* Bret Weinstein forced out from his tenured position at Evergreen College and has now received two strikes (of three allowed, after which the channel will be deleted) on YouTube. One an interview with Dr. Pierre Kory about ivermectin, and the other and interview with Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinste...
These are only a few examples. There are many more.
None of these involve censors (except 20 year old ban on soldiers coffins) and the word choice of banned is misleadingly sloppy due to it's broadness.
For example:
- What was Bret Weinstein banned from?
- How was the NYT censored and banned?
- Russian state media is still on Twitter
- etc., On mobile
I'd guess that overall I understand and am sympathetic of your general position, ex. the actual content of NYT editorial, but I find most arguments around this are frustratingly nonspecific and/or bring in politics in a way that clouds the original issue.
By far the most damaging thing is not recognizing the right to not associate.
With that error, it becomes 1984. Cherry-picking the most chilling example from your gish gallup: why should YouTube be forced to pay and promote Russian state-funded media denying murderous attacks on millions with Big Brother language plays like "special military operation"?
Your tell was the scare-quotes you put around "censors" and "banning".
You had already decided. There was nothing anyone could have written to which you would have responded "Hmm. I did not know that. That appears to be censorship and banning. Thanks for letting me know about this."
> "why should YouTube be forced to pay and promote..."
I did not say they must pay and promote anyone. I listed examples of censorship and banning which was your original ask. Now you're saying they don't count because of freedom of association, inaccuracies, and politics. Of course there was going to be a goalpost-moving and semantics-arguing. Your tell lead me to expect it.
As for me, I am disturbed by the extraordinary power of our contemporary platforms to unperson or memory-hole perspectives and views that are unpopular, whether or not the label "censors" or "banning" precisely fits, even if I agree that the perspective is reprehensible, and even if I agree that YouTube et. al. has a "right" to ban and censor.
Nah, this isn't a politics board, it's a nerd board: language like divining what's in peoples head from their "tells" is best left to boards focused on politics.
I'm uncomfortable continuing this discussion because you're not "coming with curiosity", as Dang says: instead, we've veered into mind-reading language.
Why were their quotes around those words, if not because I secretly decided to troll you? Your comment made me uncomfortable because it twisted the definition of censor, that's why quotes are around it: to give a polite signal that the meaning of the word isn't how you're using it. That's why I commented in the first place, and that's the last thought we'll exchange on this.
When topics are banned, some banal comment about verifiability or some other non-descript reason is given.
It's never "we believe this is causing too much drama and might escalate to violence". I don't buy yishan's framing at all.