undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDoctorOW4y ago0 comments

> I don't see how I could have been misconstrued as for not rebutting poor arguments or false information with facts, good arguments and critical thinking skills.

Again, you're agreeing with YouTube on that point. The Hill's ban was because they didn't contextualize the false information they shared.

0 comments

UnpossibleJim4y ago

Here's Kim Iverson breaking down the criteria for Political Disinformation and what they might have done to break said policy:

https://youtu.be/t-oEaACklrc

EDIT: and I think I see where we're breaking down in our communications. We are basically agreeing (I think). I don't think YouTube's need for an immediate tag or rebuttal around "misinformation" leads to further discourse. I think rebuttal videos which would be linked, by way of the shared interest algorithm, would further discourse. Instead of scrounging for ad revenue and pushing people down into their own little bubble, YouTube has an obligation to offer up rebuttal videos, videos which offer an alternative to supposed misinformation, not to outright ban something like raw footage of political figures putting their foots in their mouths.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsDoctorOW4y ago0 comments

> I don't see how I could have been misconstrued as for not rebutting poor arguments or false information with facts, good arguments and critical thinking skills.

Again, you're agreeing with YouTube on that point. The Hill's ban was because they didn't contextualize the false information they shared.

0 comments

UnpossibleJim4y ago

Here's Kim Iverson breaking down the criteria for Political Disinformation and what they might have done to break said policy:

https://youtu.be/t-oEaACklrc

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse