Live data from Hacker News

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

theblaze.com

451–460 of 714 posts

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

#451

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?

At what point do you say shit is objectively, legitimately harmful, and has literally negative value to society and humanity? Does this deserve punishment? I'd say yes.

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

#452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with opinions, and it has nothing to do with ideology, except insofar as these two doctors were motivated by their ideology to profoundly misunderstand or misrepresent statistical sampling. It’s not one side thinks this, the other side thinks that, it’s that their video is factually wrong, and in being wrong encourages dangerous behavior.

Really? Are you really so arrogant as to ignore that YouTube is far more likely to be making an ideological decision here? An expert made a statement. YouTube went out of its way to find a doctor who supported YouTube's ideological slant and used that as justification for taking action. This obliviousness. This is why we must restrict power. This is why we can't have nice things.

What makes these two doctors experts in epidemiology and statistics?

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

#453
post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should they have that right though? YouTube is owned by a Google, a massive, publicly-traded corporation with near-monopoly power. Are the best interests of society served by allowing it to be governed in an authoritarian, totalitarian fashion, or would it make sense, considering it is one of the most powerful mediums of speech ever created, to let it be governed by rules somewhat approximating the much-lauded, tradi…

The idea a private company should be forced to use their resources to host content they deem harmful to humanity seems obviously wrong. Of course they should have the right. YouTube is not a public service. "Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an audience.

It's not clear that services should be both protected from liability as common carriers and permitted the power of the censor.

Should phone companies decide who gets to make phone calls? Should they cut you off if you say things that are unpopular?

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

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death counts rise extremely quickly, but also drop quickly as well. The total amount of deaths is represented by the area of under the graph, not the maximum. This is a tall, but narrow spike. Also, bear in mind that you're being very selective with your data: you're picking out one of (the?) most densely populated centers, which also happens to be an international travel hub

There isn’t any reason to believe the virus kills a resident of NYC any easier than it kills a resident of Kansas if either is infected with it. NYC is an excellent example to look at precisely because of what you said - it’s a dense population center and international travel hub, so it was seeded with quite a few coronavirus cases early on and unfortunately the virus seems to have infected up to 20% of the residents…

The infection rate relevant insofar as it means the population will approach 100% infection [1],- and subsequent immunity or death - faster than other regions. Densely populated areas like New York will have a sharp spike and sharp decline. Loosely populated areas like Kansas will see a slower, steadier rise but also a slower and steadier decline. Social distancing makes areas behave more like rural areas, by virtue of limiting contact. But the same number of people are going to get infected eventually until herd immunity is achieved.

Faster infection doesn't directly result in higher total fatalities, unless medical care lacks capacity. This is a bigger problem for places like New York where the infection rates did put significant burden on healthcare facilities. On the flip side, places less dense than NYC can go without restrictions and this will not impact the overall health outcomes.

Deaths nation-wide have peaked more than a week ago. Deaths among developed countries have also mostly peaked over the last few weeks. Testing almost always under counts, both by virtue of not counting asymptomatic people, and by delays in forming antibodies in the infected. The latter also affects random studies. New York's 20% indicated infection rate likely means that the infection rate today is approaching the 50% or more required to achieve herd immunity.

1. To be more specific, it's estimated that the virus will spread to 50-70% of people before herd would diminish the ability of the virus to spread much further.

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

#455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is their math. See if you can see whats wrong... 39,500,000 -- Pop. of California 12.00% -- Pct. of people who tested positive for covid 4,740,000 -- Estimated cases (Pop. * Pct.) 1,227 -- Reported deaths 0.03% -- Estimated chance of dying from covid in California (deaths/estimated cases)

That math seems correct, you do have an extra space on the fourth line of your statistics.

The positive cases aren't a representative sample, as has been said 30 times in this thread. So line 3 is bad statistical reasoning, and completely invalidates their conclusion.

The only people who are getting tested are those who believe they have symptoms. This is beginning to change as we get more tests, and as a result, the % infected by their reasoning is decreasing day by day.

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

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is their math. See if you can see whats wrong... 39,500,000 -- Pop. of California 12.00% -- Pct. of people who tested positive for covid 4,740,000 -- Estimated cases (Pop. * Pct.) 1,227 -- Reported deaths 0.03% -- Estimated chance of dying from covid in California (deaths/estimated cases)

That math seems correct, you do have an extra space on the fourth line of your statistics.

The math does not reflect reality. Why do you think 12% of Californians have covid? What impact does that have on the chance of dying stat?

Also, I fixed the space on the fourth line.

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

#457
post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube has the right to censor anything it likes. It's their platform. If you don't like it, don't use YouTube.

Should they have that right though? YouTube is owned by a Google, a massive, publicly-traded corporation with near-monopoly power. Are the best interests of society served by allowing it to be governed in an authoritarian, totalitarian fashion, or would it make sense, considering it is one of the most powerful mediums of speech ever created, to let it be governed by rules somewhat approximating the much-lauded, tradi…

> the much-lauded, traditional, western liberal values of free speech?

Such as stopping people from saying bad words on radio/tv or stopping women from even accidentally showing a specific small part of their chest? We have a long history of direct censorship by liberal western governments for far worse reasons than saving lives.

I don't see all these "free speech" advocates stepping up to stop the ongoing suppression of comparatively harmless expression like showing the female nipple. Yet, somehow the suppression of this actively harmful content is the rallying cry that pulls in so much attention.

I am a free speech advocate, and I don't personally support the removal of this video, as I think the aims would be better served by alternate means, such as placing a strong disclaimer of inaccuracy alongside links to accurate rebuttals. However, I don't see how you stop Google from removing whatever content they want without creating laws that curtail other important aspects of free speech (e.g. creating a regulatory body that decides which groups do and do not have the right to control the content they publish).

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

#458
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 goi…

YouTube gets a tax exemption because it has "public forum" status, which puts some restrictions on them, basically they cannot censor anything they want, they must uphold free speech. So, they cannot have their cake and eat it. https://youtu.be/d6C6_NVj964

Do not believe everything you see on YouTube.

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

#459
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 remov…

> I think you mixed your words up here. Yea, you're right, but thanks for getting the spirit. > Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. That's your belief because "legitimate opinions". What is "legitimate opinions"? That is the crux. Your sense of justice is driving your opinions. Someone else's is going to be slightly different…

> You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring

Of course you can. The government banning a platform from moderating content is a form of government censorship. Yet you believe that this would lead to more free speech.

Either a platform moderating is more free speech, or not moderating is more free speech. In either case, someone is being censored. So some form of censorship leads to more free speech.

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

#460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One side wants to help people, the other side wants to punish people. It is very clear from your post history that you are the "I got mine fuck you" breed of conservatism that has corrupted the US for the past 40 years. You are the enemy.

I don't think either side wants to help people, other than their donors.

I guess if you go through life with your eyes closed, or only listening to one side, then I can see how you'd think that. There's no place to start with someone as ignorant as you. Literally, I could list all of the ways the US left has helped improved the quality of living, and all the ways the US right has actively hurt people and you'd shrug and still spout the same ignorant comments. So all I have left for you and your type is contempt. Utter contempt.
Post reply on HN