YouTube bans coronavirus-related content that directly contradicts WHO advice • Hacker News Board

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

#771

Post by immutate » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:26 AM UTC

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #401

throwaway2048 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truth exists, sorry for those who like to pretend it dosen't.

So would you support banning everyone on YouTube who went against WHO’s tweet[1] saying there’s no evidence of human to human transmission? That was only in January. https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/who-haunted-by-old-tweet-sayin...

First of all, this is about “YouTube banning 'medically unsubstantiated' content.” as well as content that “would go against World Health Organization recommendations,” which (if those guidelines are followed) doesn’t mean banning of people or discourse, but rather disinformation. Secondly, the WHO tweeted that, but had actually already acknowledged human-to-human transmission multiple times[1][2] in the days before the tweet, so no, I wouldn’t support banning discussion around a tweet.

1. https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unk...

2. https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/09-01-2020-who-stateme...

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

#772

Post by yuema » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:28 AM UTC

dvtrn wrote: post #743

yuema wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contribut…

btw, DeepL is a much better translator than google translate.

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

#773

Post by 101404 » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:29 AM UTC

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…

> 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."

That's really dangerous advice. Because most people with COVID19 don't even know they have it.

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

#774

Post by bad_user » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:29 AM UTC

o_p wrote: post #506

bad_user wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What WHO is saying is that there is no solid proof that wearing a mask will do much to protect you. And they are correct in saying that. They do not say that masks offer no protection. They also don't say that you shouldn't wear masks. Actual scientists give advice based on available evidence. When there is no evidence, or available evidence is too weak, they don't give that advice and they also don't fall in the tra…

Thats why you shouldnt hear scientists for advice and use your brain. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you wear a mask and doesnt have effect, nothing happens, if it does, thats a benefit, so you can only win by wearing one. You can be rational and completly dumb at the same time.

If you wear masks, but there aren't enough on sale, you end up exposing medical personnel. Viral load matters. Exposure to high viral loads has killed young and healthy doctors. For medics masks save lives.

Wearing masks in a situation in which medics don't have enough masks is a textbook tragedy of the commons.

Yes, you can be rational and completely dumb at the same time, I agree.

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

#775

Post by bad_user » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:32 AM UTC

o_p wrote: post #649

empthought wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“If you wear a tinfoil hat and doesn’t have effect, nothing happens. If it does, that’s a benefit, so you can only win by wearing one.” Not disagreeing on masks, but your argument here is a real stinker.

Theres clearly a difference in the magnitude of probabilities between masks and tinfoil hats actually working, and we are not in a global electromagnetic disaster right now.

If there isn't enough evidence, based on what are you calculating those probabilities?

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

#776

Post by 101404 » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:33 AM UTC

Phanyxx wrote: post #674

maximente wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you mean like the NYT's Judith Miller, ostensibly a professional, who sabre rattled for the 2nd iraq war based on aluminum tubes which .gov leadership immediately cited after being published? because that was fairly crackpotty.

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.

The NSA spying on everybody was pretty crackpotty. Until Snowden, and suddenly it wasn't.

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

#777

Post by donw » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:33 AM UTC

toomanyrichies wrote: post #749

serf wrote: 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. 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 tru…

We also need to track exactly how loud those corrections are published.

Calling out "hey, we totally got this one wrong, and here's why" even "louder" than original prediction is great. This is how you earn trust.

Quietly publishing a correction on the metaphorical back page? Nope. Not even close.

Silently changing the article after the fact? Oh hell no. Go directly to credibility jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

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

#778

Post by trott » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:34 AM UTC

fsh wrote: post #760

trott wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

As did several countries. From the article it should be clear that the observers were there to learn from their Chinese colleagues, not to conduct independent research on human-to-human transmission.

> From the article it should be clear that the observers were there to learn from their Chinese colleagues, not to conduct independent research on human-to-human transmission.

The Taiwanese experts saw clusters of disease, such as a wife who got sick a few days after her husband, but did not visit the wet market personally. This was an indication of human-to-human transmission. Not quite the "unconfirmed rumors from China", as you put it.

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

#779

Post by roenxi » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:36 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #751

roenxi wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a very smart bloke with an honest-to-goodness PhD in a virus-related field How do I embolden text on HN? When a person with a PhD is talking about something related to their PhD it is imprudent policy to ban their content because it disagrees with a body who are (a) political, (b) purposefully slow to recommend things and (c) have covered themselves with something a lot less pleasant than glory with their response…

Your original statement was "The sort of people who contradict the WHO happened to be right on this one;" Now you're saying that one specific person might be right, and because of that YouTube should let any crackpot broadcast potentially lethal videos on their platform. That's idiotic. Also, there are plenty of cases of respectable scientists throwing away their credentials to make a ton of money making completely u…

I'm saying that the WHO was literally a mouthpiece for a Chinese propaganda operation in the early stages of this pandemic. Not maliciously, not intentionally, but the facts of the matter are not really an open question. The WHO were communicating based on Chinese claims that had very little basis in fact. That isn't a strange situation for UN bodies, who are buffeted by strong political winds from all directions and reliant on reporting from their member nations.

The sort of people who are happy to contradict authority were totally correct to contradict the WHO. The WHO weren't communicating best known evidence; they were communicating best known evidence that was acceptable to the Chinese.

YouTube removing people who disagree with the WHO is YouTube setting up a system that will amplify Chinese (or other large state sponsored) propaganda. And I can give an excellent example of a credentialed person who was correctly applying his credentials to warn people about an outcome that has, in fact, emerged. People like that will be targeted under YouTube's policy, which is not interested in correctness but in authority. It is enacting a policy that would have made this crisis even worse for me, because it would have removed the channel that I found out about it from. I am very thankful for having 45 days early notice.

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

#780

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

RonanTheGrey wrote: post #752

seppin wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> freedom to discuss the coronavirus Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading that far and wide over allowing for every dangerous and wrong opinion. The complete and total censorship you fear never emerges, Youtube if anything is far too lenient on allowing terrible opinions to linger on their platform. They never do away with anything besides the most harmful…

> Unfortunately platforms that reach billions must prioritize the danger of misinformation spreading No, they don't. See, this is the core problem, that premise: that's the job of governments. And in the US, the law says the government doesn't get to do that. Arguing that entities who are arguably more powerful than the government should be doing it is literally arguing for the dictionary definition of fascism.

Actually in the US it's explicitly not the job of government, hence the bill of rights.

Individuals, and collections thereof, however, are free to censor whomever they want. This misguided idea that your protection from government censorship affects your contractual agreement with me needs to stop.