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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by umvi »

dijit wrote: post #797
nostrebored wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation neeeded] People die all the time. Pretending that the jury is out on the long term impacts of Covid 19 is ascientific.

I'm responding to this not for you, but for others. You should know that what you've just said indicates a disgusting train of thought not characterised by any good intention. -- The issue when talking about the long term affects is that, you're right, we don't have enough information. However that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and do nothing. The whole point of humans recording history (and science is most…

> For the sake of the parent, there are studies on the loss of population and if we lose 1-2% of the population in the span of a few months then indeed that will recess the economy quite sharply.

First of all, even if the true mortality rate of covid-19 were 1-2% (it isn't, it's likely much lower), it wouldn't infect 100% of the population.

You can't just do [total confirmed deaths] / [total confirmed cases] to arrive at a mortality % and then multiply by the total population to get a death count. That's horribly biased and not grounded in reality. The current estimated fatality rate is biased in my opinion as it mainly selects for people already in hospitals. Research is indicating that [total confirmed cases] may be much, MUCH smaller than [total cases] [0]. People are getting it and recovering without every being tested. Some people (a lot of people?) have mild-to-no-symptoms.

Look, it's reasonable to want to prevent excessive loss of life. But it's a double edged sword. Mortality rate for people aged 20-30 is estimated at .2% (though it'll like turn out to be lower for healthy adults). Prolonged stay-at-home orders have driven up suicide rate though (not to mention the devestating damage to people's livlihoods). 2 graduating seniors recently committed suicide at the Air Force Academy presumably related to covid-19 lockdown orders, and with a class of ~800, that's already more deadly than covid-19.

You're right we shouldn't "sit on our hands", but we also shouldn't fall victim to the politician's fallacy [1]

[0] https://news.usc.edu/168987/antibody-testing-results-covid-1...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism

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

#872

Post by dijksterhuis »

philliphaydon wrote: post #676
Someone1234 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The WHO advised against the public wearing masks Nope. Your article is actually about the UK's government's advice and lumps in the WHO. Here's a WHO publication from 30th of January 2020 [0] that advises all sick with "flu-like symptoms" be provided a mask (as well as healthcare workers). The WHO, like every national government, have recommended prioritizing masks to the sick and healthcare workers since the start…

The WHO still right now does not support wearing masks if you’re not sick. The fact that we know that people can be sick and spread the virus and still not show any symptoms suggests that every country in Asia supporting wearing the masks early on is right and the WHO is wrong.

As ever, the face mask issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance.

Yes, if everyone in the world had a sufficient supply of face masks and wore them correctly all of the time then the R0 would drop significantly.

The two keys parts of that statement are _sufficient supply_ and _wear them correctly_.

There is not a sufficient supply of face masks for everyone on the planet. Anyone purchasing face masks for themselves (without showing symptoms) are taking stock away from, for example, healthcare workers. Who definitely need the supplies.

I've seen people who have bought facemasks touching their face and fiddling with the masks. They don't know how to wear them correctly, making their purchase a complete waste. They've wasted stock that could have been made available to healthcare workers.

If the world was perfect and every human was perfect then yes I would agree with your statement.

But it isn't and they aren't.

WHO seems to understand this and so it seems to be a factor in their advice.

I believe they may have even made a statement to this effect at some point?

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

#873

Post by throwaway_USD »

knzhou wrote: post #260
throwaway_USD wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"No clear evidence" uncovered in a "preliminary investigation" was a completely true statement. Something tells me you haven't seen this alleged "preliminary investigation" report, but assuming you had, how do you know China didn't withhold information? The WHO tweet is dated 14 January 2020, but the 1st case of Covid was identified in December 2019. Chinese police forced Dr. Li to remove his comments about Covid19…

I mean, if you actually dig a bit deeper into the story there, Li Wenliang had no expertise in the field, was going off very little information, and was sending out mass messages saying that SARS had returned (which was absolutely not true; SARS is far worse, with 25x the mortality rate of COVID-19), which would have incited completely panic. Yes, in hindsight they should have listened to him, and back in January I w…

You are copying and pasting the same responses throughout this entire thread challenging everyone...

You are just accepting that what Chinese Authorities told the WHO was true, yet you can't cite any actual written report or data supporting their "preliminary investigation" of the virus and human to human transmission.

>Li Wenliang had no expertise in the field, was going off very little information,

He was a Dr. in the hospital where the first covid-19 patients were identified and he obtained the information from the treating physician.

>Imagine an American eye doctor posting on Facebook that Ebola was going around in NYC. They would definitely face immediate professional consequences — probably more than Li Wenliang did. My impression is that the full extent of the consequences he experienced was a stern talking to by the police, which is what you get here when pulled over for speeding.

