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

121–130 of 1001 posts

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

#121

Post by logifail »

Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0]

Where we live, due to local laws, we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO?

I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :(

We keep trying to encourage our kids to ask good questions, then I see what's happening out there in the world, and I wonder when the grown-ups are going to start asking good questions...

[0] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2...

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

#122

Post by ColanR »

Pxtl wrote: post #111
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?

4chan was taking the virus seriously back in January, when the WHO was denying the need for travel lockdowns. The misinformation coming out of the WHO is what killed people, not the early warning that 4chan gave us.

Edit: note that in both replies to my comment, none of the specific facts I mentioned were responded to. The response of the countries is being blamed, the date I mentioned is being ignored; but I am comparing the information coming publicly out of the WHO in January to the information coming out of 4chan in January.

In hindsight, if you compared the information from both at that time, you would have had a better idea of the real situation if you believed 4chan over the WHO.

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

#123

Post by hirundo »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #89

This is great -- amplifying lies that kill people is ridiculous. And out of crisis, amplifying lies is unethical, period. It's not censorship if you can prove it's bullshit. People have a right to express themselves, but we also have a right to not accept lies as truth.

> It's not censorship if you can prove it's bullshit.

If you think that you can prove any of the assertions at issue here one way or another, you are illustrating the problem.

For instance whether masks are worthwhile PPE is a highly complex issue and no definitive proof is available as to the correct policy across a wide variety of contexts. Yet YouTube is saying, if WHO claims it, nobody can refute that claim on their platform.

The same goes for the WHO's claims that eating seed oils and avoiding saturated fats is better for immunological health. This is a very controversial issue, and to simply rule out any contradiction on it can cause a lot of suffering if the WHO is wrong.

Whether this is censorship or not it makes YouTube a less valuable forum, and tends to protect official dicta from authorities as fallible as anyone else.

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

#124

Post by im3w1l »

krapp wrote: post #40
viridian wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the actual point people try to make with that rhetorical question is that no one can be trusted not to abuse that power.

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

#125

Post by twblalock »

Pxtl wrote: post #111
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?

> Misinformation is killing people.

How many? I don't think it's very many.

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

#126

Post by nyczomg »

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.

A reasonable point. But I am worried about the day that those who seek more power are able to convince people that we are in a sustained exceptional situation that is not really all that exceptional. And with private entities doing their bidding to clamp down on dissenting voices, that could become even more possible.

I don't think we are there yet, but we should be wary of that possibility.

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

#127

Post by msla »

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?

A lot of deaths:

https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/07/02/dietary-supple...

> The inspection reports portray an industry struggling to meet basic manufacturing standards, from verifying the identity of the ingredients that go into its products to inspecting finished batches of supplements.

> Some firms don't even have recipes, known as master manufacturing records, for their products.

> Others make their supplements in unsanitary factories. New Jersey-based Quality Formulation Laboratories produced protein powder mixes and other supplements in a facility infested with rodents, rodent feces and urine, according to government records. FDA inspectors found a rodent apparently cut in half next to a scoop, according to a 2008 inspection report.

> we don't know because there's no money to be made in it.

Lots of people are making lots of money selling this stuff. It's a huge industry.

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

#128

Post by HarryHirsch »

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.

since YouTube is a private entity

That's a slippery slope right there, a very dangerous one. In the US, spaces where one engages in political activities have moved from public (town square in front of City Hall) to private (the mall plus parking lot). That's a problem.

The other thing is monopolies. In the past, when you were on the fringes of the spectrum you'd publish with your fringe publisher and could at least get your message out. Nowadays Youtube suppresses the neonazis. That's nice and good, as long as it's nazis, but what if they don't like what you have to say? Big publishers and government have a symbiotic relationship, and there is always a sprachregelung.

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

#129

Post by Florin_Andrei »

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…

> WHO is a political organization

You're delusional, and you're infected with propaganda already. Full stop.

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

#130

Post by rdlw »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #108
brobinson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is what Chinese claim. I think what Taiwan says matters too.

This is NOT what the People's Republic of China claims, the PRC does not recognize the government of the RoC.
Post reply on HN