Who knows, maybe in theory land there's no reason we can't have it both ways. But it seems to me that in the real world precisely the opposite is true. We can't demand increasingly invasive and opaque mechanisms to prevent the spread of misinformation (once upon a time many examples of which would have just been called "gossip" or the "rumor mill") and then act surpised when radicals for our own important causes get swept up in the net. At some point we either have to admit that what we really want to build is a like-minded dictorship or we have to start discussing (in a sober manner devoid of the histrionics and gamesmanship that have come to envelope contemporary dialogues) what an intellient compromise in objectives might look like.
To me, the solution is obviously better education. When people believe the Earth is round only because that's what they were told, it's not that hard for a clever talker to convince them the Earth could be flat. When people know the Earth is round because they actually understand the physics behind it, there's no way you're ever going to convince them the Earth is flat.
Instead of admitting our education system has failed, people's ignorance is being used as an excuse to tighten control over the media even further.
I'm gonna guess you don't have children. Children like easy-to-follow directions. They don't understand nuance at all. It's not because it's "easier on parents and teachers", it's because it's what works.
You add nuance later in middle and high school.
That doesn't mean they accept everything as fact. They may simply not choose to question because of fear of punishment, or for any other number of reasons.
>Then when they're adults they lack any kind of critical thinking skills because they've been miseducated and they're easy targets for disinformation.
That is a giant leap of logic.. or faith. Case in point :- I went to a religious school (though, it was more of a hippie religious school), and many of my classmates became atheists later in life. :)
I think there a large room for even further nuance about how humans develop and all the factors that shape our thinking. Simply forcing a 'critical thinking' class into the curriculum won't give them any benefit any more than attending an entrepreneurship class will make you an entrepreneur.
The powers that be, haven't got the memo yet that it doesn't benefit them anymore to have a populous which is easily manipulated. In the past, old media acted as parameter control, though concentrated ownership. Sure they had vested interests, but they were generally alined with American values; capitalism, stable democracy, international leadership by America, etc. But now each of the 340 million brains in this country can be accessed directly by foreign adversaries. Parameter control can not work anymore, unless we shut down the internet. We must bring the security to each individual endpoint.
Some will argue that we should shutdown the internet or censor it. But is that the world we want to live in? That would stifle economic growth and i do not believe it is compatible with the ideals of liberal democracies.
The problem with understanding things from their fundamentals is that it doesn't scale. The world is too complex.
Are vaccines safe? Maybe I'll just should read through the Institute of Medicine's definitive, 900 page "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality."
Can these robust explanations be simplified for lay people? Yes, but faced with competing, simplified explanations, can lay people dependably evaluate which is correct? Can they do it better than a domain expert?
I have some understanding of how vaccines work, from school and popular science literature. But if tomorrow leaders in the field of medicine broadly announced that all of our understanding of vaccines up until now had been mistaken and that there was now some new explanation, well I would accept that new explanation. Whatever education I have had on the topic, it is obviously not going to be better than the education of experts in the medical field.
Epistemic humility and a consequent reliance on domain experts is an essential part of being informed in our wonderfully complex world. This also means it is possible to be mislead by experts who are in the wrong, but I don't really see how this can be entirely avoided.
I can understand the call for censorship, but I don't see any particular value in the opaqueness.
One proposed solution is to simply filter the more 'extreme' standpoints out of the dialogue. Hence censorship.
But I don't think that filtering and moderation are going to help much if people still stay isolated in their bubbles. All you're doing is superficially fighting symptoms; but the root cause remains.
I don't want to give an example since those usually get confused for the subject but I'll share 2 things that made me laugh at the time: 1) I use to think people are logical beings. I believed the first half of my life that we act based on logic and reason. Then one day I noticed this is simply something I like to believe to be true. That I can think this without a shred of evidence is evidence in it self of the opposite. 2) We build, create and design to make things as easy and convenient as possible for ourselves and for other people. Comfort is taken on faith as a valid goal so obvious that it needs not be questioned. In the process we distance ourselves from the core mechanics of our existence and we fail to challenge our mind as well as our body. If we can build the apparatus we are happy to forget how to tie our shoes. We no longer need to know what we can eat in the forest, when to plant crops, how to make all of those nice wooden things, how to forge metals, how to have a productive conversation (which requires disagreement) we think we benefit from calling that taxi but what we really needed was the 3 km walk in the sun or snow, fresh air and to see those birds fly over that old tree. Even the shoes are a solution to their own problem.
