Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

bbc.com

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people would like freedom to discuss the coronavirus without being oppressed. They can't on YouTube if this policy takes hold. The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one; they predicted a problem early and tended to pre-empt the WHO on upcoming problems. This was also expected , because the WHO only advises stuff that is already obvious to everyone. Interested parties can offer be…

The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one; they predicted a problem early... Suggesting YouTubers were correct a form of survivorship bias. You're only paying attention to the ones that were right. Plenty of other YouTubers said things along the lines of it being a hoax, or it'd die off, or that it'd be thousands of times worse long before, and long after, the WHO reacted. YouTube is…

I think you are right, and that this is one of the more helpful comments in this thread. But maybe even this gives Youtubers too much credit.

I suspect that even those hailed as 'survivors' weren't necessarily more correct. Nobody remembers who was wrong. Nobody remembers anything, ever. Youtubers pay no price with their audience for outrageous false claims. Those were made in the past, which was a month ago. There's 30 new videos up.

Meanwhile, they reap rewards by fanning the flames of whatever subset of claims they've made that haven't proved false, and can claim they knew it all along.

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

#412
post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

His job is world health. If he put "saving face" for China, or trying to keep his job, over recommending a travel ban to prevent the spread of a deadly virus, then he is incompetent and he failed to prevent deaths... and my point still stands.

Your point only stands if the health ministers of the countries receiving that advice, had no responsibility for the advice they gave their own governments. Or do you believe that nation states bear no responsibility for their own decisions? Remember, WHO has no actual authority to impose anything. National governments do. Look to your own health minister and leaders for where to sheet the blame. Anybody hearing or reading that speech above that didn’t act - especially given all the actual technical guidance being offered by the WHO at the same time - should be looking in the mirror. A point I made elsewhere still stands. From the same source of advice - WHO - multiple nation states took different courses of action. Why do you think that is? They surely can’t all attribute their decisions to WHO otherwise all countries would have acted the same way. Clearly that’s not what’s happened.

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

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when am I beholden to the WHO? I don't remember voting for any of them or agreeing for them to represent me in any way. They are not my elected government, why should I give the slightest fuck what they tell me to do?

Perhaps because their mission is to keep the world's inhabitants healthy? Of course, they have no legal authority over you, but listening to them is generally a good idea.

I'm sure it doesn't seem like that to the citizens of Taiwan who are basically told to go fuck themselves by the WHO

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

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

do you think someone at google is saying: 'hmmm, I analyzed all the points and did fact checking and this video should be flagged'. They'll have some lazily built ML algorithm that flags the whole channel with a video that mention 'corona' and demonitize them so they can collect money and benefit from the videos but not have to do any payout.

[deleted]

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

#415
post #408
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…

what planet do you live on?

Earth.

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

#416
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You’re on a slippery slope and don’t consider that this is an exceptional situation. The basis for those civil liberties is a document written by people accustomed to seeing 400k Europeans die of smallpox every year.

Despite all their best efforts at studying the effective transmission rate, wearing PPE, and developing treatment drugs and vaccines!

Yeah, seems like an equivalent comparison to me.

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

#417

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…

I agree with the conclusion that you should be clear about what percentage of content is on the side of reasonable, and which is not.

Let me however disagree strongly with your claims that this concerns 99.99999% of cases, and that the other commenter was talking about "what ifs" and "hypotheticals". That last claim seems to me to just be untrue: we know in fact that local laws, for example several american states, contradict WHO. Their point is valid. This could be a problem.

Now you have done well to state your belief of proportion clearly: only 1 in a million of the cases that will be removed should not have been removed, the rest are indisputably worth of banning.

I think you now need to go a step further: Why do you think that all but one out of a million cases will be justified? And do you really think that a discussion about edge cases is so unnecessary? Given YouTube's history with copyright trigger happiness, I wouldn't be so sure of these proportions, myself.

And I think that it is actually very healthy that the introduction of (increased) censoring should go hand in hand with public scrutiny and discussion, in fact I'd be very worried if we'd all just accept all of it uncritically.

Your point is, in general, well taken. I think you're right to point out commentators can blow fringe issues out of proportions. I am however unconvinced in this particular case.

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

#418
post #91
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platform. Huh? If I ran a hosting platform and people were putting absolute BS on there, I'd remove it too. People who run hosting platforms want to have integrity.

Advertisers don’t want their ads on fringe content.

This is a ridiculous assumption. For two obvious examples, Art Bell attracted plenty of advertisers, as did early-day Howard Stern.

Some advertisers do, and some do not. Don't lump them all into a single bucket. YouTube is creating an environment that guarantees a future without Art Bells or Howard Sterns.

The concern you raise could easily be remedied with a single checkbox on the advertiser portal labeled "Display this Campaign on Fringe Content". The fact that with the enormous technical capability of Google, they choose not to do this and instead decide that they know the advertisers' preferences better than the advertisers themselves demonstrates clearly that this is about power and control, not ad revenue or serving the customer.

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

#419
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people would like freedom to discuss the coronavirus without being oppressed. They can't on YouTube if this policy takes hold. The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one; they predicted a problem early and tended to pre-empt the WHO on upcoming problems. This was also expected , because the WHO only advises stuff that is already obvious to everyone. Interested parties can offer be…

The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one; they predicted a problem early... Suggesting YouTubers were correct a form of survivorship bias. You're only paying attention to the ones that were right. Plenty of other YouTubers said things along the lines of it being a hoax, or it'd die off, or that it'd be thousands of times worse long before, and long after, the WHO reacted. YouTube is…

Maybe those Youtubers were less popular because their predictions are less accurate and their logic is flawed, and people are able to see the difference? Why is biasing information the role of Youtube, shouldn’t USA and other countries educate their citizen to be resilient to inaccurate predictions, rather than cut any information at the root and only ever expose citizen to “true information”, which inevitably makes your citizen more gullible?

