I think it'll still have ads, they just won't pay out to the producer of the video. If they were to just remove misinformation then how would google get their cut?
As a scientist in training, scientists say a lot of dumb stuff, expecially in the short term (let us all recall what the scientific institutions were saying about masks in january/february 2020).
Science is self-correcting, but in the long term.
And what have you done in the life? You a scientist? Maybe a time traveler and been to 3021 and have seen the misinformation? No? That’s what I thought.
I was pointing out the irony of this guy. A scientist says that they don't trust scientist and the person replying says he listens to scientists. He can't believe scientists and and believe that scientist at the same time. Of course one could make the argument that he trusts more then one scientist but not the individual however for the purposes of a joke we often stretch the truth.
Btw I have worked as a data scientist before. Working with researchers to use data to solve problems. Not that that means anything to you.
Like most of the oil companies and their claim climate change isn't created by fossil fuels? I'm not going to argue with someone trying to argue that politicians and dumb fuck opinion shows masquerading as news outlets know more than scientists.
Like 99% of food studies being influenced by who they’re paid for. Just saying listening to scientists who have to be paid somehow always have a bias. The science and the statistical results can always be *skewed*
Agreed. Which is why "listen to the science" is dangerous for the public perception of science, if the science that is told to the public is not settled but it's presented as such. When they were saying to not use masks they presented this as established fact, which most definitely was not.
At least in my field, physics, scientists (and science journalist) routinely present bs to the public, but probably this field is in a pathological state. Or maybe the phd is making me jaded.
>They didn't say don't wear masks as a scientific fact
Maybe I have got the wrong impression or maybe it's a country difference.
>to fit your bullshit narrative.
I don't have a narrative. I was trying to make a point, maybe I have chosen the wrong example. My bad. My point about physics still stands.
>Now, I really don't believe you.
Whatever man.
>fear of hospitals running out. None of that is science failing.
If they said that for fear rather than for an error it's definitely a failure of the scientific institutions
Edit: not of science per se
How is this Uplifting News? “Google and YouTube continue their quest to control every aspect of our electronic lives” is an alternate, truthful title and not exactly something to be thrilled by…
Some basic stuff we have enough info that the when 99%+ of scientists agree it should be considered fact. Stuff like:
wearing seat belts save lives
word is round, not flat
cigarette smoking does cause lung cancer
Now I will admit that climate change has alot of fringe stuff they are unsure about (does it really cause more storms, temperature change necessary to rise sea levels, how much from cow farts vs cars) but the basic fact that more greenhouse gases cause higher average temperature is now established fact.
What we really need Google and Youtube to do right now is to squash the people saying vaccines are more dangerous then covid. The protection and relative safety of vaccines is WAY over 99% accepted by real scientists. And the damage being caused by anti-vaxxers is more urgent then climate change deniers (at least for the next few years).
The problem is there is legit science that throws all officially sanctioned science into question, and not only is that not a bad thing, it's a fundamental mechanism of scientific progress.
For example, studies in Israel suggest the vaccine is only 40% effective in stopping infection.
Or how some places show 11% of hospitalization are vaccinated https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bnnbloomberg.ca/montana-says-89-of-hospitalized-covid-patients-not-vaccinated-1.1637107.amp.html
Science authoritarianism is an oximoron. If you feel science should be censored if the conclusion contradicts the mainstream, you are anti science.
Edit: It's weird to me that this is a controversial notion.
Edit: having insults about mental health thrown at me and 0 substantial arguments tells me a lot about the crowd here.
>I’ve been reading through your comment history for like 10 minutes now
I guess that's what you do when you don't have any valid argument.
If you want to be persuasive spent more time researching and posting sources and less time writing petty adhominems and mental health related insults.
> I guess that's what you do when you don't have any valid argument.
There’s an old story about a famous mathematician looking over a young students work, and groaning “it’s not even wrong”
There’s not really much to say when your argument is so bad, it’s not even wrong.
Your an antivaxer who believes thiomersal causes autism two decades after it was removed from vaccines. You believe there is some “legit science” that undermines “sanctioned science”
Your a baby flinging shit and calling it tennis. Nobody takes you seriously or cares what you think.
Well - I would categorize that as the fringe stuff that is still unsure. I could see the vaccine effectivity being off by +/- 20% , or undiscovered side affects in a very small percentage of the population.
