YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

Post by knzhou » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

triyambakam wrote: post #237

knzhou wrote: post #193

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. 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

Post by wolco » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

brobinson wrote: post #192

Cytobit wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by sneak » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #240

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 poin…

Post by lern_too_spel » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #121

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…

Post by tengbretson » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

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.