:-)
The world is filled with models that are simple enough to use and accurate enough to be useful, sadly that doesn’t make them correct.
Censorship seems so simple on the surface, but like everything else the implementation rarely matches the theory. I would argue for disclaimers as a much better option, even if they also fail.
Ah, the Paradox of Tolerance and the Age-Old Quandry of "Is unconditionally punching a Nazi consistent with liberalism?"
The fact is, you can't try to stabilize or bring stability to the system by cutting off or ignoring the "fringes". The entire system is always seeking an equilibrium, and the increased relevance of the fringes indicates the direction the Overton window is shifting in. Cutting things off on one side just guarantees an unsympathetic schism forming on the other, where the people just barely this side of the schism point are left wondering whether the folks on the other side may have had a point. Rinse repeat. Authoritarianism in all forms tends to capture the public imagination in times of crisis. The issue right now is magnitude, and if you keep pushing the censorship button now, there's going to be a loss of quite a few reasonable people previously amenable to putting their differences aside.
For those without ShowDead on, there is a user, AnHonestComment, who has apparently run afoul of some moderation policies, and tends to get his posts nuked from orbit (likely by the user base) as a response, I figured that it was worth pointing out the irony of his attempted statement "This is what HN wants," sans the combative tone with regards to the moderation team.
If you take a spin through his comment history, it's not terribly unreasonable aside from a serious chip on his shoulder with regards to the moderation team.
AnHonestComment, if you're still reading this, you aren't necessarily shadowbanned or anything like that, you're just inviting downvote bombing with the constant references to the moderation by the community.
You seem a decent sort, and I know as well the harrowing plight of the conscientious objector. There is a place here for it, even if it might be well advised to build up some karma first. It shouldn't be that way arguably, but it is, and it's what we've all got to work with.
Fast forward 50-70 years, we realize that the balance has swung too much to one side so we try to do a sharp turn. That action causes an overcompensation which is when revolution and violence happen. Finally we end up back at some sort of liberalism and the circle begins anew.
I see it as a result of generation gap. We don't know the value of something until we lose it. Right now the public doesn't value freedom of speech as much as it used to so we are right on track to have it more limited.
Otherwise, it'll just turn into DnD 3.5e where every action has a rule in a book somewhere, it'll be blasphemy if you handwave it before looking it up, and yet somehow that one guy always has their character just so to skirt that same rule.
I posit that the lack of censorship is the reason that social media exists. Similarly, the printing press. Why on earth would anybody want to read the Bible, or any other book, by themselves? All truth is taught in Church. To think otherwise is blasphemy.
First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly.
The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the CIA." Which also is a form of propaganda.
It's a bit näive to not see this as anti-government propaganda. The crude reality is: true democracies never existed, and influence between countries is as old as society.
About the "censorship" itself: Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors, why would they promote something that is not what they want to be? They have a huge infant audience, they want to be advertiser-friendly. This is not something hidden or unknown.
They did not delete the video, but they shouldn't promote it. No fault in my eyes.
And at the same time, the buzz around saying "my video is being suppressed" get more views and is even a badge to prove the content "hits where it hurts". Just like rock bands in the 80s/90s would go after being censored or considered 18+ just to sell more.
> First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly.
You are starting of by literally the last thing on the video which is the promotion of the uploader's income stream, a standard practice for full-time youtubers... to prove what?
> The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the CIA." Which also is a form of propaganda.
There is no such claim in the video. Very dishonest of you to missinform people about it.
Apart from that, I agree with your overall conclusion. Youtube is not a public interest organization, they are a private company making money from ads, it is their right to do as they will on their platform. The sooner people realize that, the better. Beyond that, there is an argument here for having transparent practices. There is nothing preventing youtube from saying the truth about what they do.
The video starts, "This video brought to you by Nebula, the streaming platform for content providers like you and me."
Indeed.
About the criticism, it really sounds like that to me in the video. It implies in the way it is written, and I don't wanna go over details of the script, but pay attention to moments when he mentions "like a good democracy" and so on.
