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

651–660 of 1001 posts

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

#651

Post by vkou »

rglullis wrote: post #500
knzhou wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The WHO has been spreading misinformation from the start, including claims that covid does not spread from human to human Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one 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 man…

They did say though that flying to China was still okay in as late as February. For what? Fear of CCP? If this virus had come in some African country, they would have no problem in closing everything out - as anyone that understands tail risks would. But because it's China, then the recommendations for actions come after the evidence can not be hidden anymore. It is immoral.

Flying to non-Wuhan China in mid-February was about as okay as driving to the next town over in the US, in early-March. An incredible majority of cases were in Wuhan.

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

#652

Post by Izkata »

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…

> Increases in copyright zeal make a new competitor to YouTube impossible and the network effect guarantees both theirs and Faceebook's dominance.

A Youtuber I follow recently made a really good point: Youtube has been promoting official channels of traditional media, it's extremely rare for a new Youtuber to become a big name, and most novel video content/memes now comes from TikTok. We're likely seeing Youtube fall out of relevance right now, with the younger generation going to TikTok instead.

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

#653

Post by 361994752 »

quotemstr wrote: post #554
floatingatoll wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

By the time the United States was founded, the idea of restricting speech that "conflict[s] with the public welfare" had become so frequently abused for self-serving censorship that a prohibition against the whole idea was written into the the highest laws of the country. The rationale for doing so applies today. A society can't figure out what is true if well-meaning people in power have the ability to censor anythi…

Thanks for your explanation. But one thing still confuses me.. that we should just leave the "covid is a lie" contents there despite the high possibility that it may kill people?

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

#654

Post by specialist »

glenstein wrote: post #472
bobcostas55 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO has been spreading misinformation from the start, including claims that covid does not spread from human to human after it was abundantly clear that it does[0], claims that travel bans would be unnecessary to halt its spread[1], and claims that people should not wear masks[2]. These are not mere edge cases. We have structured our public organizations in a way that gives credentialed "experts" enormous amounts…

So far as I can tell, your extremely confident, categorical interpretations of your own citations are basically mistaken, across the board. As I read [0] it is not, in fact, a blanket declaration about transmissibility. As I read [1] it is not in any way an inaccurate statement (see [3]). When read [2] it's clear that it is not a blanket declaration not to wear masks. Meanwhile Youtube is going to take down videos cl…

Further....

Geeks, more than most, should be savvy about scientific progress.

Coronavirus is still very new. We're learning new things every day. eg Today it's risks from blood clots.

I'd only be worried if the experts (WHO, CDC) failed to update their position over time.

Aside: Retric's comment earlier about AIDS killing 770k every year reminded me how long it took to understand anything about HIV, much less cope. And all the senseless unnecessary misinformation and backlash which thwarted progress.

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

#655

Post by cryptonector »

knzhou wrote: post #629
cryptonector wrote: post #619

Ahh, the same WHO that itself has spread misinformation on covid-19? (E.g., that there is no human-to-human transmission when they knew there was.)

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 that nations should get prepared, one 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 find were tied to the m…

> "Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China," the organization had said.

That was on January 14, 2020. China almost certainly had evidence of human-to-human transmission by then.

EDIT: Taiwan alerted the WHO of human-to-human transmission on December 31, 2019. So please, stop spreading misinformation about the WHO. The WHO dropped the ball, and it's being badly. Until there is a change in management at the WHO, everything they say has to be examined extra carefully.

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

#656

Post by specialist »

0xy wrote: post #558
robrenaud wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany bans holocaust denial. That seems fine.

Nothing emboldens racists like pointing to government oppression of their ideas. The KKK has free reign in the USA and they've experienced plummeting membership. Nothing kills bad ideas like sunlight and scrutiny, you don't need to ban it and make them martyrs.

You're saying that racism and white supremacy is declining?

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

#657

Post by specialist »

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…

Surely there's some daylight between honest disagreement and misinformation campaigns?

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

#658

Post by jbay »

brobinson wrote: post #616
nl wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you are technically correct, and it's true this is a real issue in PRC/ROC politics it's a strange hill to die on here. I'd note that you linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_Armed_Forces to support your argument. But the very first sentence of that page is "The Republic of China Armed Forces, commonly known as the Taiwanese Armed Forces..."

People commonly refer to the United States of America as "America" which is odd since there's also Central and South America. Being common doesn't equal being correct, and in this case the ambiguity is used by the aggressor state (PRC) to get people to believe a certain narrative. I'll continue to inform folks where I can as most people aren't aware of the situation between the ROC and PRC. I don't care about downvot…

I don't have any dislike for the fact that the ROC is an independent country, whether my government diplomatically recognizes them as such or not. I'm just pointing out that, if a Taiwanese family invites you to dinner, they're going to be weirded out by you continually saying "Republic of China" throughout the conversation.

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

#659

Post by loudlambda »

immutate wrote: post #531
dntbnmpls wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Cool. As an American you should be well versed in how companies work, as well as contracts, and the fact that you can absolutely be "censored" on a private platform.

That sounds a lot like editorial controls of a publisher, not a platform. That should open them up for libel. (I'm sure you know that as an American)

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

#660

Post by sgustard »

manigandham wrote: post #573
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.

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.

I believe that you, and I, have a robust filter to identify trustworthy content. But would you agree that most people consume only reliable content on YouTube, or Facebook? There is plenty of evidence that is not the case, and these platforms are being actively attacked by bad actors.
Post reply on HN