YouTube removed a viral video of two doctors calling for an end to quarantine • Hacker News Board

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

#651

Post by mixmastamyk » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

cowholio4 wrote: post #309

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...

They gave published numbers from all over the world, though a bit behind.

Tending a few patients at once in a span of decades? Yes, "technically correct." The comment about Fauci was instigated by the reporters, and is about the least important detail from the video.

Their thesis is that big-dense-city measures aren't necessary in sparse areas. Appears to be the case so far, most of those folks don't even know a single person with it yet. It's why they are receptive to hoax posts unfortunately. It's also why some more rural states and regions are slowly opening.

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

#652

Post by jeegsy » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #640

jeegsy wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Distribution is very different than freedom of speech Whenever these dabates arise it would save a whole lot of time if participants assume as a given that everyone understands the first amendment as written. IMHO it will be far more useful to discuss the point of having this amendment in the first place. The idea that everytime someone has a remotely controversial idea, they have to setup an internet video company…

>The idea that everytime someone has a remotely controversial idea, they have to setup an internet video company with global reach in order to propagate said idea is ridiculous. This isn't an idea that anyone is actually proposing to you, it's a strawman of your own making. The picture you're trying to paint whereby it's almost impossible for anyone to spread their ideas on the internet without Youtube's consent does…

I wasn't trying to create a strawman, I only described things the way I did as a shorthand due to my belief that it was obvious to all the outsized role that youtube plays in public discourse. Just as was said on another informative thread I saw recently on HN, your facts (torrents, filesharing, non-neccesity of video etc) are correct but irrelevant.

> Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent and hateful speech to proliferate without check or consequence, is a minority view.

I appreciate your illustrating what an actual strawman looks like.

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

#653

Post by legolas2412 » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

zouhair wrote: post #527

legolas2412 wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can allow antivax movements to voice their flawed arguments and yet make vaccines mandatory. You can allow them to speak yet consider their opinions worthless.

Yeah, that's what's happening and kids are dead because of it and more will do. Total free speech is cancer.

They won't be dead if you make vaccines mandatory, but don't shut down free speech of anti-vaccers.

Speaking against vaccines should be allowed. Not taking vaccines should not be

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

#654

Post by djsumdog » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

jonny_eh wrote: post #618

gccxsse wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

There was a time when saying black people where just as intelligent as white people was considered misinformation and a dangerous way to think.

There was a time when many leaders considered homosexuality dangerous and magazines promoting homosexuality was misinformation.

It's easy to say something is misinformation now, but the standard of truth does not come now, it comes 20 years from now when history judges this moment.

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

#655

Post by threatofrain » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

foolinaround wrote: post #190

CamperBob2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at the death rates, no it's not. They're similar in prevalence and in death rate. That statement alone is justification for removing their video as a public health hazard.

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

That depends. How much liability and risk is Google taking on by being more hands-off? From this perspective, it's understandable why Google would wish to delegate medical judgments to a known institution, similar to how the rest of the video content industry delegates to the FCC.

I'm sure Google would like to have no risk and simply host pirated content like they used to.

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

#656

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #631

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah no. YouTube is arguably a very, very public platform. Open to the public; entirely populated and funded by the public (i.e. millions of content providers and viewers generate all the income). Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist.

> entirely populated and funded by the public You just described every single business in the whole world except those funded by taxpayer money (which is generally what is meant by "funded by the public"). Actually, YouTube isn't even funded by the public -- they're funded by advertisers. > Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide monopolist. All local newspapers are owned by large…

YouTube is almost the exclusive (by daily views) provider. How can that be in question?

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

#657

Post by krapp » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

jeegsy wrote: post #652

krapp wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that everytime someone has a remotely controversial idea, they have to setup an internet video company with global reach in order to propagate said idea is ridiculous. This isn't an idea that anyone is actually proposing to you, it's a strawman of your own making. The picture you're trying to paint whereby it's almost impossible for anyone to spread their ideas on the internet without Youtube's consent does…

I wasn't trying to create a strawman, I only described things the way I did as a shorthand due to my belief that it was obvious to all the outsized role that youtube plays in public discourse. Just as was said on another informative thread I saw recently on HN, your facts (torrents, filesharing, non-neccesity of video etc) are correct but irrelevant. > Free speech absolutism, to the degree of allowing even fraudulent…

>Just as was said on another informative thread I saw recently on HN, your facts (torrents, filesharing, non-neccesity of video etc) are correct but irrelevant.

So you're simply refusing to acknowledge anything which contradicts your narrative.

Well, good to know there's no point in continuing this conversation with you further. Good day.

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

#658

Post by techntoke » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

downerending wrote: post #637

techntoke wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are hundreds if not thousands of video sharing platforms. Plus a shared web host cost very little, and there is always BitTorrent too. No one is forcing anyone to use YouTube for videos. Anyone that lost their livelihood because of YouTube should have read the TOS.

That may well be true, but it's not a reason for me to think of Google/YouTube's behavior as in any way acceptable.

So in order to have a business, you believe that you should have to cater to everyone regardless of what they do or say because otherwise you are censoring them?

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

#659

Post by thdrdt » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

skuthus wrote: post #645

thdrdt wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's their platform so they can do what they want. But why not show a warning like "the following content has false and dangerous information"? Now it is gone so it can't be discussed. And I also think you take away responsibility of the viewers if they don't need to be critical about any information.

I think if you disagree with what they have done, you should express that fully and also stop using the platform in favor of others who share your views.

Well I was just pointing out there are other options besides removing content.

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

#660

Post by twomoretime » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #642

twomoretime wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really trust YouTube to make that decision? That's the whole point. I'm not actually interested in the credentials on either side - merely pointing out that YouTube is doing far more harm than good in choosing a side. Society would be far better off without their curation.

No, you claimed "an expert made a statement". I want to clarify. No expert made a statement on youtube. Two nonexperts made statements, and Youtube removed them, presumably at the behest of experts (like the WHO, whom youtube is using to set guidelines on removable content).

A doctor on the frontlines is an expert. He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology, but his credentials are sufficient that the difference between credibility between the scientists and the doctors is too small for youtube to reliably choose one over the other. YouTube is not an accreditation agency or an arbiter of credibility.

YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus. The fact that this particular decision agrees with what the majority of us think is right doesn't mean that YouTube is right to choose.