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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by xupybd »

Barrin92 wrote: post #142
xupybd wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the awkward way they one representative handled a question on Taiwan. Pretending he didn't hear the question. I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics.

>I think it speaks more to the unwillingness of a world health organisation to even discuss politically dangerous topics. Which is perfectly reasonable if you understand that these questions are looked at through the lens of international diplomacy and these people don't just wing geopolitical questions because every single answer can cause an international shitstorm (not just in regards to China, but every territori…

The WHO has such a strong interest in staying diplomatic that sometimes you might need to rely on a local body to protect your interests.

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

#732

Post by dkdk8283 »

Fuck YouTube. At first they liberated creators and gave everyone the same upload button.

Now they’re a bunch of fascists pandering to a niche demographic. Being PC is fine in some cases but I firmly believe in freedom of expression / free speech especially when it’s controversial. Let’s build hours ok folks critical thinking capability.

YouTube is becoming the very thing they tried not to be.

What do I think about wackos on youtube saying covid is the rapture? I think they’re fucking bananas. But I still support their right to say what they want.

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

#733

Post by allannienhuis »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #503
Angostura wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>including claims that covid does not spread from human to human. That's how you interpret 'no clear evidence from preliminary investigations' is it? Why bother attempting to twist the WHO's words? What does it get you?

Yes, that's how I interpret 'no clear evidence from preliminary investigations'. The relevant timeline: Li Wenliang (a doctor in Wuhan) blew the whistle on Dec 30. 4 days later he was harassed by the Chinese police for "spreading rumors". On Jan 8 Li Wenliang was infected. On Jan 12 he was put in the ICU. On Jan 14 WHO denied human-to-human transmission. Li unfortunately passed away in early February. And by the way,…

Just regarding your first statement: isn't 'no evidence of X' entirely different than 'evidence of no X'? Seems to me they were saying the first, but you're interpreting it as the second?

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

#734

Post by nathias »

This is pure evil. Once again the platforms have succeeded to turn an issue that concerns us all into a partisan american issue for all. It's sad to see so much of people working on software actively support this type of platfom power abuse for censorship.

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

#735

Post by aaron-lebo »

huhhjjh wrote: post #718
aaron-lebo wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I just don't understand how in a thread of such important stuff, this comment that's so low-hanging, so based on a non-issue is the top, with dozens of responses to it. It's really bordering on the conspiratorial, it's a bummer to see HN embracing that. It doesn't really make sense. You've got generic advice and then laws, WHO's statement was not in any way a contradiction of the law and it's grade school logic…

hN is heavily moderatded. You'll never see my comment. Essentially free and open discussion is impossible here.

I think there's just a pretty narrow range of opinions that you're allowed to express or the regulars that have invested so much time getting karma will make sure you aren't heard.

That does stifle discussion. I dunno if HN users realize how many people just refuse to touch the site because of these dynamics.

But this, I dunno what it's about. There's a really important issue here, and it's not "WHO said you only need a mask while caretaking and local laws say you need to wear a mask ergo contradiction/we're failing the children" ain't it. HN's too smart for takes like that, I don't get it.

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

#736

Post by kebman »

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…

Rumour on the street is that the advice is in place because local governments don't want people hoarding face masks, because there's a massive shortage of it in most Western countries, [1] so much so that several hospitals have eveb asked for private donations of face masks, and even the Directorate of Health. [2] This is half admitted at least by my own health authorities in Norway.

The advice from the Norwegian "CDC", the NIPH/FHI, was that you shouldn't wear a mask! [3] The claim, as it was broadcast in an interview, was that there is no evidence that wearing a mask protects you from contagion. This again springs out of the advice from the WHO. But they also claimed that it's in fact a danger of spreading the disease by wearing a mask! [4] [5] Except it's pretty controversial, and there are studies that directly contradict the official advice, for instance the now infamous bus study from Wuhan (now retracted),[6] but there are others. FHI has since relaxed this verdict, and there are news stories of them even turning 180 and advicing the use of face masks.[7]

[1] Norwegian language source: https://www.varden.no/nyheter/mangel-pa-munnbind-sykehusene-... [2] Norwegian language source: https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/innenriks/helsedirektorate... [3] Norwegian language source: https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/coronavirus/fakta/renhold-og-hygi... [4] Norwegian language source: https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/munnbind-kan-fore-til-mer-smi... [5] Norwegian language source: https://forskning.no/ntb-sykdommer-virus/fhi-munnbind-gir-fa... [6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8094933/How-one-man... [7] Norwegian language source: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/GGLm0l/helsedirektorate...

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

#737

Post by M4v3R »

nelox wrote: post #722
WA wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dare to ask the question how wearing a mask carries critical risk vs wearing no mask.

Again, if you read the advice ... "However, the following potential risks should be carefully taken into account in any decision-making process: • self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated mask • depending on type of mask used, potential breathing difficulties • false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand…

Three of those points can be addressed by proper education by the authorities. And last two points have nothing to do with risks of wearing a mask and more to do with how authorities in a country are addressing the situation.

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

#738

Post by joshuamorton »

roenxi wrote: post #336
bosswipe wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to Google, Facebook and the others this is the golden era of being able to widely disseminate your alternate theories on everything. If that is your definition of freedom then you are less oppressed then any other humans in history.

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…

> This policy will be aimed at exactly people like him. He has been contradicting the authorities all the way.

What advice has he given that contradicts the WHO's guidance?

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

#739

Post by aaron-lebo »

natch wrote: post #727
aaron-lebo wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I just don't understand how in a thread of such important stuff, this comment that's so low-hanging, so based on a non-issue is the top, with dozens of responses to it. It's really bordering on the conspiratorial, it's a bummer to see HN embracing that. It doesn't really make sense. You've got generic advice and then laws, WHO's statement was not in any way a contradiction of the law and it's grade school logic…

If HN has trouble with it though, Google is not going to do much better. They are not known for having a masterful grasp of subtleties. Examples? Look at the abysmal quality of their translations, their repetitive and off target ad personalization, their weak and spotty voicemail transcriptions that miss even the name of the caller when it’s in the address book with the number, their dead or dying OSS hosting, their…

Not a huge Google fan, I've gotten downvoted more times than you can count for criticizing them, but the thread we're talking about isn't genuine criticism, it's a twisting of something easily explainable into something it isn't, which detracts from the conversation.

I agree, if techies at the heart of this can't discusses this rationally, then those that don't do this for a living are going to struggle to, which is why there should be a higher standard for discussion.

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

#740

Post by holler »

knzhou wrote: post #627
eloff wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what YouTube is doing is with the best intentions - but I hate it. Silencing speech you don't agree with is a dangerous road littered with totalitarian regimes. Doing so at YouTube's scale underlines how much unchecked power corporations have in our society. I think they should not have the power to decide what voice deserves a platform and what does not. They should be regulated as a utility given their mark…

The central kind of thing that this ban is meant to prevent is people posting on Youtube to drink bleach as a COVID cure and laughing over the ensuing deaths. We've disapproved of that kind of speech for centuries -- this slope isn't nearly as slippery as you think it is.

Why not just base it on US law? It’s illegal to get someone to kill themselves, but not to preach exceptional philosophies. In the real world, the best way to refute a quack idea is with facts and a strong argument.
Post reply on HN