YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

Post by throwaway2048 » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 5:02 PM UTC

subhobroto wrote: post #50

krapp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 I take you up on that offer. Let us, for a moment, discuss this. To disconnect us both from the exact matter at hand, because we are likely at this point pretty attached strongly to our biases to it, let us step aside, choose a completely differ…

Post by wildmusings » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

rodiger wrote: post #18

wildmusings wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm imagining it, but I've noticed that it's difficult to find user-generated current-events content on Youtube. The search results are dominated, artificially it feels, by clips from the major broadcasters and news agencies. User-created content is pushed down. I guess that's what preferring "authoritative" sources looks like, and I wonder if people are just "choosing" ("demanding") what the search results hav…

Or if those are initially organically selected and then pushed further by the algorithm. Likely a combination of real preference + manufactured

Post by tree3 » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

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…

Post by alvarelle » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

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?

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

subhobroto wrote: post #46

nikofeyn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you conveniently left out number three in that you connected (1) and (2) via analogical reasoning. of course, i suspect that's what they disagree with.

> i suspect that's what they disagree with Ah, I see your point. Equating WHO to Fox News directly as organizations does not make any sense. They are not even on the same domain. I assumed, the readership would not conflate them on all possible attributes. The reason for my statement was specifically to point out the flaw that WHO is guided solely by medical reasoning. Just like it would be a flaw to assume Fox News…