The current status of world dominance/power is an evolution of previous iterations (be it good or bad). But we never had a democratic system the CIA is breaking. The video is presented in a way that if you don't know all of that you will assume the CIA is making the world bad. It is just one more player amongst many, and just a continuation of something that is going on since the Romans.
1) He did not imply the world would be "good" if the CIA didn't exist. That's a ridiculous take and is smearing a very well researched channel.
2) Youtube didn't just stop promoting this piece. They are hiding it. You can't find it even if you search for it.
3) He's not just trying to "create a buzz", department of homeland security paid him a visit now his videos are disappearing - if you think that's not worrisome, well damn!
4) Implying that if you create an axiom that has not been "state approved" then you deserve to get delisted?
Insanely dystopian because you more or less don't seem to care and justify state intervention in private well researched but pretty bland political historical takes.
His views are not that radical. Almost standard in many European countries and that result in some state agency coming to his door and threatening him? Like what??
(1) He does imply that in the script yes, in several ways. Pay close attention to moments like "like a good democracy should never have interference".
(2) The bit about YouTube hiding is good point taken, I didn't notice that, I thought it was just not showing up in recommended videos.
(3) He is also trying to create a buzz, the homeland security visit is not related to that video. My point is not that it is not worrisome, but that this is nothing new. The US is like this since the beginning. Have you ever seen what happens to journalists that crack open the NSA and CIA?
(4) And it does not imply that, but implies that YouTube is not a platform for free speech, as it has never been. No novelty here. Surprisingly if it was the TV times this wouldn't even go live, no it is going live. The system is changing little by little, but doesn't mean it is 100% free speech. Never was.
It didn't claim neither that the world would be fair without the CIA.
It's definitely one-sided and is just a quick overview of the CIA (but you wouldn't expect more from a short video on such a big subject), but I fail to see how it is propaganda.
edit: not only that, but also implies that the CIA actions are one-sided, as in other players were not trying to mess and do the same to harm the US in the same actions (let's say, Iran).
If you're referring to the nebula ad at the end, he and other youtubers have been advertising it for months, if not years now. No other video with a nebula ad has been shadow banned like this.
Also, trying to paint this as "Youtube isn't promoting it" is disingenuous. Youtube is hiding it from people who've explicitly asked to be notified about his videos.
Now about the promoting, it is my bad, I thought that YouTube wasn't showing it in frontpage, not that it was literally removed from search. I tried searching for the video and it indeed doesn't show in the results. That's a negative point for YouTube.
The videos on that channel regularly have hundreds of thousands of views with many videos even having millions of them a long time before it had this "badge" to "get more views" [0].
So while it could be an attempt to utilize the Streisand effect for marketing, I consider that rather unlikely because the channel really doesn't need it and I can't think of a way the creator could force YouTube to reliably delist the video to make it a viable PR tactic.
[0] https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCJm2TgUqtK1_NLBrjNQ...
They didn't claim that. You inferred it.
>Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors, why would they promote something that is not what they want to be?
Because YT doesn't come out and say "We don't want controversial content on our platform. We don't want to question the ruling order of the country from which we operate". If they did, it would be a bit more honest. I don't see why you seem to be defending their quasi-suppressive behavior.
But it's literally nothing new to anyone with any political knowledge that countries meddle in each other business all the time.
The difference is that it is exposed in a way to make it sensationalist.
It's therefore even more surprising and alarming that generally available information still gets shadow banned.
The internet was supposed to be the antidote to old propaganda, but corporations have taken over the mainstream internet, and wield even more power over our lives. Again, we should not downplay this fact.
Where does it claim that? I'm not saying you are lying. I didn't watch it properly so I may have missed it.
> It's a bit näive to not see this as anti-government propaganda.
I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government look bad? Would you describe a similar video criticizing an enemy of the US government (whether another government, terrorist organisation, or something else) in the same way?
> Youtube's goals is not the same as the authors
I think the problem here is if YouTube's goal is to help the government who (according to the author) is Google's customer. YouTube is under no obligation to do anything to help spread the author's video, but they should definitely be criticised for working with an organisation committing horrible abuses and acts of violence.
