Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theblaze.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 714 posts

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

#251

Post by jhanschoo »

runawaybottle wrote: post #74
dwaltrip wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it edges closer to Youtube being a publisher that controls or curates the content that is available on their platform.

That’s like saying the MTA is some independent platform that New Yorkers can choose to use or not use. Another example would be saying cable companies that have a monopoly over your region (once upon a time) provide real choice to customers that want to switch. Youtube is the de facto video platform that the masses use, so much so that Youtube finds it necessary to enact something like this. To bring it back to your…

There's a difference between YT and a monopoly that matters in the law. You aren't paying anything to use or consume YT, no matter if you're a viewer or a content creator. It sounds like the ones who have standing are the advertisers, and I think advertisers would be fine with YT being more curated.

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

#252

Post by perf1 »

olliej wrote: post #193
busymom0 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Newspapers do that all the time, TV and Radio does it all the time. And that's why newspapers are classified as publishers and therefore are able to be sued. "Platforms" like YouTube are can't be sued because they are supposed to act like platforms - which they are not. Right now YouTube is acting like publishers while using the advantage of being called a platform. This is the Communications Decency Act section 23…

That would mean compelling them to host all content, including child pornography and calls to commit terrorism. That is clearly nonsense. The CDA doesn’t say “in order to not be liable you must host everything regardless of what it is” it allows you to host potentially anything that is uploaded without being considered directly liable for that (which would be far more censorious)

No Platdforms still have to delete illegal content and react to take down notices.

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

#253

Post by mixmastamyk »

DanBC wrote: post #26

Here's a useful twitter thread that talks about mistakes these doctors made: https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1254481543759683584?... > What they did was simple: they looked at the fraction of patients who tested positive for #COVID19 at the clinics they own. They found 340 out of 5213 tests were postive, about 6.6% > Then they assume the same fraction of the whole population are infected.

What about the other countries, states, and cities they also compared?

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

#254

Post by mixmastamyk »

henrikschroder wrote: post #209
busymom0 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why they looked at the data comparison of Sweden vs Norway. Sweden didn't do lockdown while Norway did. The difference is insignificant.

Yes, and Sweden has excess mortality that is higher than a bad flu year for Sweden, and the excess mortality matches up pretty well with the official covid-19 death count. Which means that covid-19 is deadlier than the flu. Just look at the excess mortality statistics for a bunch of European countries: https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps Many are seeing sharp increases in mortality, higher than normal flu years. If c…

Deadlier but not excessively so. Flu is vaccinated against.

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

#255

Post by twomoretime »

ceejayoz wrote: post #138
forgot_my_pwd wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that misses the point. The very fact that a few people at Google/Youtube have the power to censor whomever they want for whatever reason they choose is a problem in itself. Are the doctors in the video saying untruths or misrepresenting data? I think what they said in the video was eminently reasonable. But perhaps I'm wrong. Luckily we have the freedom to publicly critique their claims - assuming our critiques a…

> Are the doctors in the video saying untruths or misrepresenting data? Yes, they are. https://www.dailynews.com/2020/04/28/california-doctors-with... > But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing. > The doctors should never have assumed that…

Why does the UW doctor's opinion supercede that of the doctors in the removed videos?

The answer of course is ideology. These are two experts giving two different opinions based on different sets of similarly poor evidence. The fact that a doctor goes against consensus does not necessarily mean he's wrong and it certainly does not warrant censorship, all else considered.

Youtube is making a dangerous mistake.

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

#256

Post by runawaybottle »

rauchp wrote: post #247
runawaybottle wrote: post #62

This edges a little close to state media. Of course it’s not the same, but if the guiding philosophy is ‘we cannot trust the public with certain information, for it’s own good’, then we’ve adopted whatever the hell they do in non-free countries. Very bad precedent, very Un-American. Edit: As an arrogant American, I forgot to consider that this might be a global Youtube policy.

