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

611–620 of 714 posts

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

#611

Post by skuthus »

autoexec wrote: post #561
wvenable wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Free speech" is a right but also an ideal. The problem with the ideal is that most people have it wrong. "Free speech" is not speech without consequences. Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. If nobody wants to associate with you because of your speech, that's their right. You are not entitled to a soapbox.

> Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. If someone offers a platform for the public to use but censors people who say things they don't like, that is a clear violation of free speech principals. I don't have to listen to anything, but if someone chooses to speak and I choose to listen no one should try to prevent us from doing so. There are consequ…

You are welcome to find the video on other platforms

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

#612

Post by foolinaround »

sacred_numbers wrote: post #516
foolinaround wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's lots and lots of bad stuff there... The question is should youtube be censoring it? if so, why this, and not others?

I'm still kind of conflicted on this particular case, but if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater should the theater owner be able to kick them out? What if the fire alarm is going off, but a so-called "expert" is claiming that the fire alarm is just malfunctioning? Should the theater owner be able to silence them? Deep down I think I still believe that free speech should be protected even if it costs lives, but…

lets take the fire example

now, what if the theatre owner has no way to know if there is a fire or not (lets assume he is locked in a room), some guy screams fire, a bunch of people run out, another guy says running out will make it worse, some should sit down, some should walk out, etc.

i am just making this up to tell that the theatre owner (youtube) simply has no way to tell. In this case, he is not even responsible for the theatre ( as youtube has argued in courts before)

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

#613

Post by skuthus »

lucio wrote: post #504
balls187 wrote: post #402

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.

>without interference from the government.

Exactly. Youtube isn't the government.

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

#614

Post by skuthus »

dependenttypes wrote: post #593
asdff wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

According to the current interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, you would not be able to prevent them from shopping

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

#615

Post by skuthus »

dependenttypes wrote: post #583
r0s wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suppose you're right. Easy to verify, why suppose anything? > censorship? On a privately owned site? Try again.

> On a privately owned site? Yes, censorship is not exclusive to the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's pretty cut and dry that it's exclusive to government

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

#616

Post by skuthus »

aantthony wrote: post #569
olliej wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the context here, YT has every right to choose what to display, and what not to. In context: they don’t want to be responsible for harm to others and they certainly don’t want to pay to broadcast that content. If people really want to spew nonsense they can pay to do it themselves. No one is stopping them.

Youtube is responsible for the harm here IMO. The video is long and boring. If it wasn't being censored, nobody would care to pay any attention to it.

It was retweeted by Elon Musk like a day ago

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

#617

Post by AnthonyMouse »

James_Henry wrote: post #599
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some people would say the access of all citizens to firearms. Should we censor anyone who opposes that?

What about people promoting censorship? Should they be censored as a threat to free speech?

There is no idea so dangerous that it can't be discussed. Whether you should act on the dissenters' opinions is a completely separate matter.

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

#618

Post by jonny_eh »

gccxsse wrote: post #600
Barrin92 wrote: post #376

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…

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

> What does this even mean??

Misinformation that can lead people to doing dangerous things.

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

#619

Post by kaitai »

postalrat wrote: post #390
kaitai wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can compare it to its immediate neighbors (Finland, Denmark, Norway) and get your order of magnitude right there. Norway: 206 deaths, population a bit over 5.8 million. Finland: 199 deaths, population a bit over 5 million. Sweden: 2,355 deaths, population a bit over 10 million. I'll let you carry out the division yourself. Comparing to its geographical and cultural neighbors helps deal with differences in city st…

Can we compare New York with its neighbors?

Compare it with equally dense neighbors, sure!

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

#620

Post by ratsoman2 »

ab_testing wrote: post #262
ceejayoz wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The point here is that youtube is not a harbinger of scientific truth. These doctors present their findings with their collected data to come to this conclusion that the according to them, this virus is not dangerous and the quarantine should end. Does Youtube also censor videos where plumbers present an incorrect way to install a toilet that can lead to backflow and flooding. The point to make here is that Youtube i…

What about evidence that the Jews created and disseminated Covid-19? Should I be able to present that evidence even though it's flawed and full of incorrect data?

Youtube owns the platform, we allowed it to become the largest and most powerful platform but there are others out there. Youtube (and google, and bing) have no reason to have to host misleading, wrong, or hurtful opinions/websites.

Post reply on HN