All the conflicts are shown as one-sided. Like the Iran one, where he mentions US/CIA interference, but doesn't mention all other players that also wanted to interfere there, because Iran and oil were essential to the global scenario of Cold War (and eventually a not cold war).
>I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government look bad? Would you describe a similar video criticizing an enemy of the US government (whether another government, terrorist organisation, or something else) in the same way?
I'm saying the video does indeed make an extra effort to make the US government / CIA look bad indeed. The thing is, looks like there is an editorial choice to make that point, and the video went after it. No wonder it can/will raise eyebrows in the US government / CIA. Which is a completely sepparate problem from youtube/online censoring.
>I think the problem here is if YouTube's goal is to help the government who (according to the author) is Google's customer. YouTube is under no obligation to do anything to help spread the author's video, but they should definitely be criticised for working with an organisation committing horrible abuses and acts of violence.
Indeed. That's exactly what I mean. YouTube is in close ties with the government, and also led by advertisers, they explicitly want to make it more friendly to the most viewers possible. And that kind of documentary is not aligned with that goal, thus will not be promoted.
But it is important to notice the difference between promoting it and hiding it actively. I can't find the video while searching for the exact title.
And that's so wrong in so many ways.
> A few months ago I uploaded a video about police brutality. It showed explicit acts of violence by the police, and it was understandably age-gated. The video was appropriate only for older audiences, but did not break any of YouTube's terms and conditions.
> That video earned me a visit from the DHS, who asked me about "Anti-American sentiment" in my videos. That was the first time I realized, wow, I guess people really are monitoring what we say and are willing to try to intimidate us, even if what we say is objectively true.
It’s “anti-American” to say that the people ostensibly enforcing our laws should not commit violence against us.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-goo...
From this perspective, youtube blocking CIA criticizing video seems like something completely normal.
Also not only reserved to the DHS. There have also been examples of people being under surveillance by the FBI, and ultimately going to jail, over Facebook posts [1]
[0] https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-...
You'd think that would be something small-government republicans progressive democrats could agree on...
Federalists were very clear in their commentary and design of the Constitution that they were in favor of broad federal powers and feared populism and direct democracy. The Bill of Rights was not in the original drafts of the Constitution and likely would not have existed had it not been for the Anti-Federalists.
Not to mention gems such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, Three-Fifths Compromise, Manifest Destiny, etc.
Many of the tensions and fears that existed back then, are some of the same ones we are dealing with now.
Edit: Original comment suggested Patrick Henry was against the Bill of Rights - which was inaccurate and a big error on my part. Apologies for the misleading quote!
No. Everybody knows that, everybody agrees with that, and you can say it. But it's "anti-American" to point out that the people ostensibly enforcing our laws do commit unreasonably unnecessary violence against us.
I wasn’t there, so I’ve no idea if that really happened, but the statement definitely makes his videos more exciting and click worthy :eye-roll:
There is only freedom of speech until you actually go against those in power.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/27/cory-...
Doesn't make the quote less true though.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom#%22True_Rul...
uhh, what? You frequently see posts critical of all of those on reddit and hn, and to my knowledge the things you've listed didn't happen to them.
Take for example the case of Facebook censoring posts with the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of Phan Thi Kim Phuc aka "Napalm Girl".
Facebook used to censor those with the excuse of "depiction of child nudity", nobody knows how many Facebook posts were deleted over this, as it only came to light after the editor of the largest Norwegian newspaper did use his access and position at the newspaper to draw attention to the issue [0].
It's easy to hand-wave something like that away as "moderation error", but it's really not. American social media companies also censored and deleted photos depicting US torture in Iraqi prisons, like Abu Ghraib. The reasoning? It's apparently "terrorist propaganda/extremist content" [1].
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318031
[1] https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/327887/pbs-th...
I really recommend tracking down the actual documentary, even to this 20+ years web user that whole thing was like a punch to the guts, quite a warning call about the state of the web and the kind of influence and power that particularly social media companies are wielding these day.
And why, for 200 years, free speech and anti-censorship has been extremely important to Americans. There's a reason the ACLU defended nazis being able to protest. Because eventually censorship will ALWAYS be turned on your side. Whichever side you are on.
There's even an example in the thread: the DHS confronted the person about "anti-American sentiment" for posting a video about police brutality. Continuing a proud tradition of censorship and propaganda — of the people, by the people, for the people.