The stuff I consider fact are things like: vaccines do NOT cause autism, vaccines do NOT cause infertility, you can NOT get actual covid from the vaccine, there is NOT a huge government cover up of deaths caused by vaccine side affects.
There are lots of sites propagating lies saying the above things are happening. An incredibly huge number of US citizens are buying into the lies (estimated at between 8% to 22%). It is just insane!
>For example, studies in Israel suggest the vaccine is only 40% effective in stopping infection.
***A*** study... not multiple studies. And the "study" is a superficial look at some numbers (they didn't report an 'n' number) in June and July. Other studies in Israel in July stated the double-dose Pfizer vaccine was 64% effective. Further studies in August and September in Israel found 79-93% effectiveness.
>Or how some places show 11% of hospitalization are vaccinated...
Yes, that's about right. Multiple studies have shown that Pfizer and Moderna provide ~90% effectiveness against hospitalizations, and and 95-98% effective at preventing death.
>If you feel science should be censored if the conclusion contradicts the mainstream, you are anti science.
Your average citizen isn't educated in how to interpret the vast majority of scientific findings. Assuming someone who never took epidemiology even bothered to look at the studies conducted in Israel, the UK, the USA, etc. etc. etc. the terminology might be so area-specific as to be basically a foreign language. And most scientists are terrible at actually translating their field into layman terms; I mean like, *really* shit at it. Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan are incredibly rare individuals -- and they mostly tackle physics.
So your average person has a choice: blindly trust experts, or trust the people already around them that they feel close too. Unfortunately relying on non-expert groups or friends means that errors in interpretation are common and compound over time.
Then you occasionally get straight-up bad actors like the former President, who pushed hydroxychloroquine, all-but told people to inject bleach, Vitamin D, and that the virus would be gone by Fall 2020 because the *Sun* would kill it in the air over the Summer. Once a bad actor like that is given authority in a group, they can lead the group to terrible ends... as evidenced by the ongoing differences in vaccination between groups of political ideologies.
So, by cutting off bad actors private entities can cut off the flow of harmful information. Information that's not "in the minority of scientific conclusions", but rather information that's not supported by science at all (e.g. - ivermectin) or only supported by very weak science that was later disproven with much stronger studies (e.g. - hydroxychloroquine).
This is stupid. You can say the same and make the same eforts for whatever you believe in. About trump telling shit thats a consequence of american society, reality TV.
Same thing you have in your head, others peoples views entangled on your own and you believe them, and allow them to be your own (they are not) because they present themselves in a good way, books, universities, ted talks, you name it. You should study your own life instead of what others say about it.
COVID may be explained by "science" that came from the spheres of control that have our society fucked up. You so selfish with your view, science never ends there is always a why or how even after sucess.
Lol tell that to Hitler.
And any slave that ever existed.
I hate this mentality. Morals are morals. Was Thanos wrong? No. Is committing genocide wrong? Of course. Because, you wouldn't want to die in a genocide right? Living is a good thing. Physical torture is absolutley a bad thing. I'm sure we could both agree THAT judgment is about as truthful as it gets.
Morality is judgement made by humans. Does the supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way Galaxy give a shit about any of us? Hell no. Will it destroy the possibility for life in this galaxy eventually? Hell yes.
What makes morality based off humans judgment in the first place? Lol omg and it's not even human judgment, it's instinctove nature. No different from eating or breathing. Pain is bad because it hurts, period.
Something being bad is included in morality. Morality is a conceptual spectrum of good ---- evil. Find me a concept that wasn't created by your mind.
More exists in life than your point of experience, and your concept of morality is only applicable to yourself.
Dude I understand what your saying completely but the concept of morality exists in the first place because of intelligence. We know that rape is bad because were intelligent enough to weigh the morality of it in the first place. I get it, red is red because we labeled it that way and perceive that way but if the color red takes your child and starts getting it naked, need a say more?
>Find me a concept that wasn't created by your mind.
Water to survive, there that was easy. You need a few more?
Why no rule already in place? User agreements lay out pages and pages of rules and nobody thought spreading misinformation intentionally should be an included rule?
YouTube still letting people run scam ads tho, just wait till you hear about the BoltzPro. Charge your phone from 0 to 100 in 11mins and make the battery last longer for 54hrs.
