YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice • Hacker News Board

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

#251

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

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #137

hrayr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think "You need to wear a mask when you go out of the house" directly contradicts "you only need to wear a mask when taking care of someone with COVID-19"

No they're definitely saying not to wear masks because they think it's net harmful. For example

> WHO also said community masking could lead to a "false sense of security" and cause people to ignore other evidence-based measures like handwashing and self-isolation.

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

#252

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

cryptica wrote: post #170

The concept of 'fake news' was invented to bring power back into the hands of large media companies and the corporations which control them by discrediting all alternative news sources. I don't believe in fake news or conspiracy theories, but I do read conspiracy media and articles from 'fake news' outlets because it helps to get perspective. There is definitely a grain of truth in many conspiracy theories and 'fake…

> For example, some scientists found that covid-19 shared some non-trivial segment of RNA with the HIV virus.

This is "zombie information" and a perfect example of the kind of nonsense that should be stopped. The single paper this came from was thoroughly debunked by a hundred real scientists the day it was posted. (It used statistical criteria so loose that it could have said any virus was related to HIV.) The paper had never passed peer review, and was retracted by the authors from the preprint server it was posted on the next day.

You are part of the problem.

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

#253

Post by tantalor » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #233

tantalor wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone can make a mistake.

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

#254

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

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."

How do you know they made a typo, rather than that's what they meant?

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

#255

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

tjr wrote: post #227

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…

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...

[deleted]

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

#256

Post by IG_Semmelweiss » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

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…

private company doesn't fly. The moment they started curating their content, they are no longer pipes, they are editors.

As such, they are subject to freedom of speech rules, and likely will come under increasing scrutiny as they very well should.

Its about time, too.

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

#257

Post by knzhou » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #246

knzhou wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Screenshot: https://twitter.com/Austen/status/1245689629178650624 The ambiguity between their various statements at that time, taken together, just furthers my point that those statements should not be immune from dialog, criticism, verification/falsification, and discussion of those results. YouTube has banned that.

"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.

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

#258

Post by chrononaut » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

I do find the "censorship by private companies" discussions particularly interesting as a number of comments seem to overlook that we're conversing this very topic on a heavily censored and moderated forum that tailors its permitted content either directly (moderators) or indirectly (users downvoting). Its content, moderation, and selection are the primary reasons we enjoy visiting this site and having discussions. Articles get flagged on a weekly basis, and most (all?) probably for good reason. Is that unwarranted censorship, or a core component of what makes this website "successful"?

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

#259

Post by tantalor » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #248

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…

It also says you should wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing, which contradicts the "only" wording of the previous statement.

coughing or sneezing -> not healthy

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

#260

Post by knzhou » Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

throwaway_USD wrote: post #232

knzhou wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I mean, if you actually dig a bit deeper into the story there, Li Wenliang had no expertise in the field, was going off very little information, and was sending out mass messages saying that SARS had returned (which was absolutely not true; SARS is far worse, with 25x the mortality rate of COVID-19), which would have incited completely panic.

Yes, in hindsight they should have listened to him, and back in January I was pissed off about this because it set China’s response back by about a week, but these days a week of wasted time sounds like an excellent performance compared to almost every other country.

It’s not about the political system. Imagine an American eye doctor posting on Facebook that Ebola was going around in NYC. They would definitely face immediate professional consequences — probably more than Li Wenliang did. My impression is that the full extent of the consequences he experienced was a stern talking to by the police, which is what you get here when pulled over for speeding.