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

671–680 of 714 posts

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

#671

Post by washadjeffmad »

djsumdog wrote: post #654
jonny_eh wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

You've failed to justify your equivalence. How many neo-Nazis, homophobes, self-styled "truthers", and xenophobic racists came to their conclusions naturally, without any external guidance or rhetoric?

We don't exist in a vacuum, and people are socialized into their beliefs. Either these doctors weren't given the faculties to distinguish fact from fiction in their education, they lack the mental and social capacities to protect themselves from falling for twisted logic and half-truths, or they're intentionally manipulating those vulnerable members of society for their own gain.

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

#672

Post by twomoretime »

joshuamorton wrote: post #670
twomoretime wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, and the WHO is welcome to keep the doctors video off of their platform. Ignoring ramifications of politicization, How many developments will be missed if we embark on a campaign to suppress all dissenting opinions? You don't think a doctor on the front line is qualified to make inferences about the disease that he is literally treating en masse? You don't think direct observation and experimentation with hundr…

> Ignoring ramifications of politicization, Let's not. It's relevant to real world actions. > You don't think a doctor on the front line is qualified to make inferences about the disease that he is literally treating en masse? About symptoms or specific treatment plans, perhaps. About government response? No. It's the difference between macro and micro scale approaches. The front line doctors are experts at mirco-sca…

>And yet, they do because it's morally right to keep people safe from disinformation.

This is literally why we have the first amendment. Because, as you say, information is relative; that also means it is relative in time. And we can only come to a correct consensus if we allow all voices to be heard.

This is an excellent example of a time not to suppress dissidents. The doctors on the front line are just as likely, if not moreso, to come up with potential treatments or policies, because this is happening in real time and the information arbitrage lends extra credibility to the doctor's words. Do you see how subjective this decision of censorship is? And any subjective decision is subject to bias, political or otherwise.

>There's nothing for Google to gain by suppressing these guys.

It's no secret Google leans left. It's no secret that protestors of the lockdown lean right. You don't see a conflict of interest here?

What if the WHO and CDC are in conflict? Who decides then? YouTube? What about platforms that are partly owned by China? Conflict of interest?

What about elections? You think it's OK for a platform like Google or YouTube to pull ads that fail "fact checks"? What about viral posts? You don't think it'll be a partisan shitshow?

If not then we have no reason to continue this discussion because we will not agree.

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

#673

Post by joshuamorton »

twomoretime wrote: post #672
joshuamorton wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ignoring ramifications of politicization, Let's not. It's relevant to real world actions. > You don't think a doctor on the front line is qualified to make inferences about the disease that he is literally treating en masse? About symptoms or specific treatment plans, perhaps. About government response? No. It's the difference between macro and micro scale approaches. The front line doctors are experts at mirco-sca…

>And yet, they do because it's morally right to keep people safe from disinformation. This is literally why we have the first amendment. Because, as you say, information is relative; that also means it is relative in time. And we can only come to a correct consensus if we allow all voices to be heard. This is an excellent example of a time not to suppress dissidents. The doctors on the front line are just as likely,…

> It's no secret Google leans left. It's no secret that protestors of the lockdown lean right. You don't see a conflict of interest here?

No. I'd see a conflict of interest if this were a political issue. But it's not. Making something political by spouting a bunch of lies until people believe them doesn't change the science.

>What if the WHO and CDC are in conflict?

But they're not. So we're well into the realm of irrelevant hypotheticals.

> treatments or policies

Treatments, yes. Policies, no. Because as I keep saying, they're different things. You're comparing, in essence, the skills of a software engineer and a CEO. Drop either into the others' chair and they'll flounder.

> What about elections? You think it's OK for a platform like Google or YouTube to pull ads that fail "fact checks"?

They already have policies that disallow lying in political ads: https://www.blog.google/technology/ads/update-our-political-...

> It’s against our policies for any advertiser to make a false claim—whether it's a claim about the price of a chair or a claim that you can vote by text message, that election day is postponed, or that a candidate has died.

> You don't think it'll be a partisan shitshow?

I mean, I expect that no matter what people will complain that it'll be a partisan shitshow. Given that like I said these policies already exist and I didn't notice any obvious political shitshow, only the usual suspects complaining, no.

> What about platforms that are partly owned by China?

They can make their own policies, and I'm free to use them, or not.

> This is literally why we have the first amendment.

And I fully support both the doctor's right to exercise it by spouting bullshit, and Youtube's right to exercise it by removing said bullshit from their platform.

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

#674

Post by JoeAltmaier »

wvenable wrote: post #666
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, overwhelming market leader then. The rules for it should be carefully considered, since it is a unicorn.