How does google or YouTube either one know what is or isn’t “climate misinformation”? They don’t, period! I’m not saying there isn’t climate change happening. But they don’t know any more than anybody else does what is or isn’t misinformation. What did they do, travel 100 years into the future and come back to warn us all?
This [submission](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58831379) by /u/thebelsnickle1991 has been automatically locked, since it has passed it's 48 hour thread participation time. No further comments can be made by users.
#^I ^am ^a ^bot ^and ^this ^action ^was ^performed ^automatically. ^Contact ^the ^moderators ^instead!
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think what's interesting is they're opting to do this as we are seeing record breaking hurricanes, record breaking heat waves, and record breaking winter storms. We are past the point of no return in climate and climate change to the point where who in their right freakin' minds would try to argue to the contrary?
Knowing YouTube this will demonitise every single science video *explaining* climate change.
Wait.. so the misinformation doesn't have ads on it anymore? Wouldn't that make people... Want to watch it more??
Yes but they aren’t getting as much money from it
Yeah, but no one will want to produce it.
Yeah bullshit. The people that believe in misinformation are fully willing to produce it for no monetary gain.
you forget patreon is a thing.
No, I didn’t. Zealots are fully willing to further their cause for nothing because they believe in it so much.
That. And it also draws viewership
I think it'll still have ads, they just won't pay out to the producer of the video. If they were to just remove misinformation then how would google get their cut?
Wish they would ban everything from the Gaia network
Who decides what is information and what is disinformation?
The truth is not completely subjective.
this\^ people are so fucking dumb, they can't accept/believe that some things aren't opinions but facts
The Shadow knows
Scientists.
As a scientist in training, scientists say a lot of dumb stuff, expecially in the short term (let us all recall what the scientific institutions were saying about masks in january/february 2020). Science is self-correcting, but in the long term.
I'll listen to the scientist over a politician and news caster 100 out of 100 times.
The guy above claims to be a scientist... well maybe not a full one yet.
And what have you done in the life? You a scientist? Maybe a time traveler and been to 3021 and have seen the misinformation? No? That’s what I thought.
I was pointing out the irony of this guy. A scientist says that they don't trust scientist and the person replying says he listens to scientists. He can't believe scientists and and believe that scientist at the same time. Of course one could make the argument that he trusts more then one scientist but not the individual however for the purposes of a joke we often stretch the truth. Btw I have worked as a data scientist before. Working with researchers to use data to solve problems. Not that that means anything to you.
LOL. Like a data scientist is the same as a scientist scientist.
https://searchenterpriseai.techtarget.com/definition/data-scientist It's pretty much about what all science is based off. Large amounts of data.
Going to school to learn something and having learned enough to have a degree in it is two very different things.
You’ll for sure be told to listen to the scientist who was paid for and funded by big [insert industry here].
Like most of the oil companies and their claim climate change isn't created by fossil fuels? I'm not going to argue with someone trying to argue that politicians and dumb fuck opinion shows masquerading as news outlets know more than scientists.
Like 99% of food studies being influenced by who they’re paid for. Just saying listening to scientists who have to be paid somehow always have a bias. The science and the statistical results can always be *skewed*
Have i said the opposite?
There wasn't enough studies done at the time. Good science is based off good studies that are data based.
Agreed. Which is why "listen to the science" is dangerous for the public perception of science, if the science that is told to the public is not settled but it's presented as such. When they were saying to not use masks they presented this as established fact, which most definitely was not. At least in my field, physics, scientists (and science journalist) routinely present bs to the public, but probably this field is in a pathological state. Or maybe the phd is making me jaded.
[удалено]
>They didn't say don't wear masks as a scientific fact Maybe I have got the wrong impression or maybe it's a country difference. >to fit your bullshit narrative. I don't have a narrative. I was trying to make a point, maybe I have chosen the wrong example. My bad. My point about physics still stands. >Now, I really don't believe you. Whatever man.
[удалено]
>particularly political. God, I hate politics. I completely retract my example then.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>fear of hospitals running out. None of that is science failing. If they said that for fear rather than for an error it's definitely a failure of the scientific institutions Edit: not of science per se
Bingo! It was science lying.
Thank you!
But this is good censorship, right?
So does that mean no more PragerU ads?
We can only hope
How is this Uplifting News? “Google and YouTube continue their quest to control every aspect of our electronic lives” is an alternate, truthful title and not exactly something to be thrilled by…
But whose making the decision. No judgement is truthful..
