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

891–900 of 1001 posts

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

#891

Post by immutate »

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?

I've been very surprised, and I guess I shouldn't be, that so many folks are taking such a hard black or white stance on this. There's folks who've literally pushing ingestion of Chlorine Dioxide to eliminate coronavirus, or conflating HBOT with inhaling ozone to "clean" the lungs. I 100% believe that transparency and understanding when and why things are taken down can help, but there's a _lot_ of slippery-slope arguments being made that here that actually surprised me, when we're talking about actually trying to prevent people from spreading information that can actually lead other to harming themselves, rather than seeking treatment.

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

#892

Post by banads »

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?

Why don't you try to steel man the argument, instead of straw manning it?

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

#893

Post by [deleted] »

belorn wrote: post #879
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?

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…

[deleted]

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

#894

Post by ceejayoz »

yellowapple wrote: post #801
ceejayoz wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were hardly unique in that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12208181153549230... > China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi! Jan 24!

Just because they weren't unique doesn't mean they weren't wrong.

Correct.

That said, the "WHO praised China!" meme is largely a deflection. Trump, talk radio, and Fox have been pushing it heavily in an attempt to blame others for the US's poor response.

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

#895

Post by ceejayoz »

twomoretime wrote: post #699
ceejayoz wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were hardly unique in that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12208181153549230... > China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi! Jan 24!

So when it's convenient, we look to Trump as an example? It's terrifying to watch so many people argue back and forth so adamantly defending their sides, meanwhile almost no one even brings up the possibility that they both screwed up. One dimensional politics will be the end of the American Empire.

They both screwed up, yes.

It's disingenuous to act like the WHO was the only folks doing this at the time, and it's being used to deflect blame - "blame China!" - from the administration.

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

#896

Post by monkpit »

vorpalhex wrote: post #890
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?

One of the youtube series I watch normally features pork ribs. Like, the shrinkwrapped package you get from the grocery store. Well that video the creator couldn't get pork ribs because of coronavirus and so had used beef ribs instead - and couldn't even plainly say the reason why. Instead he had to hold up a bottle of corona beer and say "Well, it's due to beer, if you get my drift." Is Youtube actually in the right…

> Is Youtube actually in the right here?

Are you saying he got banned for this? I feel like you left something out in your comment.

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

#897

Post by cmeacham98 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #890
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?

One of the youtube series I watch normally features pork ribs. Like, the shrinkwrapped package you get from the grocery store. Well that video the creator couldn't get pork ribs because of coronavirus and so had used beef ribs instead - and couldn't even plainly say the reason why. Instead he had to hold up a bottle of corona beer and say "Well, it's due to beer, if you get my drift." Is Youtube actually in the right…

I'm not arguing that youtube is doing a good job, or that youtube's brand of corona-related censorship is in any way making a positive impact.

I'm arguing against the parent comment that essentially makes the argument that _all forms_ of censorship/moderation are bad and inherently lead to oppression.

If you instead want to argue that youtube's specific policies regarding coronavirus are bad/harmful/etc, go ahead, I won't stop you.

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

#898

Post by prox »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #877
arghwhat wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bann…

As someone who did a lot of moderation in the past, people forget any platform is more akin to a cafe, instead of a public square. A cafe has rules that keep a pleasant atmosphere. A public square has a public function and needs rules to allow for a broad discourse or protests. One could argue if there is a certain size where a platform like youtube becomes a public square. But on the whole its their room, their rules.

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

#899

Post by driverdan »

holler wrote: post #470
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…

> They never do away with anything besides the most harmful, hate filled rhetoric. who decides what speech is "hate filled"? this is free speech 101. what is the point of a publicly accessible social platform if people can't express themselves freely?

Free speech applies to the government, not businesses. Which is good because if it didn't there wouldn't be spam filters. Don't like their rules? Host it yourself.

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

#900

Post by driverdan »

holler wrote: post #462
guscost wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll probably cull everything that doesn't earn them ad revenue, to minimize the fallout. The content will trend toward sanitized garbage and the viewers will start leaking to somewhere else.

This is all great news if you're building a new social project...

It's not because the rules would apply to you as well. You'd have to do the same thing.
Post reply on HN