saying staring at the sun was alarmist in relation to people sharing opinions that deviate from the "norm". I hadn't discussed people who want to encourage people to drink bleach. For the record if you encourage people to drink bleach you deserve whatever punishment you receive, preferably criminal charges. Can we move on from this narrative and actually discuss the point at hand?
King Mob wrote: » Yup. And I answered that directly. The point at hand though is that there are conspiracy theorists who do promote nonsensical and harmful behavior both for profit and because they genuinely believe. At what point do claims become acceptably sensible for you? For example, I think it's nonsense to claim that 5G is related to Coronavirus. Do you think that this conspiracy theory has some validity? If so, what distinguishes it from invalid things like the idea that MMS can treat the coronavirus?
nullzero wrote: » I haven't argued about the validity of anything. That is pretty clear of you have read my posts.
nullzero wrote: » Is the silencing of the people who discuss these topics eventually going to lead to others being silenced for other reasons.
nullzero wrote: » I believe people can judge things based on their merit and don't require to be insulated from even the wackiest theories. Sensible or not most people can make judgements on these theories by themselves. .
King Mob wrote: » But you have declared that the alternative idea that MMS can treat coronavirus is nonsense... But this is exactly the same hyperbolic claim you were accusing others of a few posts ago... And yet we have people drinking bleach to cure illnesses. We have people claiming mass shootings are faked... We have people saying the holocaust didn't happen... We have people saying the Earth is flat... If people can make their own judgments whether something is nonsense or not, why do some people believe things that are clearly nonsense? Do you think that there aren't people willing to take advantage of these credulous believers?
nullzero wrote: » I believe people have the right to self determination. That means they are free to do things that are sensible or not. Whether or not that keeps you up at night is a problem for you to work on.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Kingmob gaslighting again. It a tactic he uses often. Most people don't spot it though, it's his posting style!
Dohnjoe wrote: » 20 phone masts have been targeted in arson attacks over the weekend, this is why social media companies, like Youtube, are forced to take action
nullzero wrote: » Still has nothing to do with what's going on in India.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Of course it does. Certain conspiracy theories can have harmful effects. Muslims are being attacked in India over fake information, likewise cell towers in the UK. It directly counters the sentiment that conspiracy theories are just "fun and harmless".
nullzero wrote: » Nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that Internet based companies have no influence over what's happening in India because it isn't happening online. That is a fact. A fact you have consistently ignored. You must enjoy ignoring facts.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Perhaps reread my post above carefully. Certain conspiracy theories can be harmful, no matter how they are spread. If they are spread via social media, then it's unsurprising those private platforms take mitigating action. I don't think you are disagreeing with what I've written there.
nullzero wrote: » "Both are related to fake online theories linked to Coronavirus being spread on social media platforms". That is what you said earlier, attributing islamophobic attacks in India to being spread online.
Dohnjoe wrote: » They are being spread via social media, as well as traditional mediahttps://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-india-tiktok-whatsapp-videos-being-used-to-mislead-people-on-coronavirus-say-police-2205317https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/tablighi-jamaat-india-muslims-coronavirus.htmlhttps://time.com/5815264/coronavirus-india-islamophobia-coronajihad/ Again, you seem to agree with my points
nullzero wrote: » Re read your own posts carefully. Earlier you were saying one thing now it's something else. "Both are related to fake online theories linked to Coronavirus being spread on social media platforms". That is what you said earlier, attributing islamophobic attacks in India to being spread online. The situation in India can only be tentatively described as a conspiracy theory as it is really just an old prejudice finding a new expression. It has no means of being spread by social media as the infrastructure in those communities for that to happen doesn't exist.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Reminds me of when the US army showed pictures of 9/11 to Afghan tribal leaders. They looked bewildered and had no clue this all happened. Yet supposedly this grand conspiracy began in their country. We forget internet access is largely non existent in very poorest of countries.