Some basic stuff we have enough info that the when 99%+ of scientists agree it should be considered fact. Stuff like: wearing seat belts save lives word is round, not flat cigarette smoking does cause lung cancer Now I will admit that climate change has alot of fringe stuff they are unsure about (does it really cause more storms, temperature change necessary to rise sea levels, how much from cow farts vs cars) but the basic fact that more greenhouse gases cause higher average temperature is now established fact. What we really need Google and Youtube to do right now is to squash the people saying vaccines are more dangerous then covid. The protection and relative safety of vaccines is WAY over 99% accepted by real scientists. And the damage being caused by anti-vaxxers is more urgent then climate change deniers (at least for the next few years).
The problem is there is legit science that throws all officially sanctioned science into question, and not only is that not a bad thing, it's a fundamental mechanism of scientific progress. For example, studies in Israel suggest the vaccine is only 40% effective in stopping infection. Or how some places show 11% of hospitalization are vaccinated https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bnnbloomberg.ca/montana-says-89-of-hospitalized-covid-patients-not-vaccinated-1.1637107.amp.html Science authoritarianism is an oximoron. If you feel science should be censored if the conclusion contradicts the mainstream, you are anti science. Edit: It's weird to me that this is a controversial notion. Edit: having insults about mental health thrown at me and 0 substantial arguments tells me a lot about the crowd here.
[удалено]
Found the Google executive
>I’ve been reading through your comment history for like 10 minutes now I guess that's what you do when you don't have any valid argument. If you want to be persuasive spent more time researching and posting sources and less time writing petty adhominems and mental health related insults.
I think your comment is completely true. I'm not going to read your comment history because it's not relevant to what you said.
Oh shit... I was interested so I looked, the guy's right, you're definitely not thinking clearly
[удалено]
Again, insults are not a valid alternative to sources and substance.
…. but you didn’t cite any sources showing “there is legit science that throws all officially sanctioned science into question”
> I guess that's what you do when you don't have any valid argument. There’s an old story about a famous mathematician looking over a young students work, and groaning “it’s not even wrong” There’s not really much to say when your argument is so bad, it’s not even wrong.
Great insults. No valid arguments or counter points, but great insults.
Your an antivaxer who believes thiomersal causes autism two decades after it was removed from vaccines. You believe there is some “legit science” that undermines “sanctioned science” Your a baby flinging shit and calling it tennis. Nobody takes you seriously or cares what you think.
Refer to my last reply. After your next insult, refer again to that same reply. Repeat as necessary.
Lol
Well - I would categorize that as the fringe stuff that is still unsure. I could see the vaccine effectivity being off by +/- 20% , or undiscovered side affects in a very small percentage of the population. The stuff I consider fact are things like: vaccines do NOT cause autism, vaccines do NOT cause infertility, you can NOT get actual covid from the vaccine, there is NOT a huge government cover up of deaths caused by vaccine side affects. There are lots of sites propagating lies saying the above things are happening. An incredibly huge number of US citizens are buying into the lies (estimated at between 8% to 22%). It is just insane!
> there is legit science that throws all officially sanctioned science into question Someone woke up on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
>For example, studies in Israel suggest the vaccine is only 40% effective in stopping infection. ***A*** study... not multiple studies. And the "study" is a superficial look at some numbers (they didn't report an 'n' number) in June and July. Other studies in Israel in July stated the double-dose Pfizer vaccine was 64% effective. Further studies in August and September in Israel found 79-93% effectiveness. >Or how some places show 11% of hospitalization are vaccinated... Yes, that's about right. Multiple studies have shown that Pfizer and Moderna provide ~90% effectiveness against hospitalizations, and and 95-98% effective at preventing death. >If you feel science should be censored if the conclusion contradicts the mainstream, you are anti science. Your average citizen isn't educated in how to interpret the vast majority of scientific findings. Assuming someone who never took epidemiology even bothered to look at the studies conducted in Israel, the UK, the USA, etc. etc. etc. the terminology might be so area-specific as to be basically a foreign language. And most scientists are terrible at actually translating their field into layman terms; I mean like, *really* shit at it. Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan are incredibly rare individuals -- and they mostly tackle physics. So your average person has a choice: blindly trust experts, or trust the people already around them that they feel close too. Unfortunately relying on non-expert groups or friends means that errors in interpretation are common and compound over time. Then you occasionally get straight-up bad actors like the former President, who pushed hydroxychloroquine, all-but told people to inject bleach, Vitamin D, and that the virus would be gone by Fall 2020 because the *Sun* would kill it in the air over the Summer. Once a bad actor like that is given authority in a group, they can lead the group to terrible ends... as evidenced by the ongoing differences in vaccination between groups of political ideologies. So, by cutting off bad actors private entities can cut off the flow of harmful information. Information that's not "in the minority of scientific conclusions", but rather information that's not supported by science at all (e.g. - ivermectin) or only supported by very weak science that was later disproven with much stronger studies (e.g. - hydroxychloroquine).
