Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

bbc.com

191–200 of 1001 posts

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

#191

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 ki…

China has it under control. It will not become a pandemic. It doesn't transmit between humans. Who is Taiwan?

Wouldn't dare contradict the WHO...

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

#192

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…

Sometimes, I'll hear someone talk about a place called "Virginia", and I'll have no idea what they are talking about. Eventually, I figure out through context clues that they are referring to the Commonwealth of Virginia. I wish they would save me the time of having to constantly explain why they are wrong.

Bad analogy. This would be like people calling Rhode Island "Newport". The official state name is (the State of) "Rhode Island" (and Providence Plantations), and calling it by the name of one of its territories makes no sense.

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

#193

The WHO previously stated on Twitter in January that there is no evidence of human to human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. If this rule on YouTube were in place then and someone was sharing evidence of human to human transmission that technically would have been banned.

This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying there probably is person-to-person transmission, and a bunch saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they’d managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can’t be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.

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

#195

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…

Agree. They are a monopoly, and cannot be allowed to function like any old hosting platform. The WHO was wrong on many occasions during this pandemic. They said it couldn't or was hard to transmit between people - meanwhile, it was spreading everywhere and Taiwan tried to warn them. They said we should not shut down international travel from China. Wrong again. Taiwan and a few others did and it helped out immensely.…

Can you please provide references for your assertions. Thanks.

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

#196
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO never denied human-to-human transmission. This is a blatant lie.

"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China," https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20

[deleted]

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

#197
post #148

Some people say the WHO denied human to human transmission, and denied that masks work. Do these people think the following two statements are equivalent: 1. There's no clear evidence of God 2. God does not exist

> the WHO denied human to human transmission

This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying there probably is person-to-person transmission, and a bunch saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they’d managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it can’t be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they actually did.

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

#198
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Given that, who should YouTube use as a source of truth? Why are we expecting a private company to provide "a source of truth"? What happened to the whole idea of the Internet being about the free flow of information? >Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona? Why don't we have parental controls for our parents yet? Why are we applying blanket bans on parts of the Internet when it…

Apparently I have hit the nerves of lots of people from my parent post and since I am and like to be publicly accessible, people who disliked my thoughts have really let me know what they think of me and where I belong :D

I am noticing, increasingly in the country I live in - the U.S., an extremely concerning attitude towards love for censorship.

More concerning is that the proponents have "good intentions" at heart.

It's almost as if the concept of freedom is not understood.

Freedom is not free.

Freedom has a price, often a heavy price that one has to pay for it.

The fact that we are not children anymore who desparately need oversight and constant handholding, seems to be an alien concept.

"Oh! What do you do about those YouTUbe videos that tell you to drink bleach because it saves you from SARS-COV2!"

Well, I watch that video and research what the potential effects of drinking bleach even if there was no SARS-COV2 in this world would be and then weigh the potential effects of a COVID-19 infection and weigh the options.

This is, what I assumed, were the responsibilites of an adult - a process to make rational decisions instead of being spoonfed and told what to do like one would a child.

As I clarified elsewhere on this thread, the point I was making wasn't "liars, cranks and con artists don't exist, and no one gets to decide otherwise."

It was "liars, cranks and con artists do exist, and we need to empower people to decide which is which by letting them practise."

Yes, being an adult means having the freedom to drink alcohol and drive a car instead of waiting for a bus or a parent to come pick me up.

It also means having the responsibilities of making my own decisions instead of waiting for someone else to do it for me.

What's the expectation - that if the decision making authority makes a wrong decision that kills me, I can then blame them and collect damages?

That's crazy talk - for one, I will be dead already!

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

#199

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…

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.

The ROC had existed continuously since over 30 years before it occupied the island of Taiwan. What about people in Kinmen? Do you consider them part of "Taiwan"? Please use the official government name to stop aiding the PRC in its misinformation campaign.

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

#200

Pick any politician and you will likely find some egregiously false statements about Covid-19...but I have to say the WHO, maybe acting on the best info at the time or acting as puppet for China, had put out some seriously dangerous false statements, including: On January 14, the WHO stated that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.”

The whole citation [0]: "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". Should they have not posted this at all? [0]: https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

It depends...like I said in my comment you replied to:

>maybe acting on the best info at the time or acting as puppet for China

The WHO is supposed to be an independent international organization, so again the question is what kind of independent study or review did the WHO do before accepting the representations of Chinese authorities and repeating them to the World?

If the WHO did nothing but promoted a tweet at the request of Chinese authorities without an independent investigation into the merits of the tweet, then it seems clear they should not have posted it at all.

Either way the international community needs to know who these Chinese authorities were and an independent review of these preliminary investigations needs to be completed.

Post reply on HN