You'll forgive me for questioning whether Americans really care about free speech and anti-censorship.
I'd venture to say nobody complaining on this thread will do anything about it other than complain on this thread. No calls to representatives, no nothing.
Complaining doesn't get you anywhere. Awareness by itself is useless.
And #2 was run by Deep Throat (Mike Felt) himself.
Individuals and companies have the right to do what they want with their own property, and I don’t have any great ideas on how to solve this dilemma. One solution would be to have many platforms but we live in a winner take all world and platforms like YT get more powerful because of network effects.
The content hosting with youtube is nice, but the bigger problem solved by YT is search. So a video up on a server somewhere might as well be dark unless something can link to it and someone looking for it or something similar can be pointed to it. That search feature itself can't be centralized or else we have the same censoring problem.
It would be nice if a type of searching system could be bundled with IPFS, though I don't know what that would look like. The sooner we have a system where no one can close the gates, the better.
Maybe with something like opentracker there could be an endpoint like /search that translates search phrases into a sparse column vector and looks up cosine similarity against that instances low dimensional space representation of the tf-idf against torrent hashes, those low dimensional space representation files can also be distributed in torrent file and as well as way to constantly update/compute new low dimensional space representation files as hashes are added.
For example it would probably look something like what I do in [0] but as a compiled module linked into and accessed from [1] as well constant update/rebuild of ldsr files like [2] linked and kicked off from flags passed in [3] as new hashes come in.
[0]: https://github.com/cinquemb/hackedteam-email-index-mining/bl...
[1]: https://erdgeist.org/gitweb/opentracker/tree/ot_http.c
[2]: https://github.com/cinquemb/hackedteam-email-index-mining/bl...
[3]: https://erdgeist.org/gitweb/opentracker/tree/opentracker.c
At the same time, the author gets much more views saying his video was censored than if he was just one more video made on the platform. Just like singers would look for the +18 black mark on their LPs back in the 80s/90s.
That's quite an assumption that human moderation is worse than an algorithm.
> "and the amount of people needed would be impractical."
What is up-voting and down-voting and reporting? It's not like there's a lack of human eyeballs on the issue already. If no one watched, then no impact.
Tar-pitting spammers is one thing, deceiving creators, especially ones who are politically engaged as to the impact of their work discredits the legitimacy of the platforms, and the agencies. Are the government agencies "persons," deserving protection in this case?
A major part of the problem is the language platforms use in their alerts, which is patronizing, gaslighting, and from what I have read in posts like these, basically enraging (which is what their business does best, so no surprises there).
If platforms would use language that made it clear they owned their role as referees it would go a lot more smoothly, and mitigate the effects of this "for your own good," deception bit. Of course I see it as the effect of platform employees who culturally reject the idea of binding principles in favour of exercising arbitrary power, but if that's not going to change, they can't reasonably complain about explosive reactions to their "dynamic choices" either.
Very well, as a liberal, I duly condemn this deplatforming. All people who claim to believe in the tenets of Enlightenment liberalism should.
Granted. Principle defended and censorship of other political tribes condemned.
So does that mean we now get an apology from the other lot if the tables have indeed turned?
And now: Assuming he is correct about what's happening, I say that Youtube is cowardly and they suck for suppressing his video, and for being cagey about it; and the DHS giving him a physical visit seems like clearly an intimidation tactic and one of the early stages of authoritarian evil.
> A few months ago I uploaded a video about police brutality. It showed explicit acts of violence by the police, and it was understandably age-gated. The video was appropriate only for older audiences, but did not break any of YouTube's terms and conditions.
> That video earned me a visit from the DHS, who asked me about "Anti-American sentiment" in my videos. That was the first time I realized, wow, I guess people really are monitoring what we say and are willing to try to intimidate us, even if what we say is objectively true.
The video in question is, I suspect, this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEVoX-RwMJw
To me it's beyond disturbing that this kind of stuff still happens, it's the kind of thing that you'd think went away in the 50's or so.
I know the site isn't meant for political discussion, but other stories about tech companies censoring political opinions haven't fallen from the front page as quickly as this one.
I'm sorry but you have a toxic mind.