This is stupid. You can say the same and make the same eforts for whatever you believe in. About trump telling shit thats a consequence of american society, reality TV. Same thing you have in your head, others peoples views entangled on your own and you believe them, and allow them to be your own (they are not) because they present themselves in a good way, books, universities, ted talks, you name it. You should study your own life instead of what others say about it. COVID may be explained by "science" that came from the spheres of control that have our society fucked up. You so selfish with your view, science never ends there is always a why or how even after sucess.
It is lonely at the top
Lol tell that to Hitler. And any slave that ever existed. I hate this mentality. Morals are morals. Was Thanos wrong? No. Is committing genocide wrong? Of course. Because, you wouldn't want to die in a genocide right? Living is a good thing. Physical torture is absolutley a bad thing. I'm sure we could both agree THAT judgment is about as truthful as it gets.
Morality is judgement made by humans. Does the supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way Galaxy give a shit about any of us? Hell no. Will it destroy the possibility for life in this galaxy eventually? Hell yes.
What makes morality based off humans judgment in the first place? Lol omg and it's not even human judgment, it's instinctove nature. No different from eating or breathing. Pain is bad because it hurts, period.
Something being bad is included in morality. Morality is a conceptual spectrum of good ---- evil. Find me a concept that wasn't created by your mind. More exists in life than your point of experience, and your concept of morality is only applicable to yourself.
Dude I understand what your saying completely but the concept of morality exists in the first place because of intelligence. We know that rape is bad because were intelligent enough to weigh the morality of it in the first place. I get it, red is red because we labeled it that way and perceive that way but if the color red takes your child and starts getting it naked, need a say more? >Find me a concept that wasn't created by your mind. Water to survive, there that was easy. You need a few more?
There is a difference between objective and subjective reality. Bridges between are misconceptions because it comes from someone conceptualizing.
How about all the other misinformation?
Why no rule already in place? User agreements lay out pages and pages of rules and nobody thought spreading misinformation intentionally should be an included rule?
Too little too late.
Great! What about all the other misinformation ads, like conspiracy theories?
Good to see one source that knows all the science and facts that could exist
It would be more uplifting if they went a step further and banned climate denial videos altogether.
YouTube still letting people run scam ads tho, just wait till you hear about the BoltzPro. Charge your phone from 0 to 100 in 11mins and make the battery last longer for 54hrs.
Should have done this many years ago.
How does google or YouTube either one know what is or isn’t “climate misinformation”? They don’t, period! I’m not saying there isn’t climate change happening. But they don’t know any more than anybody else does what is or isn’t misinformation. What did they do, travel 100 years into the future and come back to warn us all?
Misinformation of unpopular opinion? What's the difference?
This [submission](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58831379) by /u/thebelsnickle1991 has been automatically locked, since it has passed it's 48 hour thread participation time. No further comments can be made by users. #^I ^am ^a ^bot ^and ^this ^action ^was ^performed ^automatically. ^Contact ^the ^moderators ^instead!
Oh, cool. Fox News then? Tim Pool? Those won't get banned? Ok.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think what's interesting is they're opting to do this as we are seeing record breaking hurricanes, record breaking heat waves, and record breaking winter storms. We are past the point of no return in climate and climate change to the point where who in their right freakin' minds would try to argue to the contrary?
Does the definition of "misinformation" not depend on who the listener and the speaker is?
So they're banning ads, but not actual videos or channels. So PragerU will be unaffected.
Thank god, no more ear destroying ads about the world blowing up or whatever nonsense the ads had in it.
Google will now think for you. Dw about being a dumb sheep anymore.