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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

etangent wrote: post #561
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how all news media operated before the internet created mouthpieces for non-professionals. In addition to suppressing some inconvenient truths they filtered out crackpot ideas that have become a plague in modern times.

This comment has so much elitism in it I can smell the grey poupon from across the wire.

You're right. We're so much better off when a significant segment of the population believes that the Secretary of State is pimping out children from a pizza restaurant.

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

#572

Post by anigbrowl »

rglullis wrote: post #521
knzhou wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's wrong. WHO essentially never encourages travel restrictions, their whole philosophy is that open international collaboration is crucial (that's why the W stands for "world"!). At the height of the Ebola epidemic, they didn't call for travel restrictions to Africa either.

That is a well-polished turd of an argument you are trying to sell there. Not recommending travel restrictions due to "promoting international collaboration", really? I don't need to be an expert in medicine to understand that if an epidemic breaks out in an area, the first thing authorities should do is to avoid getting more people in that area. Even more so when the cause/methods of transmission and speed of transm…

Instead of being rude why don't you find some examples of the WHO recommending travel restrictions?

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

#573

Post by manigandham »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #514
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…

This is how all news media operated before the internet created mouthpieces for non-professionals. In addition to suppressing some inconvenient truths they filtered out crackpot ideas that have become a plague in modern times.

What exactly qualifies someone to be a "professional" who is allowed to speak?

The vast majority of content I watch on Youtube is produced by independent creators covering a variety of topics with much more detail, expertise, and truth than any mainstream program.

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

#574

Post by jshevek »

adatavizguy wrote: post #398
grawprog wrote: post #392

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?

I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding what content is and is not allowed to be hosted on their private servers using their private services. This is very different from government officials that you vote for censoring free speech. Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live…

>I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you.

Your snarky condescending tone is not helpful.

Just because a person reaches a different conclusion than you doesn't mean that they lack information like this.

I think it's dangerous to society to give corporations that have as much power as YouTube a pass simply because they are not government entities.

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

#575

Post by 0xy »

paypalcust83 wrote: post #99

Nuance is required. There's two sub-category ends of contradictory content spectrum: baseless/wrong/speculative (worthless) and scientific inquiry (worthwhile). Hopefully algorithms won't automatically ban people like Dr. Kyle-Sidell for questioning COVID treatment protocols. OTOH, allowing snake oil salesman junk content like from Alex Jones harms the public good.

The Streisand effect ensures the censorship you champion will be amplified and emboldened.

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

#576

Post by xster »

dmix wrote: post #546
xster wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> recognize Taiwan as a sevreign nation This statement shows the power of western media. Yes the WHO doesn't. Neither does any other political entity in the world. Neither the US, nor the 14 of 193 UN members that has diplomatic relations with the ROC, nor does "Taiwan" itself recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Even the most pro-US pro-independence party in Taiwan, the DPP, does not recognize Taiwan as a soverei…

This is why using WHO as the body for 'truth' is idiocy. They have a hundred different incentives pulling them in different directions. Automatically making it a poor 'source of truth' or, even worse, what is not okay to talk about. It might be a good source of information for governments around the world looking to take the most neutral diplomatic and balanced stance on every issue. Not sure why those same incentive…

I think I generally agree. I'm very against YouTube content control whether it's censoring gun contents or taking down pro-China channels during the Hong Kong protests.

Your statement misses the point a bit though. I don't think anyone's arguing that WHO/UN is a source for (political) 'truth'. It's just a medical advisory body. If the UN was the source of 'truth', Israel might not exist in the present form anymore since half of all UN resolutions against single countries are against Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut.... The fact that no one is likely to know that is precisely because what you're arguing against is already not true.

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

#577

Post by anigbrowl »

grawprog wrote: post #392
glenstein wrote: post #381

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…

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?

Since its establishment by treaty and your sovereign nation of origin becoming a signatory to said treaty. Surely you can make the same point about your skepticism of transnational organizations without all the emotional theatrics, perhaps by researching the topic you aver to care about and highlighting what you believe to be its constitutional inadequacies.

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

#578

Post by endgame »

chrisseaton wrote: post #251
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And so continues this disgustingly paternal approach of "nudging" people to do things instead of presenting clear information and empowering citizens to take correct action.

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

#579

Post by 0xy »

jimsmart wrote: post #309
triyambakam wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They claim it was a report for one, and not cover-up propaganda. There was evidence of human-to-human transmission, including evidence delivered to the WHO via Taiwan in December.

Then the WHO sought to spread medical misinformation about face masks and travel bans repeatedly into February and March.

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

#580

Post by anigbrowl »

AlchemistCamp wrote: post #425
adatavizguy wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding what content is and is not allowed to be hosted on their private servers using their private services. This is very different from government officials that you vote for censoring free speech. Anyone who doesn't like YouTube's policies are welcome to post their content on Facebook to share with their friends, on Twitter, stream it live…

> I hate to be the one to have to explain this to you. A private entity is deciding... YouTube is part of a gigantic, public company with more power than many world governments. In a very real sense, Alphabet is more powerful than a hypothetical Standard Oil that also owned one of the most popular two newspapers in every single city in the US. Their ability to shape markets, public opinion and even elections in 100+…

Almost seems like the problem is monopoly capitalism, doesn't it?
Post reply on HN