371–380 of 714 posts
I wish one reporter in that room would have pointed out that there was no random sample. But it is very disturbing that YouTube pulled it down. Classic Barbra Streisand effect.
Not only were they completely wrong with their numbers, they even were wrong in their assessment of Fauci. They said they “are actually seeing the patients, Dr Fauci hasn’t seen a patient in 20 years.” In 2015, Dr Fauci personally helped take care of an Ebola patient when most of the world was terrified of Ebola. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/why-nihs-anthony-fau...
Suppose you're right. Does it justify censorship? Fauci can defend himself, and the docs are welcome to express their opinions. What gives Google/YouTube the justification to silence them?
Blaze media is an overtly ideological outlet. In my experience when any such outlet (regardless of the particular persuasion) makes a headline out of a 'viral' video or social media post, it's as part of a structured social media campaign: put the media up, drive some traffic to it, run a story about how it's 'going viral' leveraging people's preference for social proof, and so on. With anything where there's signifi…
Here is a link to the news site which originally uploaded the press conference to YouTube, along with a statement from YouTube, and re-hosted version of the video: https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-wi... Hopefully this solves your problem with the “overtly ideological outlet.” (Edit: originally had copy pasted wrong link)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that the federal government is paying hospitals between $13,000 (covid patient) and $39,000 (patient on ventilator) for every Coronavirus patient [0], you can see how the incentives might cause hospitals to coerce doctors into listing COVID as cause of death. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/21/facebook-p...
Of all the "facts" flying around, this one is not only one of the most powerful by itself, but is also (even if it is in some way false) a great distilled example of all the unimaginably strong incentives pulling at the world right now, which I hope gives people an appreciation of how little they can actually know for sure. Even with such a fact slapping you in the face, I mentioned this to someone and the response w…
Not only were they completely wrong with their numbers, they even were wrong in their assessment of Fauci. They said they “are actually seeing the patients, Dr Fauci hasn’t seen a patient in 20 years.” In 2015, Dr Fauci personally helped take care of an Ebola patient when most of the world was terrified of Ebola. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/why-nihs-anthony-fau...
Suppose you're right. Does it justify censorship? Fauci can defend himself, and the docs are welcome to express their opinions. What gives Google/YouTube the justification to silence them?
The fact that it is their platform.
>Fauci can defend himself,
Fauci is a 79 year old man busy working 20 hours a day trying to stop more people from dying, he doesn't have the time to debunk garbage on the internet.
Youtube is completely within their rights to remove dangerous disinformation from their platform and I hope they take an agressive stance going forward.
We need decentralization, and we need it now. We need to also reconsider competition laws so this stale cartel of tech companies can be challenged.
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.
So in no way "state".
It's less "state" than if Walt Disney World had rules about family appropriate clothing (since the Florida granted them municipal control)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand what's wrong with the data they presented. They took stats from a massively self-selecting population - people seeking out COVID-19 testing at their facilities - and extrapolated to the general public. That's inexcusably dumb. As the bit I quoted states, that's like "estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court".
> That's inexcusably dumb. Even if that’s true, what does it have to do with banning the video and preventing the public from making their own decision? Right this moment I can go on youtube and look up a million rap videos that talk about guns, violence, murder, and more. I can look at videos that would lead me to harm myself in all sorts of ways if I didn’t have a brain. By picking and choosing like they’re doing,…
This video was more like yelling fire in a theater. I’m willing believe the doctors were sincere, but they were gravely wrong, and their misinformation was endangering the public.
YouTube was correct to turn off the alarm they erroneously turned on.
Granted, YouTube’s method of throwing up a standard “violation of community guidelines” message is crude, and leads to suspicion. Then again, so was ABC’s editorial judgment. It’s a hard problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fo…