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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by vorpalhex »

monkpit wrote: post #896
vorpalhex wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of the things that's important when we discuss any kind of censorship and freedom of speech is what we call "Chilling Effects". If you know taking a political position is going to result in your family being arrested and put in prison, then your speech is being curbed even without being punished and it's one of the insidious wrongs of censorship.

When a grown man who was in the marines for several years is afraid he's going to lose his youtube channel talking about why he can't find pork ribs, that's a chilling effect. When a multi-million dollar videogame streamer is afraid he's going to be demonetized if he talks about why he's filming from home instead of his studio, that's a chilling effect.

The goal of a good censor is not to enforce censorship. It's to get the people to enforce it themselves.

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

#902

Post by driverdan »

kauffj wrote: post #190

If you are outraged about this, please consider using or contributing to LBRY. All of our tech is open, we've been growing incredibly quickly, and we have a great roster of creators who are fed up with YouTube. LBRY for n00bs: https://lbry.tv Private, P2P desktop app: https://lbry.com/get Recent progress blog post: https://open.lbry.com/@lbry:3f/progress-at-lbry:0 Contributor's guide and source code: https://lbry.tec…

Is @LBRY-Digest run by your team or someone who's a fan? It's promoting garbage like this https://lbry.tv/@LBRY-Digest:a/WHO-Wuhan-Health-Organization...

If it's not official you should clamp down on account naming because it sure seems like it's official.

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

#903

Post by e2021 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #643
e2021 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also comes from the Absurdly laudatory praise that WHO was giving China in January about how they were setting standards for transparency and how their quick behavior had saved the world.

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!

"The WHO is just as trustworthy as Trump" doesn't really seem like a big vote of confidence for the organization. This comeback only makes sense if everything is a purely partisan divide and anyone who is against WHO must be pro-trump.

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

#904

Post by vorpalhex »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #897
vorpalhex wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hn is a moderated community, and it's value partially comes from it's moderation. It's restricted to a set of topics, and if things get too out of hand whether it's a personal attack or just insanity, the comment is going to get removed.

Except you can view the dead comments. You can still see the removed stories. You have to opt-in to that, but it's just a checkbox in your profile. HN is moderated, but there is no censorship.

The issue with censorship is that it has to grow. You can't defend taking down say, videos about the Israel BDS movement, and not also take down videos about Free HK. Either the platform openly admits that it's biased or it has to keep growing what can't be discussed and inevitably that's going to start including content that everyone feels shouldn't be censored.

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

#905

Post by quotemstr »

floatingatoll wrote: post #825
quotemstr wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time the United States was founded, the idea of restricting speech that "conflict[s] with the public welfare" had become so frequently abused for self-serving censorship that a prohibition against the whole idea was written into the the highest laws of the country. The rationale for doing so applies today. A society can't figure out what is true if well-meaning people in power have the ability to censor anythi…

The highest laws of the country were written specifically to ensure that restriction of speech is permissible when it causes significant harm to the population without any benefit outweighing that harm. It is illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater and that is permitted under our country’s highest laws. The case you’re making is that corporations, who do not have the power of military force over their citizens, s…

The "fire in a crowded theater" case was overturned: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

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

#906

Post by aantthony »

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 think there is a big difference between content moderation (based on published and reasonably objective rules) and an outright ban on contradicting the stance of an organisation that is highly political.

If this rule was implemented earlier, you’d be banned for saying there is human-to-human transmission, proposing flight restrictions, or advocating for the general public to use masks. The W.H.O. has explicitly advised against each of those measures, despite significant disagreement on every one of those claims. It’s absurd that dissenting against the W.H.O. has been banned, although it’s predictable of course.

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

#907

Post by Miraste »

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…

Skype and HN have alternatives. Wikipedia and YouTube do not.

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

#908

Post by zajio1am »

pjc50 wrote: post #706
aww_dang wrote: post #691

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.

> Anti-vax information can get people killed.

No. Not vaccinating children get people killed. Therefore, the reasonable response is to mandate child vaccinations (together with fines and other punishments for non-compliance). With such mandates (that are already in many countries), non-compliance is limited to very tiny segment of population.

> The "5G causes coronavirus" conspiracy theory is causing people to burn down mobile phone masts.

The "5G causes coronavirus" is an obvious nonsense, but lets assume for the purpose of an argument that it is true. Even in such case a reasonable response is to petition your MP or do mass demonstrations, not burning mobile phone masts (as violent vigilantism is generally unacceptable approach).

As violent vigilantism is completely unacceptable reaction regardless of truthness of such statements, it does not make sense to blame that statements for such reaction based on being false (unless that statements also contain calls to violence, but in that case even truthfull statements would be responsible for that).

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

#909

Post by quotemstr »

361994752 wrote: post #653
quotemstr wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time the United States was founded, the idea of restricting speech that "conflict[s] with the public welfare" had become so frequently abused for self-serving censorship that a prohibition against the whole idea was written into the the highest laws of the country. The rationale for doing so applies today. A society can't figure out what is true if well-meaning people in power have the ability to censor anythi…

Thanks for your explanation. But one thing still confuses me.. that we should just leave the "covid is a lie" contents there despite the high possibility that it may kill people?

Yes. Censorship is worse than any falsehood that might circulate.

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

#910

Post by ZenPsycho »

liaukovv wrote: post #881
ZenPsycho wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you take it upon yourself to tell those heathens what they should think?

hah, that’s a laugh. normally it’s the guys calling for an end to superstitions that get called heathens. carry on good sir, defend to the death the right for people to sell quack medicine using someone else’s property. i am sure it’s what locke would have done.
Post reply on HN