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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by mmazing »

stcredzero wrote: post #270
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…

I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many…

Let the market sort them out then, right?

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

#302

Post by api »

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…

Spam, scams, misinformation, etc. is why we can't have nice things. Every open service ends up becoming locked down because of abuse once it reaches a certain size. The choice is between censoring YouTube or allowing it to become a cesspool of garbage in which the bad drives out the good. It's just like any other Internet forum.

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

#303

Post by mikedilger »

TomMckenny wrote: post #183
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…

There is a great deal of complexity here. On the broader topic, breaking up Youtube, Facebook and the like is entirely desirable but would probably be pointless unfortunately. Increases in copyright zeal make a new competitor to YouTube impossible and the network effect guarantees both theirs and Faceebook's dominance. In light of this, I imagine the only solution is to legislatively guarantee an uncensored platform…

Might I suggest a line? Damage. Quantifiable damage that reasonable people could assess in a court of law. Stop and think about every exception to free speech that the US has: libel/slander, disclosing troop movements, breaking non disclosure agreements, perverting the course of justice, direct incitement of violence... they all fairly directly cause damage.

This line is not particularly fuzzy, and it makes some forms of censorship against speech that clearly doesn't cause direct quantifiable damage stand out as something entirely different than the other exceptions.

Some examples: hate speech does not cause damage that could be proved and quantified in a court of law. "Bad words" do not cause damage. Conspiracy theories do not directly cause damage (unless a court decided reasonable people would do things that caused damage based on the information, so there could be exceptions here).

Everything is indeed complex. But some ways of thinking about a problem can make the complexity more manageable.

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

#304

Post by Izkata »

brobinson wrote: post #212
KorematsuFred wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what Chinese claim. I think what Taiwan says matters too.

False. And don't use the term "Chinese" as it's ambiguous. This is not what the PRC claims. The ROC has existed since 1912 and has only occupied Taiwan since 1945 (some claim since 1952 and the Treaty of San Francisco). The ROC has been an independent state with continuous diplomatic recognition since 1912. It does not need to declare independence. I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives am…

> I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives ammo to PRC shills who intentionally muddy the conversation with their claim that "Taiwan is a part of China"

...Calling it "Republic of China" is straight up saying "[this area] is a part of China". Naming it "Taiwan" is giving it an identity independent of China.

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

#305

Post by tartrate »

dijit wrote: post #88
hartator wrote: post #84

Not even mentioning they are playing a dangerous censorhip game, it's very weird that they pick the WHO over the CDC after all the WHO controversies. (Taiwan, slow COVID-19 response, alignment with China lines, head of WHO was part of the corrupt Ethiopian government, $200M in business class travel, and probably more scandals.) CDC has also a way bigger budget than the WHO. $11.1B vs $4.2B. Ref: - https://en.wikipedi…

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. That's also the evidence of "alignment with china": because we in the west see a failure to recognise taiwan as siding with china. Which is odd because the USA doesn't officially recognise Taiwan…

> The majority of WHO controversies are made up

If you don't mind me asking, could you please provide the source for one WHO controversy that is made up? Preferably one of the large ones, if applicable.

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

#306

Post by twomoretime »

stcredzero wrote: post #270
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…

I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( The idea is: "We are the decent, good, people who know the truth. Now we control the platforms, so it's only well and good we control the information, and we tell the deplorable others what they can and can't say." Almost everyone in the history books as a horrible oppressor has told themselves that narrative. Many…

It's the same force that has been influencing academia for some time now.

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

#308

Post by im3w1l »

subhobroto wrote: post #203
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…

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…

If we want to convince people, we can't stop at saying "freedom", as if that makes the rest self evident. We have to explain why freedom is important. Why the cost is worth paying.

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

#309

Post by jimsmart »

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

What's false here — a logical fallacy — is to attribute that claim to the WHO, and not to the 'preliminary reports' from 'Chinese authorities'.

If a newspaper quotes/summarises the words of an MP/celeb, are those the newspaper's views?

This tweet clearly states it is the view of a third-party, and that it is based upon preliminary reports, and it is the third-party's findings.

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

#310

Post by brobinson »

Izkata wrote: post #304
brobinson wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. And don't use the term "Chinese" as it's ambiguous. This is not what the PRC claims. The ROC has existed since 1912 and has only occupied Taiwan since 1945 (some claim since 1952 and the Treaty of San Francisco). The ROC has been an independent state with continuous diplomatic recognition since 1912. It does not need to declare independence. I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives am…

> I just take issue with people calling the ROC "Taiwan" as it gives ammo to PRC shills who intentionally muddy the conversation with their claim that "Taiwan is a part of China" ...Calling it "Republic of China" is straight up saying "[this area] is a part of China". Naming it "Taiwan" is giving it an identity independent of China.

No, the current situation is that there are two governments both claiming to represent "China", not that the ROC is part of what you are calling "China" (PRC). The ROC can't amend its constitution to rename itself without triggering a PRC invasion.

You are using "China" to refer to the PRC which is misleading and muddies the conversation. I'm against calling the PRC "China" as much as I am against calling the ROC "Taiwan". Please use the full name or the acronym to avoid ambiguity.

Post reply on HN