YouTube removed a viral video of two doctors calling for an end to quarantine

Post by busymom0 » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

saltedonion wrote: post #127

axguscbklp wrote: post #69

I wonder why Google's decision-makers decided to censor stuff that doesn't follow WHO guidelines. Is it because they actually care about the mass of the population? Is it because they want to minimize the economic damage caused by the crisis? Is it because they're scared to get sick themselves? Is it because they want to avoid possible legal liability? Is it due to political pressure on them? Is it because they want…

Because dominant media platforms have a huge crosshairs on their backs, with different groups criticizing they aren’t doing enough to remove misinformation, and at the same time, they are too heavy handed. The consensus is that the platforms have to do SOMETHING, because if not, it becomes a national security issue and regulation is going sweep through the industry. At the same time, the platforms can’t be seen as en…

Post by dangus » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #139

dangus wrote: post #132

A reminder that The Blaze is a conservative mouthpiece founded by Glenn Beck. I’m astounded at the number of comments here that don’t seem to be considering that. The article is not worth clicking on based on that fact alone. It may or may not be factual, but we can rest assured that it’s written in service of a very specific agenda. That agenda is the typical “we are being silenced” message pushed by the regressive,…

You don't think it's worth reading the article just because you don't agree with the author's politics?

Post by threatofrain » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:29 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #143

threatofrain wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the endgame is to have an organization, such as the AMA or the ABA, for the delegation of responsible judgment. Google and YouTube just grew up too fast without the FCC catching up, but in a society where we felt that Google and YouTube shouldn't be in a position of deciding whether youths might come into contact with swear words, that ultimately means we want delegation to another trustworthy body such as the FC…

Delegating “responsible judgment” to a formal institution or organization sounds fundamentally dubious in this context.

Post by busymom0 » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:30 AM UTC

amiantos wrote: post #41

Apaec wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really a non-argument, as the WHO is also comprised of "doctors". The belief of dishonesty could be applied both ways.

In can go both ways, that's right, which is why we tend to trust the larger collection of people who have also done more to verify and support their claims. Two doctors in a YouTube video with anecdotal evidence that contradicts what the rest of the medical establishment says doesn't bode well for their believability.

Post by beaner » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:30 AM UTC

gr33nman wrote: post #147

tinalumfoil wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This level of reporting is pretty par for the course in US media. It's just reporting what happened without much commentary. And really, the idea that news media need to herd their audience into thinking the right things is ridiculous. It's a news article, not an editorial.

I agree that it’s not the job of news media to herd their audience into thinking the right things. However, it is their duty to uncover and report the truth. “If someone says it's raining, and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the [expletive] window and find out which is true” -Jonathan Foster