YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
1–10 of 596 posts
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#2Wow that’s dangerous. The interviewee is an ex director at the WHO with over 50 years experience as an Oncologist.
He's being deplatformed for even slightly questioning the conventional wisdom.
Wow! These tech companies hold way too much power.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#3We can't do anything about it though, Google will just shrug off the blame on a dodgy algo and keep going.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#4Is it this Karol Sikora?
> Promotion of alternative medicine
> Sikora and the School of Medicine at Buckingham have in the past been supportive of alternative medicine. For a short time, Buckingham offered a diploma in "integrated medicine" (a relatively recent euphemism for alternative medicine). Sikora was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles' now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group The Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health[24] and Chair of the Faculty of Integrated Medicine, which is unaffiliated with any university; it includes Drs Rosy Daniel and Mark Atkinson, who led Buckingham's "integrated medicine" course. > > Sikora is also a "professional member" of the College of Medicine, a patient-oriented healthcare lobby group also linked to the Prince of Wales that appeared shortly after the collapse of the Prince's Foundation. The College has been criticised extensively in the British Medical Journal for its promotion of alternative medicine. These claims have been contested by the College. He is on the advisory panel of complementary cancer care charity Penny Brohn Cancer Care (formerly the Bristol Cancer Help Centre) of whom Prince Charles is a patron, and is a patron of the Iain Rennie Hospice at Home. Statements by Sikora have been critical of unproven methods of alternative medicine, after Parliament member Lord Maurice Saatchi proposed a bill allowing doctors to use unproven experimental therapies, and he has spoken out against claims that an alkaline diet can cure cancer.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora#Promotion_of_alte...
It sounds like he might actually have infringed Youtube's "Harmful or dangerous content" guidelines:
> Harmful or dangerous content > > Don't post videos that encourage others to do things that might cause them to get badly hurt, especially kids. Videos showing such harmful or dangerous acts may get age-restricted or removed depending on their severity.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#5I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides legislative change to enforce this.
However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#6Is it this Karol Sikora? > Promotion of alternative medicine > Sikora and the School of Medicine at Buckingham have in the past been supportive of alternative medicine. For a short time, Buckingham offered a diploma in "integrated medicine" (a relatively recent euphemism for alternative medicine). Sikora was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles' now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group The Prince's Foundation fo…
Alternative medicine is mostly bunk, but I absolutely don't agree that it constitutes "harmful or dangerous countent" or should be banned from Youtube. Disputing the consensus should not by itself be forbidden, even when the consensus is accurate and important.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#7I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides legislative change to enforce this. However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.
YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more viewers = more ads.
The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show.
The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#8Is it this Karol Sikora? > Promotion of alternative medicine > Sikora and the School of Medicine at Buckingham have in the past been supportive of alternative medicine. For a short time, Buckingham offered a diploma in "integrated medicine" (a relatively recent euphemism for alternative medicine). Sikora was a Foundation Fellow of Prince Charles' now-defunct alternative medicine lobby group The Prince's Foundation fo…
Alternative medicine is mostly bunk, but I absolutely don't agree that it constitutes "harmful or dangerous countent" or should be banned from Youtube. Disputing the consensus should not by itself be forbidden, even when the consensus is accurate and important.
That depends what the alternative medicine asks the patient to do. Anecdote: my mother was told to do coffee enemas in Tijuana to get rid of her colorectal cancer. She very seriously debated it with me.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#9I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides legislative change to enforce this. However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.
YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more viewers = more ads. The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show. The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them
> YT, FB and other platforms would like too. For them, more content = more viewers = more ads.
> The current situation is because governments passed laws to regulate the type of content they are allowed to show.
> The "phone company" is not the right analogy. They are more like mass media (TV, news papers, etc), which is the rational for censoring them
This assumes they don't have the legal resources to fend off such a case.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#10We can't do anything about it though, Google will just shrug off the blame on a dodgy algo and keep going.
dodgy yes, but it's a conventional blacklist that was leaked before.
what we can do is suing them. censorship became too popular recently.