Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice

bbc.com

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741
post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO it is better to start from a point of humility and recognize that we all have our own particular blind spots. Technocratic management and epistemology would be prime examples in this case. Who cares if people consume incorrect information? Who decides what is correct? The WHO has been wrong throughout this pandemic. Accusations of misconduct and a pro-CCP bias are still playing out. The establishment sources hav…

> Who cares if people consume incorrect information? Anti-vax information can get people killed. The "5G causes coronavirus" conspiracy theory is causing people to burn down mobile phone masts. The Rohingya crisis was accelerated by all sorts of fake news and racial libel, resulting in a large number of deaths.

Similarly the crisis was exacerbated by the WHO's complicity if not participation in the CCP's cover-up.

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

#742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that they reinvented gunboat diplomacy for Greece, not really.

How is Germany's handling of the Greek debt crisis at all comparable to forcing a nation to the table with the threat of invasion?

Please, show us the facts where was a threat of invasion against Greece?

Instead, there was a Greece threat to seize German property as a compensation for WWII: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31831694

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

#743
post #730
post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree. Check out the IndieWeb when you have cycles for it. I think it lines up quite well with what you’ve expressed. https://indieweb.org/principles

Thanks! I was really inspired by John Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" so I wanted to build something that can reflect my understanding of his vision, an autonomous cyberspace. I've tried to build blockchain, DApp and App in the past two years, all failed because of technical challenges. I'm on the fourth try and we are now building a "Wechat + Twitter" website. It is now open sourced at: ht…

I was really inspired by John Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"

Somehow despite my own digital-revolutionary tendencies (don't read too far into this, heh) I'd never come across this bit of writing before.

Thank you!

I think you'll really appreciate the IndieWeb's adoption of microformats to enable federation, a brilliant example of it in use to display a timeline-esque rendering of contributors can be found on their directory: http://indieweb.xyz.

Instead of posting directly to the directory, you enable your website with certain HTML tags and upon publishing a new page or blog entry, it federates out via webmention and anyone who subscribes to the directory gets your content.

In my opinion this is the social-media web we should have gotten.

Edit: Also, about your app...I love the UI. I can't read much of what's on the page, but I'll run your readme through a translator to learn more. Good luck!

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

#744

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.

[deleted]

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

#745
According to those guidelines, YouTube would have to censor the US president's Thursday’s White House coronavirus task force briefing.

“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute! And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.” --Donald Trump

YouTube isn't able to perfectly apply this "complies with WHO" filter. Even if it would, some dangerous crackpot talk is actually newsworthy. Newsworthy as in we need to know that this harmful dribble came from the US president's mouth.

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

#746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How you read them is irrelevant. What's relevant is that hundreds of thousands of people read the first one, took it at face value, and decided that the coronavirus is not a threat. The WHO definitely misled people with that first one, the only thing up for debate is whether it was deliberately or due to incompetent messaging. GP comment is a bit too categorical but it's not even a contested fact that WHO initially d…

Can you explain how the WHO is given "absolute authority"?

The WHO has a list of medical guidance. I've yet to see anyone in this thread complain about any of the medical guidance the WHO has provided. The most relevant is likely this page: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2.... None of this is controversial.

> put out recommendations to keep borders open

This is incorrect. The WHO recommended against banning travel from certain parts of the world. Completely closing you borders (to non-citizens) was not covered. You can read the WHO's actual statement[1], and it's well reasoned. The value of unrestricted travel for emergency equipment and personnel outweighs the value of restricted travel from certain areas. But short term restrictions are alright if necessary to build up infrastructure (iow, to flatten the curve temporarily).

> about not needing to wear masks.

They recommend against random everyday people using medical masks. Given the PPE shortage, this is not unreasonable advice. They defer to local authorities for more stringent recommendations.

> And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist

Does this impact their medical advice?

[1]: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...

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

#747

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.

It's for your own good. :) This is what my own government say every time they want to control the population. Luckily freedom of speech stands very firm in my own country of Norway, but it does not prevent the state from using the phrase.

As for the validity, when policies are in the open, which they mostly are over here, and it is clear what it is based upon, then far more people willingly accept them, because they can look into the facts themselves. They can even discuss conspiracy theories if they wish, but no one buys them, because good information is readily available. So when Norway claims that something is "for your own good," it is actually mostly true, despite the negative connotation the phrase has in most other countries.

