61–70 of 1001 posts
A lot of knee jerk responses in this thread. Can anyone elaborate why exactly allowing demonstrably harmful and malicious lies during a major health emergency is a good thing on its own merits?
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…
> No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platform. Huh? If I ran a hosting platform and people were putting absolute BS on there, I'd remove it too. People who run hosting platforms want to have integrity.
I think it depends how youtube draws the line. If they’re removing stuff like “use colloidial silver” or “no need to wash your hands” then sure. But the WHO is not gospel.
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 .
Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube. It's their platform, they make decisions. If you don't like their platform/decisions, go elsewhere.
So if they make the wrong decisions and spread misinformation or fail to censor misinformation, can I sue them? Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility? Is it just because they happen to agree with your worldview? And what if they don't -- what if they start banning videos that suggest Taiwan is a country? Would your opinion change?
IANAL but unless someone is knowingly spreading false information as true (i.e. fraud), the answer is no. They probably don't even carry the burden of having to reasonably vet information first.
> Why do they get the power but none of the responsibility?
Because it is your privilege to use YouTube, not your right.
However, Google has gotten it wrong:
1. As others have said, WHO has not earned this trust to date and is also a political organization, not one that is independent.
2. There were other options available, such as demonetization. Stopping people from profiting over putting out information that could hurt people seems more legit to me. They also could have used disclaimers, like the article mentions Facebook is doing for similar content.
3. Another option available to them? Limit the promotion of these videos through recommendations. I get why Google wouldn't want to actively be promoting videos that give terrible misinformation, so they can decide not to promote while still allowing the video to be posted. This is their normal policy for content that is considered "harmful misinformation." (Which was strengthened last year.) Why not use existing policy?
Edit: One example Google could give of precedent is that they removed videos of people encouraging and participating in the Tide Pod Challenge: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16902990/youtube-tide-pod...
However, I'd actually be fine with them removing video of people drinking bleach to combat coronavirus. And maybe even just encouraging others to do so. But taking vitamin C? (An actual example in the article.)
A lot of knee jerk responses in this thread. Can anyone elaborate why exactly allowing demonstrably harmful and malicious lies during a major health emergency is a good thing on its own merits?
"Contradicting WHO" is not the same as "demonstrably harmful and malicious lies"
Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.
This has what to do with their medical and public health recommendations?
For reference, Taiwan's handling of the pandemic has been nothing short of amazing. Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/taiwan/
Remember when the WHO didn't recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation? Obviously the WHO isn't solely objective.
Neither does the US. Taiwan is only recognised by IIRC 12 natinos, mostly small island states. This has become another weird internet talking point as international recognition pretty much unanmiously switched to the PRC in the 1970s.