Live data from Hacker News

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

theblaze.com

591–600 of 714 posts

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

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Yes, if by approaching you mean at least twice the number of people who have already died from the virus would have to die to achieve this, since 20% is less than half of 50%. I’ve seen scientific experts estimating that with this specific virus, due to its high R0, 50-70% is not the threshold for herd immunity anyway and it could be up to 84% or higher (Polio = 80%, Measles = 95% thresholds, for comparison). That could mean up to 4x the amount of deaths we’ve already seen.

The total number of people who would be affected by a herd immunity strategy could also be changed by a social distancing intervention around the time the threshold is reached. Otherwise, models indicate there would be an overshoot and a higher % of people would end up being infected than is necessary for herd immunity. No country or region seems to have reached this threshold yet though since they all engaged in social distancing first. https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1252078649827667968

The other option would have been to do what several countries in the Asia Pacific region did - Taiwan, Vietnam, and apparently China, for instance. Instead of allowing the virus to run free, they have worked toward eliminating it within their borders. Many lives will be saved if that plan can succeed and they can avoid a “herd immunity” result until a safe vaccine is available to provide the herd immunity.

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

#592
post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should they have that right though? Yes. Free speech does not grant the right for anyone to say whatever they want. The US Surpreme court has, as a matter of case law, ruled in specific areas to restrict free speech. These two doctors, under the pretense of medical expertise, provided false information, and used Youtube to do it. Google being a large massive publicly traded entity does not have any bearing as to it…

Free speech DOES grant the right for anyone express opinions without interference from the government. SCOTUS limitations for freedom of speech are very narrow, and being wrong or against the mainstream opinion is not one of them.

> SCOTUS limitations for freedom of speech are very narrow

Are they though? I can think of all kinds of limitations of the freedom of speech in both the US and in Europe. Copyright, gag orders, company and military secrets, illegal numbers, etc.

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

#593
post #461
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…

Of course they should. Youtube isn't bound by any law to be the standard video hosting site. They are simply the most popular over the past 10 years. Zero government mandate or anything. They can remove all hosted content tomorrow if they'd like, entirely up to them. If you don't like it, feel free to build your own platform. That's the beauty of disseminated knowledge of computer science and the internet, after all.

> If you don't like it

... feel free to discuss about it on hacker news.

Regardless, would you say the same if someone was banned from a super market over being gay?

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

#594
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…

Traditional western liberal values of free speech permit and require private citizens to make decisions about which points of view they will support and which they will not support. Which is what YouTube just did. There is not a “everyone likes your software platform so you’re not allowed to have an opinion” exception to the traditional western liberal values of free speech.

I do not think that stopping me from viewing what they said is an opinion.

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

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Does it justify censorship? Yes, they are wrong and they will cause deaths if they are allowed to peddle more unsubstantiated bullshit. This is not a philosophical debate, people are literally dying.

> Yes, they are wrong and they will cause deaths if they are allowed to peddle more unsubstantiated bullshit.

Time to de-platform WHO and Trump then.

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

#596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube cannot have it both ways. Either they are a publisher and if so, must be fully responsible for the content they host. Or they are a platform, and they need to be neutral. As demonstrated by the court case you mention, that is false. I am surprised how tightly people cling to this notion, which has no basis in reality.

can you please be clearer? What is false? Do you think youtube is a platform? even, a monopoly of sorts?

The publisher/platform distinction that you think exists in US law does not. The CDA does not say what you think it does. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

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

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re likening the deletion of a video on a private free video hosting site to state-sponsored book burning? The Streisand effect is a blip in popularity here. The point is to not validate dangerous fantasies of people who are unwilling or incapable of behaving in a safe and logical manner. Google succeeded in this endeavor, despite what people paying close attention to things might argue about in side channels.

When a large private organization or a few of them control virtually all public discourse (the digital public square), their choices are in effect as dangerous and impactful as the government taking the same action. Additionally, these tech platforms currently enjoy Section 230 protection. If they’re now in the business of curating what they publish, they should no longer be granted that protection. https://en.m.wiki…

This is not what Section 230 says, although it is a suspiciously popular misunderstanding of it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

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

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it justify censorship? Yes, they are wrong and they will cause deaths if they are allowed to peddle more unsubstantiated bullshit. This is not a philosophical debate, people are literally dying.

Yet what they call 'authoritative news sources' like nbc, cnn, fox, etc are the biggest peddlers of bs of all, and they get front page all across the platform.

Specifically with this subject we had a solid month of all of those "sources" denying there was a problem that might require individual action, even going so far as to refute common sense best practices like wearing face masks. Their only source of credibility is not breaking rank.

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

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps people feel like these dissenting voices are threatening the pillars of our democracy!

Dissent is a pillar of democracy.

What are the other pillars and what if one dissents against them? I'm not saying that's happening here, but not all dissent is tolerable, no?

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

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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…

>dangerous disinformation

What does this even mean?? Have we forgotten the importance of free speech?

Post reply on HN