Comments by "gerhard7" (@gerhard7323) on "Reacting to YouTube's CEO on 'misinformation'" video.

  1. The internet is both the town square and the market place for ideas. Ideas, be they good, bad or indifferent, must be permitted to both flourish or wither on the vine (with one crucial caveat). Any money you like, but most of the more outlandish types of views garner very few views on YT and doubtless require a specifically worded search, but it's good to know that they are still there and permitted to be. The laws that police the internet should be the laws that govern wider society ie is what is being said, no matter how disagreeable to some, in breach of the established law? The law itself is constantly evolving after all and that would mean that sites might only have a duty of care over the legality of what is being published (not its veracity) or, alternatively, the user alone undertakes through the Ts and Cs the responsibility for the legality of what they are writing. The sheer volume of what is being produced on the internet is its biggest issue and policing it is a near impossible task without veering too far into the territory of censorship.
    1
  2. 'Logical fallacy alert' Chap referring to that 'very comprehensive' study trying to present it as fact is clearly making an attempt at an 'appeal to authority' there. January 6th wasn't an insurrection anyway, it was a riot. A riot, the secret services and role of the state itself, is yet to be fully ascertained. All the deaths directly attributable to that day were those of the protesters not the security forces. Not that I'm an expert, but if I was planning an insurrection in the most powerful country on earth, I wouldn't do that armed with just duct tape and cable ties or dress up in fancy dress for the occasion. Maybe that's just me?
    1