Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#31

Post by viridian »

krapp wrote: post #27
knowmad wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides who the liars, cranks and con artists are?

Yeah, no... I'm not jumping down that rabbithole of thought-terminating cliches. HN is already replete with countless tiresome retreads of the same slippery slope arguments around freedom of speech, censorship, social media policies, whether truth even exists, Voltaire quotes and Orwell references. Feel free to browse if that's what you're looking for, they all devolve into the same unproductive quagmire.

There's some irony in you refusing to engage with thought terminating cliches when your original post that kicked this sub-thread off was "Yes. But liars, cranks and con artists should be oppressed."

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#33

Post by throwaway2048 »

knowmad wrote: post #22
krapp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On one hand, you can limit information we know is false, but restricting spread of information is censoring people, something that is pretty widely regarded as oppressive. Yes. But liars, cranks and con artists should be oppressed.

Who decides who the liars, cranks and con artists are?

It's not like its some impossible to distinguish thing that people that say things like "5G causes coronavirus" are cranks.

Nuance in these discussions basically flies out the window entirely, and frankly, its stupid.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#34

Post by jonnydubowsky »

Does anyone have any links that outline the moderation protocols used to implement this type of thing?

I have read about some videos where they talk about using code words to circumvent being flagged. How much of this is human moderated?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#35

Post by stx »

jjice wrote: post #13

Things like this are tricky to me. YouTube is a private platform, so they can make their own decisions, but any sort of censorship is scary to me. I honestly don't know where to stand when it comes to issues related to censoring content like this. On one hand, you can limit information we know is false, but restricting spread of information is censoring people, something that is pretty widely regarded as oppressive.…

I agree with your point of view. Youtube is not the government so it, in my opinion, should have its own freedom to make its own rules.

The issue to me is that Youtube is pretty much THE video sharing platform. Yes there are others but as a content creator you will reach the most people on Youtube.

Would criticism of WHO be removed. Would information about China's handling of the outbreak be banned if it is contradictory to the WHO point of view. These videos are already demonetized.

I also am frustrated when I see videos claiming garlic will prevent coronavirus. Or that 5g is the cause. I would like to think people will recognize this is not accurate but people continue to amaze me.

In some ways though if I believe in freedom of speech though I suppose I should be prepared to accept all speech.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#36

Post by cambalache »

subhobroto wrote: post #21

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics. Yes, there's a lot of information out there about SARS-COV2 and COVID-19 infections out there that are downright misleading at best and life threatening at worst. No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platfo…

> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Agree, youtube has to be very careful there.

> WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics.

Hell no! The fact you even consider them in the same sentence is astounding. No point in continue reading .

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#37

Post by lovich »

ratacat wrote: post #20

I don't like this. All of the question of 'Why on earth choose WHO' aside...it is dangerous and depressing precident. I live with a number of ladies who are very familiar with plant medicine. When this whole thing started we all started taking lots of dandelion root / hawthorne tincture. Dandelion is well known to both help your lymphatic system and support respiratory issues. Hawthorne is an amazing heart / circulat…

>Who knows what using these plant medicines across a population would result in statistically?

Isn't that a big point of this? Who does know? The answer is nobody, but a lot of these "alternative" medicine pushers aren't asking questions but instead presenting their "alternatives" as absolute cures

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#39

Post by barryrandall »

viridian wrote: post #7

The fact that they are backing WHO here as a means of curation and censorship instead of a less political org like the CDC, is pretty concerning. We already know WHO has stated objective falsehoods multiple times that impact the health of the world negatively.

Citations please?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

#40

Post by krapp »

viridian wrote: post #31
krapp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no... I'm not jumping down that rabbithole of thought-terminating cliches. HN is already replete with countless tiresome retreads of the same slippery slope arguments around freedom of speech, censorship, social media policies, whether truth even exists, Voltaire quotes and Orwell references. Feel free to browse if that's what you're looking for, they all devolve into the same unproductive quagmire.

There's some irony in you refusing to engage with thought terminating cliches when your original post that kicked this sub-thread off was "Yes. But liars, cranks and con artists should be oppressed."

Maybe it is, but almost no one who asks "but who decides x" in these threads is actually interested in debating the matter. They typically already believe no one should be allowed to decide, and they have no intention of actually engaging you in conversation beyond lecturing, berating and snark.

Learning when to step away from such fruitless pseudo-debates before wasting hours on the online equivalent of beating one's head against a brick wall is a valuable survival skill here. Sometimes it's best to simply state your opinion and move on.

Post reply on HN