King Mob wrote: » Kinda dodging all of the points I made... The problem I see there is that not all people are as sensible as you give them credit for. A large amount of people believe things that are obviously false. This isn't through their own fault.
nullzero wrote: » Here's the thing, you didn't make any points and in no particular order, you rambled on about how people deny different things have happened, and then you blathered on about people drinking bleach again, you also bemoaned people's ability to make poor decisions . .
King Mob wrote: » I made my point pretty clearly. You are saying that people are able to judge the difference between reality and nonsense pretty easily. But many people believe things that are very clearly nonsense, for example the idea the Holocaust didn't happen or the Earth is flat etc etc. If all people are able to judge between reality and nonsense, then people wouldn't believe these and other nonsensical things. So why, in your opinion, do people believe things that are nonsense? In my opinion it is not because of any fault or failing of the people themselves. QUOTE=nullzero;113161737] If people are going to make money out of gullible people then surely you should be protesting every time a collection plate gets passed around a church on a Sunday morning, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you lack the conviction to carry out such an action. go.
nullzero wrote: » Well to put it in as simple terms as possible, people believe in nonsense because they can.
nullzero wrote: » My whole argument here revolves around self determination and a person's right to choose what they believe or don't believe and the freedom to express things within reason, which with the exception of a few charlatans and snake oil salesmen encompasses most of what get categorised as "conspiracy theories".
nullzero wrote: » Where we differ is that you seem to feel that people need to be directed in what they get exposed to because they are not competent enough to self determine because of the limitations of the weakest minds in society. I cannot support that idea as it is too restrictive to allow for the type of freedom people deserve.
King Mob wrote: » You have misunderstood my question. Why do some people when presented with ideas that are clearly wrong choose to believe them? Your claims don't really apply to the conspiracy theories that I pointed to as these are all theories that are not accepted as the norm and none of them are driven by superstition. These people are given the option of reality and nonsense, yet they choose the nonsense idea. What do you think leads them to their choice? If most people can tell the difference between reality and nonsense, why do some people fail to identify something as nonsense? Ok, so for example, if a person wishes to express the conspiracy theory that the holocaust didn't happen and that it was all a hoax perpetrated by the Jews, then this person should be allowed to do so as they wish and wherever they wish? That's not my position nor have I stated anything of the sort.
nullzero wrote: » I'm sorry but I have not misunderstood your question. In fact I have answered it eloquently.
nullzero wrote: » I'm not here to discuss holocaust denial, so I'm not sure why you keep raising that issue (twice so far) as it has nothing to do with what I have said at any point.
nullzero wrote: » The eagerness some people have to equate all "alternative" thought with holocaust denial is indicative of the type of heart string pulling narrative you wish to impose on anybody who defends freedom of thought or expression, as if all freedom of thought and expression can be linked to some sort of anti-semitic holocaust denial nonsensical thought process. This is in point of fact an extremely lazy way to argue a point, it is a tired hackneyed approach to debate and is quite a shameful tactic to employ.
King Mob wrote: » No you have not. "people believe in nonsense because they can." Does not really address the question I am asking you. I'm bringing it up as a real example of alternative thought that most people would agree is nonsense and agree is somewhat extreme. However it is also one that does not inherently cause harm or endangers people like the alternative thoughts about MMS and other medical topics. I have not done this. Holocaust denial is one type of "alternative" thought. What makes holocaust denial an unacceptable type of "alternative" thought? What makes it different to the types you find acceptable?
nullzero wrote: » The holocaust happened. People who deny that typically have an axe to grind with Jewish people.
nullzero wrote: » The holocaust happened. People who deny that typically have an axe to grind with Jewish people. Therefore their opinions do not deserve to be taken seriously. They do however have the right to express them. ... Overall, whatever nonsense is being peddled people will generally be capable of identifying it as it comes at them which nullifies the need to ban everything to "protect" people.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Cheerful_spring is not going to like this view
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