Saying the population can be misled is an admission that our school system creates naive dumbasses. MAYBE we should fix that first.

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

#420
> "So people saying, ‘Take vitamin C, take turmeric, we’ll cure you,’ those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy

The WHO bannable hoax page:

> Fact: There is no scientific evidence that lemon/turmeric prevents COVID-19. In general, however, WHO recommends consuming adequate fruit and vegetables as part of a healthy diet.

First results from site:who.int Google search:

> Effect of curcumin, the active constituent of turmeric, on penicillin-induced epileptiform activity in rats (2012) Curcumin is a major constituent of turmeric and has many biological functions such as anticancer and anti-inflammatory effects

> Clinical trials on treatment using a combination of Traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine. Report of the WHO International Expert Meeting to review and analyse clinical reports on combination treatment for SARS (2003) All participants were patients with clinically confirmed SARS from Beijing Changxindian Hospital. Regimen: ... Radix Curcumae (15 g)... Relative to the control group, the integrated treatment group showed a significant decline in the general value of toxicosis symptoms, especially in the second and third weeks of treatment (p

> Altered antibacterial activity of Curcumin in the presence of serum albumin, plasma and whole blood (2017) Curcumin has been studied for its anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, anti-carcinogenic, anti-viral, anti-fungal and anti-parasitic activities

> CURCUMIN - HEALTH PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE (2015) Curcumin (diferuloylmethane) is a yellow pigment present in the turmeric (Curcuma longa) which gives the yellow color to turmeric that has been associated with antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antiviral, and antibacterial activities. These effects are mediated through the regulation of various transcription factors, growth factors, inflammatory cytokines, protein kinases, and other enzymes. Most westerners know turmeric as gold colored Indian spice. Turmeric and curcumin are not the same thing. The antioxidant and anti-inflammatory property of curcumin is much more potent in an extracted form. All of these studies suggest that curcumin has enormous potential in the prevention and therapy of various diseases.

First results on Google Search:

> Specific Plant Terpenoids and Lignoids Possess Potent Antiviral Activities against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (2007) Curcumin, a known phytocompound from Curcuma longa, has been reported to exhibit antiinflammatory, antioxidant, anticarcinogenic, and anti-HIV activities. In this study, mild activity against SARS-CoV replication and inhibition of 3CL protease were observed.

> Anti-infective Properties of the Golden Spice Curcumin (2019) Due to the lack of preventive and therapeutic options for many viral infections, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the antiviral potential of natural compounds. For curcumin, an antiviral activity was observed against several different viruses including hepatitis viruses, influenza viruses and emerging arboviruses like the Zika virus (ZIKV) or chikungunya virus (CHIKV). Interestingly, it has also been reported that the molecule inhibits human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) and human papillomavirus (HPV).

> Prof. Manges (2020) With the results of research that says curcumin can modulate the expression of ACE2, some parties state that curcumin makes it easy for COVID19 to enter the cell. Special research needs to be done to answer whether the administration of curcumin in lung cells accelerates the entry of germs and viruses, including the SARSCov-2 virus. What is certain is that research on turmeric, ginger, curcuma proved to show the work of the ingredients as an immune system booster.

> Curcumin Suppression of Cytokine Release and Cytokine Storm. A Potential Therapy for Patients with Ebola and Other Severe Viral Infections (2015) Curcumin has been shown to inhibit the release of numerous cytokines. The term ‘cytokine storm’ is most associated with the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic ... also known to occur in advanced or terminal cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

> Catechin and Curcumin interact with corona (2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV2) viral S protein and ACE2 of human cell membrane: insights from Computational study and implication for intervention (2020) Here, through computational approaches we have reported two polyphenols, Catechin and Curcumin which have dual binding affinity i.e both the molecule binds to viral S-protein and as well as ACE2.

> Revealing the Potency of Citrus and Galangal Constituents to Halt SARS-CoV-2 Infection (2020) Moreover, all of the citrus flavonoids possess good affinity to the respected receptors as well as curcumin, brazilin, and galangin, indicating that those compounds perform inhibitory potential for the viral infection and replication.

> Turmeric curcumin inhibits entry of all hepatitis C virus genotypes into human liver cells (2013)

I won't do the same for vitamin C, but it's definitely possible to do just that. Look, even if its scientifically proven that turmeric does absolutely nothing, it will still work as a harmless placebo.

If you found out early and spread the word about: human-to-human transmission, qualifies as pandemic, passes brain-blood barrier, effectiveness of travel blockades, you'd be in direct opposition to the facts spread by the WHO.

WHO's masks strategy amounts to: don't wear a seatbelt, it gives a false sense of security, so you may start speeding, and you'll choke yourself if you apply seatbelt without proper fit training, so just stay 1 meter apart from the car in front of you, and avoid drunk drivers. There is no scientific evidence that seatbelts work for the general public, just tons of research on effective protection for professional drivers.

If you want to fact check, actually fact check, and send the reader to a reputable source that dispels it. Don't let swarm intelligence go to waste and turn YOUtube into WHOtube. At the most, ban or dispel "5G causes coronavirus", and "Bill Gates mark of the beast" state-actor disinformation.

Post reply on HN