"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
"I do enjoy the irony of people who push misinformation complaining when others attempt to counter their misinformation."
your message
"you counter 1 argument with another, not by shutting someones mouth completely like youtube/google do."
try again
- - - Updated - - -
its all great and I agree with you truly, but how is that even related to our topic I might ask.
- - - Updated - - -
A pretty weak excuse for an obvious censorship
I agree, we should have equal access to all information, its not for people in Google decide whats good or bad for peoples.
"But i also said that lies should be punished"
How do you determine whats a lie or deliberate misinformation when it comes to politics and who can you trust with being 100% objective about it.
- - - Updated - - -
1) If you find your opposite side wrong you battle them with counter arguments, not censorship.
Actually it is up to google to decide what is being published on their services. They have the right to determine who or what shall be allowed or denied access.
It's the same with a forum like this, where Curse, owned by Twitch, owned by Amazon are the ones to decide whats being published.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
you kidding right?
- - - Updated - - -
As far as I know in US if someone has a monopoly on some area of service ( like Google on searching services/Youtube) it becomes some kind of public and thus should follow some rules and US laws, first amendment included ( not 100% sure tho again).
So wont be surprised if they gonna get sued over this.
But again, this topic is more about IS IT MORAL AND REASONABLE rather than whether its legal or not.
whats your opinion?
- - - Updated - - -
Fully agreed, that why we have the 1st amendment in our beautiful country.
no, not the same, you can lie accidentally.
Actually, search engine services are no monopole, but an oligopole (bing, yahoo). Youtube has competitors like vimeo and wistia, it is also an oligopole.
No, they dont. As i said, it is up to them what they want to publish or priotize.
Morale and ethics are subjective. Probably the google owners think that bashing a single religion is not leading to anything good.
On which topic? On the idea google should follow the 1st amandment, while they are no state organization? The amandments are about rights the state has to guarantee to the the people, and not about companies and their services.
Irrational premise. A company at best can act Ethically... never Morally... some times they align but it's not the same thing. Now that semantics are out of the way... as to if it is Ethical to bury searches even though they may be relevant? I suppose it depends on your target audience. If the average grade school child is expected to use Google for a social studies report on the Middle East would you want a beheading video and ISIS propaganda to fill the screen or a Wikipedia page that details climate and regional differences like an Encyclopedia? In that regard they are acting Ethically nothing more than that.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
"A company at best can act Ethically... never Morally..."
agreed, my bad.
"If the average grade school child is expected to use Google for a social studies report on the Middle East would you want a beheading video and ISIS propaganda to fill the screen or a Wikipedia page that details climate and regional differences like an Encyclopedia"
1) As far as I know graphic content is being banned already and rightly so. So are the ISIS videos and websites, since we have an absolute consensus in our society about these people.
2) Nevertheless, Its anti-intellectual to ban or hide hurtful truths from public about the middle east or other topics. If the first things that pop on your google search is violence,rape, acid spray statistics then theres something wrong with the region itself and its totally wrong to try to make it look better for the sake of your ideological or political goles.
"I'm not interested" You are not, some people might be, who are you to decide.
"on a website that doesn't even hide it's strong pro-Christianity bias"
based on your logic CNN,BBC,MSNBC and lots and lots of other news outlets should be banned in google for their left-wing bias?
I dont think so, in my opinion we should have an absolute 100% freedom of speech thus freedom to access information of all political spectrum equally easy.
This is what America stands for.
- - - Updated - - -
when it comes to social or political matters there are no such things as lies or truths imo.
Should we ban people for saying that all races are intellectually equal? Hide their material? Defund them on Youtube?
Or there are more than 2 genders?
I dont think so, its against basic liberty
If you don't like misinformation, then you are under no obligation to listen to it or host it on your property.
Do you expect some site like Breitbart to host information that they don't want to? Private companies censor all the time, and it starts with literally every single news outlet on the planet. It continues with every single political site. You see it on Reddit threads. So, unless you are pissed at the admins of /The_Donald for their desire to ban people and delete comments, then you aren't being consistent.
Pro-freedom people believe that every idea is to be scrutinized and sieged, even if its painful or offensive, that how society operates. ( Especially when Islam that youve mentioned gives so many reasons and chances to do so)
Kinda sad that Google is on the other side.