You're begging the question. Overwhelming market leader means nothing -- it doesn't automatically create any new obligations or responsibilities. You actually have to make the argument that an overwhelming market leader in an otherwise niche market requires them to give up their free speech, marketing ability, hosting limits, income, etc. Even having a monopoly isn't illegal; a company actually has to be convicted of…

Sure it does. It's called a 'trust', and its well-covered in corporate law.

And no, I don't have to prove anything. Just that a reasonable congress should have oversight over the single most watched communications channel on the planet.

This is just dead obvious. I can't believe there's any good faith in this discussion any more. Signing off.

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

#675

Post by RonanTheGrey »

techntoke wrote: post #658
downerending wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

YouTube is not "just any business" and the idea of regulating what is otherwise legal behavior is well-established.

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

#676

Post by RonanTheGrey »

techntoke wrote: post #629
RonanTheGrey wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are innumerable hosting services. Is this an honest comment or one you hope won't be challenged? There are NO video hosting services with the popularity or reach of YouTube, by a very long shot. Customers of ours have lost their entire livelihood because content that was present on YouTube for a decade was suddenly politically incorrect and their accounts got banned. That wouldn't be the case if they had more…

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.

> There are hundreds if not thousands of video sharing platforms.

You keep trying to gloss over the fact that RandomVideo has nowhere near the size or reach of YouTube. Monopolies DO NOT REQUIRE zero competitors, that has never been part of their definition. Some videos on YT have BILLIONS of views. There's literally no meaningful competitor.

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

#677

Post by Natsu »

jpdb wrote: post #576
Natsu wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a noted first amendment expert explaining why "fire in a crowded theater" is a very bad example to cite: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Interesting article! I'll try to pay more mind in the future. That said, > First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.

> Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.

Sure, but that's not a useful thing to know. I recall when Ken compared saying that to something akin to the following conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory:

Help! I've been bitten by a snake and I want to know if it's poisonous!

Unless you're eating the snake, it only matters if the snake is venomous.

Okay, so can you tell me if the snake is venomous then?

Not all snakes are venomous.

So the important point is not to dispute over whether any speech can be banned, but whether the speech in question fits one of the categories of unprotected speech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

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

#678

Post by chaostheory »

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?

It's called private property. YouTube can do what it wants on its private platform. It's not a monopoly. There are other video platforms.

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

#679

Post by lchills098 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #376
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #361

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…

If that’s the case, then 99% of all videos on MSNBC’s YouTube channel should be removed for misinformation. All they do is lie constantly about everything and you don’t ever see a single video of theirs removed like the physician’s video. And that’s hilarious that you think Fauci is trying to help this countryDo you not realize that Fauci is the one who sent a $3,700,000 grant to the lab in Wuhan to continue testing on this virus when our Dept of Homeland Security deemed it to much of a public health risk to keep testing on this virus in the US like Fauci and his team were doing under the Obama administration. If Fauci wouldn’t have outsourced the testing of this deadly contagious virus to China, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess.

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

#680

Post by twomoretime »

joshuamorton wrote: post #673
twomoretime wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And yet, they do because it's morally right to keep people safe from disinformation. This is literally why we have the first amendment. Because, as you say, information is relative; that also means it is relative in time. And we can only come to a correct consensus if we allow all voices to be heard. This is an excellent example of a time not to suppress dissidents. The doctors on the front line are just as likely,…

> It's no secret Google leans left. It's no secret that protestors of the lockdown lean right. You don't see a conflict of interest here? No. I'd see a conflict of interest if this were a political issue. But it's not. Making something political by spouting a bunch of lies until people believe them doesn't change the science. >What if the WHO and CDC are in conflict? But they're not. So we're well into the realm of i…

I don't think you understand that in a reality with limited information, it is impossible for humans to know objective truth. And further you underestimate the degree of uncertainty regarding lockdown measures.

This uncertainty is an avenue for bias. I don't think you understand the dangers of giving a handful of people the power to censor and curate the material that reaches a majority of the eyes in the US. You'll change your mind when they bend against your own leanings though, I guarantee that. It's the spirit of the first amendment, because this is an enormous power that affects all of us, without our consent.

The CDC and the WHO were in conflict at one point regarding mask usage. As it happens, they are arguably in conflict today, as the WHO has praised Sweden's model which, in case you're not aware, is not a lockdown. So what now? Will you be expecting YouTube to remove any videos from the WHO suggesting people adopt the policy of Sweden?

How can you even put faith in authority right now after so many nations, organizations, hospitals, the world over, totally failed in responding to or preparing for this pandemic? And you think YouTube is in a position to choose? It's bad for society.

Post reply on HN