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

701–710 of 714 posts

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

#701

Post by dependenttypes »

skuthus wrote: post #615
dependenttypes wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> 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.

I presume that this is from the US constitution. How does this have anything to do with what I said? I did not mention the US nor its constitution anywhere in my post.

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

#702

Post by seppin »

wesammikhail wrote: post #567
jdkee wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People should be able to see all the opinions of various experts; doctors in NYC, doctors in Minnesota. Just them on their merits and examine the evidence." Most people are not qualified to "examine the evidence" and make public health policy decisions. This is why we rely upon the experts. Otherwise you have measles outbreaks in Beverly Hills.

You mean the experts that said no human to human transmission? or the experts that called for maska being ineffective? or the experts that didnt know how to store and deploy resources as they needed? or the experts that miscalculated projected infection rates?

> You mean the experts that said no human to human transmission?

Perfect example, no expert said there was no human to human nor is there any chance of it. The only language close to that was "there isn't any proof of it now" which might have been informed by CCP misinformation.

Even though they were misinformed, any true expert should have known not to make any definitive statement either way. If you have such a quote, it was not made by an expert.

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

#703

Post by seppin »

golergka wrote: post #161
techntoke wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses have the right to refuse service, why should YouTube be any different? I think the solution is a decentralized video sharing platform.

> why should YouTube be any different? Because it's almost a monopoly. It's not one of roughly equal dozens video hosting services. It's freaking youtube.

You misunderstand the word "monopoly". Youtube is where the exposure is, they technology for hosting videos is a commodity.

In other words, no one has the "right" to Youtube's distribution and promotion. Put you video on another site and promote it yourself.

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

#704

Post by seppin »

irjustin wrote: post #249
jpdb wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For better or worse, America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. > That's a core tenant of free speech I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points. The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worr…

> If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic Look, most people on HNews agree with you, myself included. That stupid speech and stupid acts are costing very real lives. But the whole point of this thread is that protected speech does cost lives as well. That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed. > YouTube had a soci…

> Put a banner up. Identify it with Mr Yuck sticker. Don't remove it as if it never existed. That's dangerous, no?

You misunderstand how wrong information, identified as such, is received.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/11/facebook-fake-news...

Pointing out something is false either has no effect, or makes people double down on wrong ideas / beliefs. Continuing to host said ideas will cause them to spread.

The responsible thing was removal, but perhaps with more transparency around how and why.

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

#705

Post by seppin »

dpatru wrote: post #228
paulcole wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America was built on the idea that I can have an absolutely stupid idea and that's my right. Was it though? First Amendment says: “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” Until YouTube…

> Until YouTube joins the Senate, I think they’re fine doing whatever they want. I think it's reasonable to assume that the American government contains the same kind of people that are in governments the world over and throughout history. And governments have always attempted to suppress speech: that's why the First Amendment was written. Given Snowden's revelations, can you be sure that Youtube's censoring is simpl…

> Given Snowden's revelations

What did Snowden reveal about government influence over private sector censorship? I must have missed it.

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

#706

Post by seppin »

tinalumfoil wrote: post #89
gmfawcett wrote: post #47

This is lazy reporting. It's not wrong, but there's no insight here. No critical assessment of the claims made in the video nor the Youtube T&C, just a few clickbaity excerpts and some reaction comments. Compare with this excellent piece by the CBC on a somewhat similar viral video in Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/u-of-r-biology-p...

This level of reporting is pretty par for the course in US media. It's just reporting what happened without much commentary. And really, the idea that news media need to herd their audience into thinking the right things is ridiculous. It's a news article, not an editorial.

>And really, the idea that news media need to herd their audience into thinking the right things is ridiculous.

No, but they need to determine which story is based on the best possible information at the time, and which isn't. Which is a massive service for everyone else that doesn't have time do research everything they read.

A massive service not only gone unthanked, but actively attacked in the days of Trump.

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

#707

Post by seppin »

busymom0 wrote: post #141
dangus wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That shouldn’t be surprising, The Blaze was founded by Glenn Beck. It’s not a reputable journalistic outlet.

What kind of argument is that? Political views are unimportant in this case and even if they were, Glenn has been more left and right leaning. Also YouTube removing the videos from 2 highly credentialed doctors is a verifiable fact, not some subjective theory.

> Also YouTube removing the videos from 2 highly credentialed doctors is a verifiable fact, not some subjective theory.

Those 2 "highly credentialed doctors" just got an unprecedentedly strong and universal condemnation from the two main American medical associations. Just because you like what they are saying doesn't mean they are right. Think critically instead of seeking your evidence to support your opinions.

https://www.aaem.org/resources/statements/joint-endorsed/phy...

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

#708

Post by kerkeslager »

klyrs wrote: post #667
kerkeslager wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you actually read the post you're responding to? I'm confused on why you would view this as a response to what I said. Again, the question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the legal right to censor, should they censor?". If you don't understand that there might be reasons to do something beyond legal obligation or profit, you're not e…

> Did you actually read the post you're responding to? > ... you're not equipped to participate in this conversation. Please review the site guidelines and take a more charitable approach to this conversation. There's some irony that your argument around ideologically pure free speech is punctuated by insinuation that I should self-censor because I'm not ideologically pure enough. I provided a handful of reasons wher…

> There's some irony that your argument around ideologically pure free speech is punctuated by insinuation that I should self-censor because I'm not ideologically pure enough.

I said, "[J]ust because it's your legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

Sure, you're allowed to say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean saying it was the right thing to do. Saying that you said the wrong thing isn't ironic: it's exactly what one would expect given what I actually said.

There can be no irony with regards to my argument around ideologically pure free speech, because I didn't make any such argument.

Additionally, there's a difference between me censoring you by force, and me asking you to say things that are relevant.

> I provided a handful of reasons where speech can do harm, and where forced publication impinges other rights.

I never suggested forced publication, so these cases are not a response to my post.

> They have a right to curate the content that they distribute that is just as important as your right to produce and self-publish your content.

I specifically said that YouTube has this right. I said, "It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform."

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

#709

Post by kerkeslager »

paulcole wrote: post #590
kerkeslager wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly their right under ownership laws to censor on their platform. But just because it's your legal right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The question isn't "do social media platforms have the right to censor?". The question is, "given social media platforms have the legal right to censor, should they censor?". The bill of rights is a legal document, and it can only govern the actio…

I believe I shouldn’t go to jail or be killed for the things I say. I don’t believe I have the right to say whatever I want without consequence.

Me too.

Now that we've got that out of the way, care to discuss the question I asked?

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

#710

Post by heddon »

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…

You make the excuse to remove the video with no actual proof that this is dangerous misinformation. In fact, YouTube, and the media are the real danger.The biggest threat to Americans in the history of all.
Post reply on HN