The opposite tends to happen when information is subdued and censored, which is regretfully the route YouTube is now on. They're taking a path which is more similar to a state bureau than a private company. You're left to only speculate as to why they would do something like that, but it's likely that it is a combination of social justice leadership and governmental cooperation. As such, their difference from a state bureau is starting to blur.

The strategy of top-down censorship is sadly a strategy most employed in purely Socialist and Communist countries. But then that shouldn't be very surprising when you also see the position YouTube is in, which is so much of a market leader that they border on a monopoly.

While I can't speak for YouTube directly, since most video services are indeed free, one of the main business practises to retain such a position, is to bleed money to keep most of their services priced so low as to destroy all competition. YouTube is in a bit of a different position, howeve, because their service, particularly their suggeston service, is far better than most if not all competitors. But every time they employ censorship in any form, they bleed customers to alternative platforms, and the effect of their censorship is diminished, if not outright reversed.

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

#748
post #725

This is a mistake. It implies that we should all agree that WHO: 1) Is not corrupt 2) At all times represents the best available expert opinion and advice But all institutions can become corrupted and the second point is highly implausible. WHO ignored Taiwan’s early warning and maintained for a dangerously long time that human to human transmission was not possible. There is a reason why the US cut funding to WHO. T…

Taiwan didn't even have a confirmed case until January 21. They couldn't possibly have reported anything but unconfirmed rumors from China. WHO warned about human-to-human transmission as soon as it was confirmed by Chinese scientists. The US cutting funding is obviously a political move in order to shift blame away from the utterly incompetent government.

> Taiwan didn't even have a confirmed case until January 21. They couldn't possibly have reported anything but unconfirmed rumors from China.

Actually, Taiwan sent its own experts to Wuhan:

https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/Detail/jFGUVrlLkIuHmzZeyA...

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

#749
post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying your example is wrong, but the fact that it's from nearly 20 years ago is very telling. Even the most credible of sources will get something very wrong on occasion.

>I'm not saying your example is wrong, but the fact that it's from nearly 20 years ago is very telling. telling in what way? This behavior hasn't really slowed down, and was persistent through the Obama administration, too. Many, including myself, feel as if that behavior is par for the course with regards to NYT. Chomsky refers to it as the NYT's special role of 'creating history'[0]. That's why they have some stran…

I think what's needed is a measurement of how many times a source was later proven to be wrong, and then issued a correction to state as much. Or even better, a percentage comparing the # of times they got wrong with the percentage of times they admitted as much. A sort of "batting average" for admitting their mistakes.

All sources will get it wrong from time to time. A reporter's primary loyalty should be to the truth, regardless of whether it aligns with their pre-conceived notions. Coming up with a way to quantify that loyalty would be a service to society.

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

#750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ignore all the overwhelmed hospitals and the sudden jump in mortality in Italy and Spain that made them decide to lock everything down after they already had a crisis on their hands. Rail more about a transnational organization with a long though often imperfect record of epidemiological expertise. Those bureaucrats in Geneva are personally ruining your life.

> Yes, ignore all the overwhelmed hospitals and the sudden jump in mortality in Italy and Spain that made them decide to lock everything down after they already had a crisis on their hands. Rail more about a transnational organization with a long though often imperfect record of epidemiological expertise. Those bureaucrats in Geneva are personally ruining your life. Not one of these statements reflects any stated pos…

GGP said

> without a whole lot of correctly collected data (emphasis on the correctly collected because data are worthless unless correctly collected, i've personally had to throw out hours of work because of sampling errors)to back anything up.

"Deaths: 191,081" would beg to differ with their conclusion that there isn't a whole lot of correctly collected data. Further, we have incredibly good evidence that social distancing works. We could see it on a state by state and week by week basis in the US, as well as in other nations when they implemented similar policies. There's a whole lot of data backing up lockdowns.

There's also literally hundreds of academic papers on the subject would also disagree. I'm not sure what they expect, but you don't generally get to run longitudinal double blind studies in the midst of a pandemic (although now we're finally getting to the point that you can, with, for example, evidence that things like cloroquine don't improve outcomes).

I'm also not sure what home invasions and human rights violations they're talking about, I haven't heard of any, so I'm curious to see if that's substantiated. I doubt it is.

Post reply on HN