Un-American? There's nothing more "American" than having the right to do whatever you want with your personal property. The free market answer here isn't forcing them to adhere to your tastes, it's to make or promote a competitor that can actually compete with YT.

Let’s just stick to the facts then for a second. In this particular case, Youtube has decided I can’t watch a video with dubious facts and make up my own mind whether it’s bullshit or not.

American values are not all about capitalism. We have some ideas on the individual in America.

But, I’m with you on the need for YouTube competitors, but I lack the imagination to see how it can happen. That’s why I’m advocating for the jamming of American values into a what is essentially becoming an institution as opposed to a company that operates against market forces.

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

#258

Post by jpdb »

irjustin wrote: post #249
jpdb wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. > That's a core tenant of free speech I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points. The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worr…

> If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives. But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. > YouTube had a soci…

> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker.

I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it.

> That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed.

I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it.

> If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment?

(I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me)

I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.

> Censoring goes both ways.

Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"

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

#259

Post by javagram »

perf1 wrote: post #240
austincheney wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several lawsuits about this over the past few years and they always fail. Google is a commercial company and not a public institution. There are no first amendment protections here and they can remove any content they wish. The commonality of the platform does not make it a public institution. If that bothers you then boycott them.

Are they arguing that they are a publisher? Because that would also mean being liable for the content.

That is not how it works. It’s a complete legal myth that there is some sort of “Platform” v “Publisher” distinction in the law.

Section 230 of the CDA was created 25 years ago to avoid this being the case. It gives companies the ability to moderate user generated content on their platforms without being held responsible for other UGC posted to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

> One of the first legal challenges to Section 230 was the 1997 case Zeran v. America Online, Inc., in which a Federal court affirmed that the purpose of Section 230 as passed by Congress was "to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision".[8] Under that court's holding, computer service providers who regulated the dissemination of offensive material on their services risked subjecting themselves to liability, because such regulation cast the service provider in the role of a publisher. Fearing that the specter of liability would therefore deter service providers from blocking and screening offensive material, Congress enacted § 230's broad immunity "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children's access to objectionable or inappropriate online material."[8] In addition, Zeran notes "the amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering. The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obviously chilling effect. It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect."[8]

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

#260

Post by wesammikhail »

luminadiffusion wrote: post #242
forgot_my_pwd wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that misses the point. The very fact that a few people at Google/Youtube have the power to censor whomever they want for whatever reason they choose is a problem in itself. Are the doctors in the video saying untruths or misrepresenting data? I think what they said in the video was eminently reasonable. But perhaps I'm wrong. Luckily we have the freedom to publicly critique their claims - assuming our critiques a…

Your comment misses the point of why they did this. These doctors were in no way qualified or licensed to provide the opinions they did and they had huge undisclosed conflicts of interest. 1. Their medical practice is an Urgent Care. 1a. They own said Urgent Care. They have a vested monetary interest in claiming these things so people start using them more. 2. They are not licensed to practice epidemiology - nor are…

Fuck this reply and everything it represents. I truly detest this madness and everyone who believe in such warped nonsense. One giant pile of argument from authority bullcrap.

This idea that only narrow set of domain experts can speak up about something is blatantly insane. You are not an epidemiologist either, so by the same token, you don´t have the right to criticize anything anyone says, yet here you are. So maybe you should heed your own advise you damn hypocrite.

I can do the same dance and say epidemiologists are not statisticians so Fauci should never EVER talk about numbers. Similarly, Trump has no PhD in economics so he should never EVER talk about money. Ooh, also, you´re not an NBA player so you should never EVER talk about how a game should have unfolded.

This is nuts man. You make your arguments, we listen and we assess based on the level of evidence and logic you presented. The piece of paper on your wall does not tell me shit about fuck. I couldn´t care less about who makes an argument. If credibility is a function of imbued institutional authority in the form of a piece of paper, and that´s all it takes to convince you that someone´s opinion should be heard but not others, then YOU are the problem.

Post reply on HN