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

381–390 of 1001 posts

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

#381

Post by glenstein »

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…

>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?

Examples like these are frivolous. There's a heartland of obvious, flagrant misinformation that is indisputably worth banning and for which a moral case exists to ban immediately: '5g caused corona, this home remedy will cure it!' etc.

The go-to move of internet commenters craving debates is to look past the 99.9999% of cases that will get taken down and to tie everyone up in debates about hypotheticals.

Instead of telling me about your special what-if edge case, tell me whether you think the example you are bringing forward represents the heartland of content that is being targeted by this policy. Be clear about what percentage of cases you think are represented by your special example.

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

#382

Post by rsynnott »

epicureanideal wrote: post #286
knzhou wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prior to March 3rd, the official position of the WHO was that "The flu is worse" This is a lie, and the product of many different organizations flat out making up claims about the WHO to deflect blame away from themselves. The WHO has been telling nations to prepare since January. I mean, I'm an ordinary citizen and I got clued in to preparing in January from their statements.

You must have been watching different news sources than me. The comment you're replying to is what I saw as well.

Perhaps they were. "Watching" may be a warning sign here; TV news is generally... not good.

Here is the WHO warning the world to be ready at the end of January: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/29/whole-world-mu...

Now, there've been lots of problems with the WHO's response, but to claim that they were downplaying it until March is outright false, and if the news you're watching is telling you that you should consider watching (or reading) something else.

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

#383

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#385

Post by aantix »

guscost wrote: post #362
mmazing wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the market sort them out then, right?

The market won't sort them out, but the courts will. Wait until they are deemed a publisher, and no longer exempt from liability[0] for all of the content that they publish. Unfortunately they hire a lot of lobbyists so it might be a long wait. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

And then they become a constrained platform worried more about litigation than enabling voices, and the disenfranchised move somewhere to hear the message. It’s already headed there.

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

#386

Post by ketzu »

throwaway55554 wrote: post #271
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 don't think that's contradicting. Sure it is. Only means exclusively, one, no more. They're saying, "You exclusively need to wear a mask if you're taking care of a person with C-19". This action, excluding all others.

"Only" qualifies "need". "you only need to wear a seat belt on public roads" and "you should wear a seat belt on private roads" are not contradictions.

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

#387

Post by phs318u »

enaaem wrote: post #275
phs318u wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe that? Check archive.org. The WHO published info on CV including technical guidance for the health ministries of nation states, at least as early as January 24. It’s safe to assume that national delegates would have been in discussions with WHO ahead of this. Remember, there’s only one WHO and yet we have many different responses and outcomes in different countries. The only logical conclusion is…

In Februari the WHO urges to not impose travel bans: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-chie... Nations who handled the crisis the best, imposed travel bans early on and were criticised by the WHO. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/30/275959/the-china...

His actual speech (that Reuter’s reported on).

https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...

The key sentence that Tedros is being criticised for is:

“First, there is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade. WHO doesn’t recommend limiting trade and movement.”

However, in the same speech:

“ we must all act together now to limit further spread. The vast majority of cases outside China have a travel history to Wuhan, or contact with someone with a travel history to Wuhan”

and

“Our greatest concern is the potential for the virus to spread to countries with weaker health systems, and which are ill-prepared to deal with it”

This leads me to believe that perhaps he was trying to have it both ways:

- flag the need for action

- keep a major player from “losing face”.

I don’t envy his job, or in fact any of the UN organisations. You’re at the mercy of your big funders; you’re trying to influence hundreds of countries who’d rather focus on their own internal politics; you have no actual power. You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. How on earth do you move the needle at all in that kind of environment?

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

#388

Post by floatingatoll »

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…

You have not made a case for why you think that public health issues — such as Covid — should be a topic fully exempt from restriction by YouTube. You've made the case that freedom is good and that YouTube can take all sorts of steps, but you haven't explain at all what your position on this tradeoff is.

As a country that restricts public behaviors when they conflict with public welfare, it is plausible to expect that YouTube would restrict contradictory information about Covid at this time. There are millions of views on content suggesting that Covid isn't real, for example, and those will — under this plausibly correct approach — end up terminated and removed.

What public good do you suggest outweighs the public harm done by allowing (for example) "Covid isn't real" content to remain visible online?

You haven't described any public good that lends weight to your argument, and without that, your argument won't sell to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Freedom is not always a good thing, and we absolutely have laws restricting it for valid and serious reasons. If you wish others to consider that YouTube should exercise less restriction of freedom in this area, you need to be much more specific about why — to you, personally! — you think that good will come of them backing off.

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

#389

Post by heavyset_go »

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…

> Heck, we already decided trashing the economy is worth "saving lives" (how many?),

People dropping dead in the streets will trash the economy.

Post reply on HN