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

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311

Post by robrenaud »

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…

Germany bans holocaust denial. That seems fine.

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

#312

Post by brobinson »

anoncake wrote: post #296
brobinson wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my edit. I'm 100% pro-ROC and 100% anti-PRC. Calling the ROC and its other non-Taiwan holdings "Taiwan" helps the PRC with their "Taiwan is a province of China" narrative. First time I, a stringent anti-communist, have ever been called a PRC shill. There's zero chance I'd be allowed to enter the PRC if they can see my internet posting history.

"Republic of China" sounds like something related to China. Maybe some sort of separatist organization? If the PRC invades it, that must be some sort of civil war, an internal Chinese matter. Can't blame China for conquering itself. "Taiwan" doesn't sound related to China at all. It implies no more "Taiwan, province of China" than "Taiwan, country in East Asia".

You are using the ambiguous term "China" to refer to the PRC.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22962035

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

#315

Post by mmazing »

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…

In the age of misinformation, how do we better equip our society to know (or even desire to know) what is accurate information?

I think it's easy to think of censorship as the answer, and it's easy to think that in this extreme circumstance that it's the answer. Maybe it is a slippery slope.

It is a problem though. People aren't doing a very good job of handling it on their own, either. So what's the answer? Genuinely curious about this.

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

#316

Post by chrononaut »

tomohawk wrote: post #100
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…

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.…

> Taiwan tried to warn them.

Do you have references for this, or the scientific data that Taiwan used to make that assertion at the time the WHO made that statement? It would better help your argument, and make it more powerful, since the only quoted text is the WHO stating "According to the preliminary epidemiological investigation..", which might very much be factually true.

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

#317

Post by dijit »

tartrate wrote: post #305
dijit wrote: post #88

Earlier 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. 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.

Well, the majority of the issues seem to stem from the 'pro-china' stance which, aside from one persons fumbling reply has no real basis. The journalist was a bit of a poison pill there asking an intentionally loaded question. The WHO doesn't recognise Taiwan because the U.N doesn't. Not because of China.

Here's a bit of "Why" the WHO doesn't recognise Taiwan: https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/why-does-who-exclude-taiwan

Here's a bit on the Racist campaign against the director of the WHO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/taiwan-rej...

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

#318

Post by EGreg »

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…

That's exactly the problem.

All our politicians around the world were so reactionary, many knew it has a 1-2 week incubation period, but no one was willing to make an order saying "WEAR MASKS" when no one was testing positive yet. They could have gotten ahead of this thing and prevented the outbreaks. The quarantines are a last resort because PUBLIC POLICY FAILED to contain the outbreaks.

WE WILL FACE THIS SITUATION AGAIN when the quarantines are lifted and everyone re-emerges. We must have a clear framework: compulsory wearing of masks and using sanitizer when entering buildings. Fines for anyone caught on camera removing their masks. They have to understand the masks aren't to protect the person wearing them, but the others. It has to be done en masse, and that's what government should be coordinating.

Please watch this video I put together: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppiPaYI-x4E

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

#319

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

robrenaud wrote: post #311
stcredzero wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Germany bans holocaust denial. That seems fine.

The devil is always in the details. What does “denial of X” even mean? Can you dispute certain facts, like numbers and dates? Who gets to decide the ultimate truth?

It takes a long time for the details of history to settle. For example, nobody knew most dinosaurs had feathers until the last decade.

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

#320

Post by jerf »

ColanR wrote: post #122
Pxtl wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misinformation is killing people. Given that, who should YouTube use as a source of truth? The US government? Bill Nye the Science Guy? Or should they let 4chan tell your grandma to drink bleach to fight the Rona?

4chan was taking the virus seriously back in January, when the WHO was denying the need for travel lockdowns. The misinformation coming out of the WHO is what killed people, not the early warning that 4chan gave us. Edit: note that in both replies to my comment, none of the specific facts I mentioned were responded to. The response of the countries is being blamed, the date I mentioned is being ignored; but I am comp…

"4chan was taking the virus seriously back in January,"

I think the thread under this is kinda missing a deeper point. 4chan was taking this virus seriously back in January. I also wouldn't be surprised that 4chan was the original origin of "it's just a flu, bro" meme, which is to say, plenty of 4chan and related communities was also mocking the idea of taking it seriously.

The point of free speech isn't that the speech will freely contain only the truth. The point of free speech is we need that debate to find the truth. Declaring the WHO as the one and only source of truth is a bad idea, even before we observe the fact that it has manifestly made numerous incorrect statements within the past couple of months, and that reasonably people can question some of the things it is saying even now.

There isn't an option where we get only pure, unfiltered truth. Sorry. That's life. But there is an option where we pretty much guarantee ourselves that we will not get the truth, and that option is declaring a single trusted source of truth who will somehow transcend the fact they are made up of falliable and potentially untrustworthy human beings to deliver you that truth.

Post reply on HN