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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by himinlomax »

brobinson wrote: post #184
himinlomax wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you're saying that the Republic of China Armed Forces belong to an entity called "Taiwan"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Armed_Forces "Taiwan" passports say "Republic of China" on them. My passport stamps from when I entered Taiwan say "Republic of China". Taiwan is just _one_ of the islands that the ROC controls. Calling the ROC "Taiwan" muddies the conversation and helps the PRC narrative that…

What is a metonymy?

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

#232

Post by throwaway_USD »

knzhou wrote: post #181
throwaway_USD wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. You say it is "completely false" that people only believe is true by repetition, well WHO has a twitter account and their whole tweet is: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human tran…

"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. They never ever said "okay, this definitely isn't transmissible, everybody can ignore it". They said in the early stages that it was too soon to be sure. All the other tweets from this period are saying the same thing: something might be coming, so countries should prepare.

>"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement.

Something tells me you haven't seen this alleged "preliminary investigation" report, but assuming you had, how do you know China didn't withhold information?

The WHO tweet is dated 14 January 2020, but the 1st case of Covid was identified in December 2019.

Chinese police forced Dr. Li to remove his comments about Covid19 from the internet on 3 January 2020. Hell Dr. Li returned to work and contracted the Virus himself on 8 January 2020 before the WHO tweet...so how did he get it if not person to person transmission?

So China had the information and conducted a cover up a full 2 weeks before the WHO tweet.

Can you explain why Dr. Li was forced by police to remove his social media posts and sign a confession? Can you explain whether Chinese authorities investigating how the virus was transmitted to Dr. Li before informing the WHO there was no clear evidence of person to person transmission?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang

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

#233

Post by garmaine »

tantalor wrote: post #230
garmaine wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, check the link.

No I mean it is a typo on the WHO page, I sent them feedback suggesting this phrasing: "Wear a mask if you are healthy and you are taking care of a person with COVID-19."

It’s a bit presumptuous to assume that the WHO has a typo in a document like this. Besides their messaging has been consistent.

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

#234

Post by jbay »

brobinson wrote: post #204
jbay wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, calling the ROC and all of its holdings "Taiwan" just muddies the conversation and gives ammo to PRC shills claiming "Taiwan is a province of China" which deliberately uses the name of a single ROC holding and the ambiguous "China" term.

Do you tell your friends about your summer trip to the Republic of Korea? Or were you visiting the Kingdom of Belgium that year? Do those friends invite you to visit their hometowns in the French Republic, or the Federal Republic of Germany? Maybe you can stop at the Grand Dutchy of Luxembourg along the way from one to the other?

Common names are common for a reason!

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

#235

Post by eej71 »

phs318u wrote: post #195
tomohawk wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not the original poster, but I found at least this one.

https://twitter.com/who/status/1217043229427761152?lang=en

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

#236

Post by brobinson »

himinlomax wrote: post #231
brobinson wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that the Republic of China Armed Forces belong to an entity called "Taiwan"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Armed_Forces "Taiwan" passports say "Republic of China" on them. My passport stamps from when I entered Taiwan say "Republic of China". Taiwan is just _one_ of the islands that the ROC controls. Calling the ROC "Taiwan" muddies the conversation and helps the PRC narrative that…

What is a metonymy?

Something you shouldn't use when talking about highly politicized nationstate issues with intentional ambiguity being injected by shills on the aggressor side.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22961335

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

#237

Post by triyambakam »

knzhou wrote: post #193
triyambakam wrote: post #156

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…

What is false about this tweet? [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

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

#238

Post by brobinson »

jbay wrote: post #234
brobinson wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, calling the ROC and all of its holdings "Taiwan" just muddies the conversation and gives ammo to PRC shills claiming "Taiwan is a province of China" which deliberately uses the name of a single ROC holding and the ambiguous "China" term.

Do you tell your friends about your summer trip to the Republic of Korea? Or were you visiting the Kingdom of Belgium that year? Do those friends invite you to visit their hometowns in the French Republic, or the Federal Republic of Germany? Maybe you can stop at the Grand Dutchy of Luxembourg along the way from one to the other? Common names are common for a reason!

When shills from an aggressor nation in a highly politicized international conflict intentionally inject ambiguity into the names used by the states on either side of the conflict, you should strive to be as articulate as possible to avoid misunderstandings.

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

#239

Post by __blockcipher__ »

zknz wrote: post #179
cryptochromium wrote: post #143

Earlier 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.

That’s totally true, but I don’t think it should be controversial to say that the WHO lied by omission, and that their statement was intentionally intended to convince countries _not_ to lock down.

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

#240

Post by knzhou »

sneak wrote: post #209

This is terrible. I wrote this week how centralized, point-and-click mass censorship has a non-obvious failure mode in emergencies/pandemics/wars that poses an existential threat to a free and self-determined society: https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/ (Note well that this exceptionally dangerous failure mode is based simply on the existence of the technological capability of mass instant censorship, not th…

> parroted China’s line about no 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 that nations should get prepared, one 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.

Post reply on HN