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

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

Post by Pxtl »

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…

Misinformation is killing people. Given that, who should YouTube use as a source of truth?

The US government? Bill Nye the Science Guy?

Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

tree3 wrote: post #55
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…

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by arrrg »

graeme wrote: post #62
tree3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The WHO denied human-to-human transmission even after Taiwan told them about it, and they dug their heels on calling the outbreak a pandemic for weeks. 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 WHO never denied human-to-human transmission. This is a blatant lie.

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

#114

Post by rrmm »

topoftheforts wrote: post #2

Is this the beginning of the end for YouTube? As someone who deeply hates how much fake news have been spreading in the past few years, I still find this very worrying, especially since the WHO has been very inconsistent with their messaging during this pandemic [1] and sometimes plain wrong [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chie... [2] https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

I find it worrying as well.

However, I enjoy dabbling in the crazy side of youtube now and again, and there is absolutely content out there that will harm people, and there seems to be an audience for it. It seems like one of those lamentable 'this is why we can't have nice things' stories.

The line youtube is drawing seems like the wrong line. Youtube has a storied history of making dumb choices and an inscrutable system to appeal their arbitrary decisions. I'm pretty confident they will continue to mess it up.

I would like to be a free speech maximalist; it's easier since there are no tough choices to make. Unfortunately there has always been speech that is not protected (incitement/yelling fire) and we are left with the difficult task of delineating which side of the line some speech falls.

In the end that means we must always be ready to fight to keep our freedom of speech.

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

#115

Post by benjohnson »

Someone1234 wrote: post #93
colmvp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Canada for months we followed WHO's directions to a tee and ended up rapid growth of infections until we did a 180 and implemented nearly every measure that the WHO disagreed with. Taiwan is one of the few countries to have very few cases, and they essentially did a lot of measures the WHO did not recommend initially.

This is incredibly vague. WHAT measures did the WHO "disagree" with that saved Canada? I'd love to see this post cited up to include what measuring you're referring to in both parts (agree w/WHO and disagree) and where the WHO disagreed with Canada's measures.

The WHO advised against the public wearing masks and advised against travel restrictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/all-uk-hospita...

https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...

As I understand it - many Canadians of Asian decent in Vancouver BC wore masks early on.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article...

EDIT: As of 3/30 WHO still doesn't recommend wearing masks (except for the obviously sick) - contrary to Vancouver BC who now require at least a covering or mask.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-r...

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

#116

Post by umvi »

ff10 wrote: post #102
umvi wrote: post #85

Free speech (well, most freedoms, really) will die the day we decide "saving lives" is worth _any_ cost. Heck, we already decided trashing the economy is worth "saving lives" (how many?), I imagine some people would be overjoyed to remove the 1st amendment in order to lower disease spread, lower the suicide rate of those vulnerable to hate speech, etc. And why stop there? Remove 2nd amendment and you can save even mo…

You’re on a slippery slope and don’t consider that this is an exceptional situation. The danger of losing civil liberties comes when the exception becomes the rule. AFAIK, no amendments have been violated since YouTube is a private entity. They can editorialize what they, how they want. It’s is their liberty to make a choice here, the same as your liberty to not support that choice.

> and don’t consider that this is an exceptional situation

exceptional situations are ripe for exploitation by corporations and governments and political parties. And indeed we've seen all of these try (and succeed) in taking advantage of the situation...

"Never let a good crisis go to waste" -- Winston Churchill

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

#117

Post by himinlomax »

brobinson wrote: post #92
Barrin92 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Edit: since people are misunderstanding this post, I am 100% pro-ROC and anti-PRC. I wish the ROC could rename itself to something else without triggering a PRC invasion. Check my comment history. I'm 100% pro-ROC and I support the ROC's continued (since 1912) independence as a sovereign entity. 中華民國萬歲 "Taiwan" isn't a country. It's an island controlled by the Republic of China alongside its other holdings. The ROC i…

Taiwan has:

- a military

- a government

- a language

- a judicial system

- foreign relations, however hampered they are by the Communist party

It also happens to be in a state of cold war with their nominally Communist neighbour.

If it's not a country, nothing is.

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

#118

Post by jbay »

brobinson wrote: post #92
Barrin92 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Edit: since people are misunderstanding this post, I am 100% pro-ROC and anti-PRC. I wish the ROC could rename itself to something else without triggering a PRC invasion. Check my comment history. I'm 100% pro-ROC and I support the ROC's continued (since 1912) independence as a sovereign entity. 中華民國萬歲 "Taiwan" isn't a country. It's an island controlled by the Republic of China alongside its other holdings. The ROC i…

Every one of the many Taiwanese people I know refer to it as Taiwan, too. It's very rare to hear anyone refer to it as the ROC, unless in the context of specifically making a distinction from the PRC, or in a formal document.

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

#119

Post by xref »

graeme wrote: post #62
tree3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The WHO denied human-to-human transmission even after Taiwan told them about it, and they dug their heels on calling the outbreak a pandemic for weeks. 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.

Did the WHO explicitly deny human transmission? Their earliest reports I saw said “we have no confirmed evidence of human transmission, but we are likely to find it”. It’s the second half of the sentence that people and the media seem to have ignored.

EDIT: Here's the link to their news conference on Jan 14th (same day as the "China has not reported human-to-human transmission" tweet): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia-wh...

Relevant bits:

>“From the information that we have it is possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission, potentially among families, but it is very clear right now that we have no sustained human-to-human transmission,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, acting head of WHO’s emerging diseases unit. The WHO is however preparing for the possibility that there could be a wider outbreak, she told a Geneva news briefing. “It is still early days, we don’t have a clear clinical picture.”

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

#120

Post by frenchy »

brobinson wrote: post #92
Barrin92 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Edit: since people are misunderstanding this post, I am 100% pro-ROC and anti-PRC. I wish the ROC could rename itself to something else without triggering a PRC invasion. Check my comment history. I'm 100% pro-ROC and I support the ROC's continued (since 1912) independence as a sovereign entity. 中華民國萬歲 "Taiwan" isn't a country. It's an island controlled by the Republic of China alongside its other holdings. The ROC i…

Taiwan is the common name for the state that officially goes by the name Republic of China. It's de-facto administrative boundaries have been the island of Taiwan for the last 70 years. That's long enough for most people stop caring all that much. Many countries in todays world were still colonies back then.
Post reply on HN