I’m not saying they will do it voluntarily, but maybe some kind of pressure campaign could be effective. Accuse their advertisers of supporting climate denial. Is that seen as bad enough among the general public to be effective?
Comment on [deleted]
glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year agoGoogle/YouTube doesn’t care. If they can put ads on it and make money they will leave it up.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Yes, if advertisers start pulling out then I could see something changing. But advertisers are unlikely to do that unless they stop making money from it as well. So a campaign like that sounds like a good idea but also will be very difficult to succeed
qooqie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t think it’s that simple. I think the ethics of silencing people is keeping them from deplatforming far right or far left individuals. Also the flak they would receive might not be seen as worth it.
PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Who specifically is on the far left and what is the opposite of performing a failed coup? Please don’t move the Overton Window.
qooqie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Bro idk, I don’t pay attention to extremists except when they’re in the news. Was just trying to give a different viewpoint others might not consider
PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m not trying to be harsh, but putting it that way is a “both sides” comparison that has repercussions. You can’t even name a single one, much less the many were tried and sent to jail for performing a failed coup. Now you know you’re accidentally moving the Overton Window so I hope you stop.
glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
They could pay more staff to moderate, or use their fancy AI that they like so much.
You might think it is unethical to silence different opinions which is a valid position. But on the other hand I see it as unethical to host dangerous misinformation and hateful content.
YouTube is essentially a monopoly and there isn’t any realistic alternative for most people, so it’s not like they have to worry about backlash so much. That’s a whole 'nother issue though
qooqie@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I agree with you. I just wouldn’t know where to draw the line and where the content would never influence and create extremists. It’s hard I feel
thecam@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Google/YouTube doesn’t care.
False, there been so much censorship since 2017 on Youtube. I remember so many Youtubers back them which are now been deplatformed. Google will censor channels that goes against globalism.
glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
censor channels that go against globalism
Such as…?
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Youtube has recently started certifying people. You’ll find real doctors now have “Licensed Doctor in the U.S” or something like that.
Sure the loons will still say their self-made expert is right, but it’s a step in the right direction for those who are still on the fence.
jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
That still doesn’t mean shit, just because someone has a piece of paper saying they passed some exams doesn’t mean they haven’t gone off the deep end - case in point, Jordan Peterson is or was a licensed psychologist in Canada.
RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
And what does a “maybe or maybe not” license psychologist have to do with climate-change science?
Is climate some new deep field of psychology?
jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
His claims regarding psychology and psychiatrists are also dubious at best. There are plenty of medical doctors in the US that are COVID deniers, for example. There are a few biologists that deny evolution and are creationists. Helping them pull an appeal to authority, instead of having proper moderation, is not going to make things better.