Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Was youtube right to remove the controversial video featuring Joe Roagan...

Where he talks to a scientific guy who links all the pro vaccers to "mass psychosis"?

Although this is perhaps not technically "deplatforming" (Joe Roagan is still on YouTube), it could be argued that the response of YouTube is still the censorship of ideas that might trouble the hive mind.

But it's worse. First they get to blanket ban problematic people entirely....

... But now they've got away with that, they know they can get away with cherry picking certain propositions that are trouble. This leaves the rest of us with less data in order to determine our opinions. Essentially, it means our subjugation is more insidious.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
Oh, for the love of fuck.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
@LordShadowfire yeah saw that already. Not really relevant to my post really
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@Jm31xxx Untrue. It means that YouTube had every right to remove Joe Rogan's lies.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
BlueVeins · 22-25
@LordShadowfire Original post didn't cite the legality of what YouTube's doing; it argued on the principle.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
@BlueVeins thank you for chiming in for me. I feel like I'm bullying them when I point out stuff like that. It's like they don't have the capacity for making subtle distinctions. And I wonder if that is an intended insidious consequence of cancel culture, deplatforming and censorship in general.
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@Jm31xxx Fine. I think YouTube made the right decision by getting rid of a dangerous video. It's just like if I were to post a video claiming that you can jump into the Grand Canyon, flap your wings, and gently float to the ground. Somebody could listen to that, believe it, and go try it.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
@LordShadowfire OK I haven't seen it. Its on Spotify so maybe I'll check it out. Have you seen it?
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@Jm31xxx I freely admit that I haven't, but if he's promoting some new idiotic so-called alternative to vaccines, it's about time they did something about him.

Hell with it, I'll go watch it as well.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
@LordShadowfire see? You characterised it as dangerous without even seeing it. And I think the scientist might have only spoken about the moral panic, not the effectiveness of the vaccine
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@Jm31xxx I haven't found a video yet, but I read a couple of summaries. He compares mask and vaccine mandates to Nazi Germany.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
@LordShadowfire and when YouTube ban the vid, doesn't that legitimise his point?
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@Jm31xxx Absolutely not! Because his video is still available on Spotify. He hasn't been taken away by the SS for spouting his lies. No government agency is going to torture him for it. All that happened is some third party YouTuber uploaded a portion of his episode, only to get it removed because it was a violation of the YouTube terms of service.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
@LordShadowfire yeah but is Spotify owned by YouTube. And traditionally, is it known as an information source?
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@Jm31xxx You are 100% free to create your own video streaming service, and upload whatever you like. So long as it doesn't promote active insurrection, violence, or prejudice against any minority groups, nobody will fuck with it. That's what freedom of speech means. It doesn't mean that an existing streaming service is required to allow you to post your bullshit.

yeah but is Spotify owned by YouTube. And traditionally, is it known as an information source?
I don't know who owns it. I assume it's a different company, because Joe has an exclusive streaming contract with them. The point is, the government isn't going to come take him away because he keeps spouting lies on Spotify. Therefore, the comparison fails.
Jm31xxx · 46-50, M
@LordShadowfire

"So long as it doesn't promote active insurrection, violence, or prejudice against any minority groups,"

Don't think the vid in question did anything like that
LordShadowfire · 46-50, M
@Jm31xxx It didn't. But YouTube has as part of its terms of service, to which every YouTuber agrees, not to post lies that could lead to people getting hurt. I'm not saying they aren't being a little strict with their definitions, but they have a legal and moral right to do so. It's their website. Don't like it? Make your own. It's a free country.