The US has freedom of speech, no police are going to force a US Doctor to take down a social media post and sign a confession/agreement not to post about a disease again. That is nothing like getting pulled over for speeding, and such a comparison is ridiculous, one is legitimate enforcement of traffic laws and the other is a violation of civil liberties.

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

#874

Post by cm2187 »

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…

The thing is most lies and manipulation do not happen by stating false facts. They happen by ignoring (and never mentioning) the facts that do not fit the narrative and by pushing the ones that do. Or by presenting facts in a misleading way (like confusing CFR with IFR, or eliminating context).

And I am afraid I do not know a mainstream media that doesn’t do that on a massive scale. The WSJ perhaps. Certainly not the NYT.

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

#875

Post by doubleunplussed »

freehunter wrote: post #485
OrderlyTiamat wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the conclusion that you should be clear about what percentage of content is on the side of reasonable, and which is not. Let me however disagree strongly with your claims that this concerns 99.99999% of cases, and that the other commenter was talking about "what ifs" and "hypotheticals". That last claim seems to me to just be untrue: we know in fact that local laws, for example several american states, c…

That law is not contradicting the WHO, it’s just setting a stricter standard. It would be contradicting if the WHO said masks made things worse and the governments forced people to wear them anyway, endangering public health against the advice of the WHO. That’s not the case.

If the WHO said 'drinking bleach not recommended', would a video recommending drinking bleach merely be setting a stricter standard?

Your argument seems to rely on the fact that we know the WHOs recommendation on masks is wrong.

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

#876

Post by freeMoneySry »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #682
freeMoneySry wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has lived on this motto. Google is joining them.

How exactly do you figure? Google has built a company around it deciding what information gets to be seen. They’ve done this for decades. Apple sells computer hardware. Even if Apple has recently started curating information, they still only curate a fraction of a percent of what Google does. Suggesting that Apple has historically been at fault here and that Google is now just joining them sounds incredibly biased.

Google has been pretty open to letting creators share. Apple is like a dictator decide who is allowed to share.

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

#877

Post by cmeacham98 »

arghwhat wrote: post #870
cmeacham98 wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of weird slippery slope argument that banning obviously bad advice somehow leads to youtube becoming a "horrible oppressor" doesn't pass the smell test. By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?

Moderation is not necessarily censorship. It is only censorship if the content is removed based on the content itself. For example, shutting down a flamewar for simply being aggressive is not censorship, as long as the same discussion would have been permitted if held in good spirit. Censoring "wrong" content likely has bad outcomes, the worst being that with only "good" content, critical thinking may get even sloppi…

HN has plenty of rules that remove content "based on the content itself". For example, HN bans job ads (outside of 'who is hiring' threads). There are no circumstances where a job ad post is allowed outside of 'who is hiring' and YC-funded companies, not even "in good spirit". Similarly, the HN FAQ says not to post comments complaining about paywalls, and there is no 'unless you are civil' exception.

Again, does banning content from an internet forum inevitably lead to "oppression" or "bad outcomes"? If so, why hasn't this happened to HN/Reddit/Twitter/etc?

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

#878

Post by ZenPsycho »

liaukovv wrote: post #863
ZenPsycho wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really disappointed in hacker news today. Children all of you, crying for the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

Do you even understand how insulting it is to deny other people agency? That's the most insulting thing you can do or say, worse than racism, sexism or whatever else, it is plain denying that the other person is a human with their own free will.

do you even understand how ridiculous you sound? some tinfoil hat videos might get deleted and suddenly you’re reverse racism ghandi?

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

#879

Post by belorn »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #861
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 sort of weird slippery slope argument that banning obviously bad advice somehow leads to youtube becoming a "horrible oppressor" doesn't pass the smell test. By this reasoning, _any_ platform that features _any form of moderation at all_ will devolve into oppression. Is HN at risk of becoming oppressive due to banning flamebait and spam comments?

If the telephone system had the same moderation as HN then I would suspect that indeed it would seen as oppressive if they were listening on all telephone calls and banned users who they deemed inappropriate citizens.

We only have one telephone system so being banned has a rather large impact as it is an essential service. So maybe we should ask what platforms are like other essential services. Radio is an essential service. What about Youtube? The telephone system is an essential service. What about Skype? I think libraries are also seen as an essential service, so what about Wikipedia? And then we have HN. How essential is HN?

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

#880

Post by ZenPsycho »

dependenttypes wrote: post #841
ZenPsycho wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, how many deaths are you willing to be responsible for? make sure to scale it up to youtube size.

Except people who decide out of their own free will to watch and follow a specific advice and they end up dying due to it are responsible for their own deaths. You can't blame the medium though which said advice propagated. Regardless, as is and by your own belief youtube should be held responsible for the people that end up dying due to following the WHO recommendations instead of what the experts suggest.

by all means inject yourself with bleach as your “expert” suggests but don’t pretend that people deciding to spread covid19 around because they believe it’s caused from miasmas are only hurting themselves.
Post reply on HN