"no you can't have it as a toggle button in the settings because we need to be able to control what you watch"
YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
221–230 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
#222The comments in this thread are embarrassing. Youtube has every right to take responsibility for the content on their platform. Good for them for exercising it.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
#223Free 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.
> They can editorialize what they, how they want.
Then they are publishers and not platforms. So they are liable for all content on their website.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The majority of WHO controversies are made up, the WHO are not a political entity so they do not want to comment at all on political issues; and whatever you want to say about Taiwan it is a very heated political situation. They make overt political statements all the time. For one: calling Taiwan racist when it took issue with the WHO’s inaction after their attempts to disseminate health information. Then Tedros c…
Please don't twist the situation. The Head of the WHO was attacked by racist trolls who were outwardly Taiwanese; for excluding Taiwan from membership (like _all_ U.N. projects do), And he commented about the abuse. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/taiwan-who-tedro...
He "commented about the abuse" in order to deflect from a question about why the WHO didn't take Taiwan's warnings seriously.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
#225Current 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…
I don't think that's contradicting. Directly contradicting would be "Don't wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19". What you described sounds more like extending the current WHO recommendations.
[deleted]
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
#226I guess if this were the 1500s YouTube would only have us post videos that confirm that witches and heretics should be burned at the stake. Maybe it would be okay to talk about a few more crusades. Mankind improves because systems become big, rigid, and unable to evolve. People come along and point that out, suggesting various theories about how those systems got that way, the reasons why they are wrong, and offering…
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 oversigh…
I don't think it is good form to copy/paste this comment to each reply, even if they're making mostly redundant replies.
You may want to link to your original comment instead.
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
#227Current 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…
This is largely my concern here also. The virus in question has only been around, and been studied, (as far as we know) for a few months.
Doctors and scientists have been trying for decades to determine what people should eat, and are still not completely in agreement...
Re: YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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
That's not a denial. It's a we have yet to confirm.
But surely the prudent, cautious way of wording a non-denial would be "no clear evidence of the impossibility of human-to-human transmission"?