We pay for access to the best data on public, venture-backed, and private companies available, as well as utilize independent analyst research, to identify profitable markets.
If you don'y want to give your email. No problem just read an example here before say any no sense:
https://saasideas.net/f/Free_Saas_Idea.pdf
For prices. I made a free plan where readers can get 1 SaaS idea every Friday.
If you want more you can pay for 6 Months subscription. If you feel the price not right! Give feedback otherwise don't be a toxic person.
Thanks
$48 -> the button says 'Get Access for $58' LOL
You removed the third pricing plan. Simply put you're just spam marketing a paid newsletter.
PS: Your post did get flagged by mods for spamming.
If you just search "CIA terrorist organization" you get plenty of other video that are similar to the one described, so it's doubtful this one was censored for content.
I don't need YouTube to advertise the video, but if I do an exact string search on the title of the video and don't find it, that's suppression.
The content of the video is innocuous. It appears to be a factual recounting of CIA ops with some editorializing. It doesn't present new information or a new opinion.
edit - and what does a DHS visit look like? Do they knock on your door at 6am or leave a card to call them back? Sorry I've never been in this situation before so I'd be interested in more details on that side of things.
Everything after, "Fine. I'm used to that," is irrelevant.
This thread is apparently content using services built with a spirit functionally equivalent to, "Let's see if we can do the opposite of all four of the freedoms of the GPL."
And as long as everyone is content with these algorithmic blackboxes controlling discoverability for most of the population, we'll continue discussing heinous second-order effects of these systems. Here and now it happens to be free speech, but there are plenty of others waiting in the wings for as long as we avoid the main problem.
Demonetization, age-gating, recommendation engines, bans, shadowbans and their subtler varieties are many-2-many media's equivalent of an editor. Every one impacts the distribution of a video on youtube. Every one of these also impacts what content gets made/posted, because views are like currency.
It doesn't matter if it's algorithmic, and it doesn't matter if there are other reasons for (eg) demonetisation to exist. It's still an editor. You need to make the editor happy to succeed on youtube. The single difference between an editor and a censor is scale. If you edit all the magazines, magazines are censored.
The innocuous type example for censorship is (as usual) pornography. IDK what the consequences of posting pornography and its juniors (nudity, etc) on youtube, but they're obviously sufficient to make youtube mostly nudity free. It's not because no one wants raunchy videos. The same toolkit can be used (and is) to make any kind of content more or less prevalent on youtube.
It's funny that "section 230" is being mentioned by so many under informed politicians and pundits. Changing 230 is unlikely to "fix" the problem, considering that most politicians obviously don't even understand the problem. But section 230 at least captures the main part of the problem. Youtube is not "dumb pipes." Youtube is a content business, and they have a lot of control over content. It's not direct, "delete this segment" control like they have at FOX, but it is editing nonetheless. At youtube, twitter or FB scale, editing is censorship.
The CIA is a Terrorist Organization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that we’ve always been fighting to preserve our rights under the constitution. Freedom and democracy doesn’t just come for free.
Take another period in US history... at a time of another pandemic, the Spanish flu, and a World war.
The 1918 Sedition Act [1] made illegal the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States.
The effects of this law were so successful, that at a time when a pandemic killed 20 million Americans, the newspapers never wrote about the flu. In fact this is why that virus was named the Spanish flu, since during the war Spain was neutral and allowed its press to freely report on it. Not because the virus came from Spain.
History of course repeats itself. But the real lesson for us is that we need to always be vigilant. And it’s not a time to despair that things are at their worst, or can’t get better, or everything is downhill.
Instead look at how far we’ve come. Look at what we’ve overcome in history.
We just need to keep moving the ball forward.
1. https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1328460455380193286
Trying to watch this for the first time I had to find some other website that embed this. If it were any other video finding this shouldn't have took more than 10 seconds.
Maybe youtube wants to prevent spread of misinformation but making something inaccessible is whole nother level of evil.
There are other video sites you can go to for this sort of thing.
Present proof or leave the conspiracies to 4chan.
YouTube has signed up for determining what is true in the west, and it will definitely upset some people, so shadow banning is the best happy medium.
(I personally think most people should start shadow banned and then an algorithm should slowly start opening the sphere of influence/votes to see if information is spreading more widely).
