The video seems to be back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg. Probably got caught up in some sort of automated COVID misinformation algorithm. Given the content of the video, I'm not inclined to place much weight on their side of the story here. This feels like fake outrage to drive views.
YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
171–180 of 596 posts
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a "determining what's true about Covid" sense, he isn't the leader on Covid. He pays experts to take that leadership. It's my general impression that if Gates says something about Covid, he's just repeating what experts said.
Your own comment says "if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field." Why doesn't that disqualify Bill Gates according to your own reasoning? >It's my general impression that if Gates says something about Covid, he's just repeating what experts said. And who determines if he is or isn't repeating experts? Also, who decides who is or isn't an expert? A…
> Your own comment says "if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field."
> Why doesn't that disqualify Bill Gates according to your own reasoning?
Because there's a big difference between presenting yourself as an expert and saying things that disagree with experts, and repeating what experts say.
If Bill Gates starts spouting off stuff without evidence that disagrees with what all the experts are saying, he'll absolutely be disqualified according to my reasoning.
> And who determines if he is or isn't repeating experts? Also, who decides who is or isn't an expert? An advertising company? Sorry, but that is a scary path.
Well, everyone has to determine that for themselves, based on what limited ability they have.
It seems like you think I'm one of the pro-censorship people here, but I assure you I'm not, please follow the comment chain up to where I started it and read my comment there. On the contrary, I believe Sikora's video should have been left on YouTube, and responded to by experts.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not This point is often repeated during discussions on these topics but I believe this is an inaccurate characterization. YouTube is not "in charge of deciding what is credible" in the fashion that kind of phrasing suggests; they are moderating the content on their platform with respect to their business process and company values, those decisions…
I’ll reiterate a point I’ve made before: the ultimate question is whether YouTube (and other social media platforms) should be permitted both the power to control on their platform as well as the freedom from liability of a common carrier. They exist in a limbo where they have their cake and eat it too- which I think is ultimately untenable.
> the ultimate question is whether YouTube (and other social media platforms) should be permitted both the power to control on their platform as well as the freedom from liability of a common carrier
I disagree that this is the ultimate question or that this is in any way a problem that merits a changing of the laws (as current law explicitly permits this). Websites aren't common carriers, and I don't see a compelling reason to force websites to host content that they disagree with for any reason. I don't see any connection between the idea between popularity and the loss of editorial control of your own website.
> They exist in a limbo where they have their cake and eat it too- which I think is ultimately untenable.
Moderation is part of the product. I would argue that the idea that we can effectively constrict companies into a specific type of moderation behavior is what's untenable because it strikes at the heart of the creative freedom to build a website and online community with respect to your own ideals.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not This point is often repeated during discussions on these topics but I believe this is an inaccurate characterization. YouTube is not "in charge of deciding what is credible" in the fashion that kind of phrasing suggests; they are moderating the content on their platform with respect to their business process and company values, those decisions…
> they are moderating the content on their platform with respect to their business process and company values, those decisions are not a reflection of credibility. YouTube is a corporate product This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting, which today comprises a large proportion of all information transfer between humans. Companies like…
According to what though? Walmart is ubiquitous; do they have to let people protest inside stores? No. Do they have to sell antivax books? No. You could maybe argue youtube is closer to a pseudo public place like a mall, but even there you couldn’t force a mall to protest on behalf of someone else or sell something. What exactly is your end game? Create a new type of forum (like physical forum) where private companies are compelled to act according to someone else’s standards?
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#175The video seems to be back up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg . Probably got caught up in some sort of automated COVID misinformation algorithm. Given the content of the video, I'm not inclined to place much weight on their side of the story here. This feels like fake outrage to drive views.
The video actually get removed, how is this "fake outrage"
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube isn't in charge of what is credible or not. Youtube is in charge of what shows up on youtube or not. There are many categories of things that can't be on youtube, not just things youtube thinks are incorrect. Should youtube overstep its bounds, that makes it easier for competitors to enter the video streaming market. It seems like libertarian leaning people forget half of their philosophy on this issue.
According to your philosophy, we should already have a competitor to Boeing cranking up new airplanes.
It's called Airbus.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that would invalidate its conclusions)
Sounds like we don't need to worry about that...government does all on its own... https://nypost.com/2020/04/28/more-blood-on-gov-cuomos-hands...
So this is your source? An opinion piece in a right leaning columnist in a biased NY Post, where author couldn't even help himself but include other unrelated tidbits, like how is Joe Biden and Tara Reade related to corona virus? There's nothing there to verify that even the characters in the story are real not to mention the story.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#178I don’t agree with the interview contents, nor think professorship alone gives sufficient credibility in the face of a novel pandemic, data of which is in the process of emerging. That said, I don’t want youtube to be in charge of deciding what is credible or not. They don’t have in-house experts on these domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the “facts”. They are good at writing web se…
The fact there is a global pandemic going on that requires the cooperation of virtually everyone is important context here.
Meanwhile, YouTube does little moderation of zany philosophical, conspiratorial, or otherwise disruptive, unconventional content. The ideas of Galieo, Socrates, Jesus etc. fall into this category. That is to say those figures did not promote public health opinions that undermined a global cooperative effort in a time of crisis.
I don't agree with censorship, but your analogy is off base.
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they are moderating the content on their platform with respect to their business process and company values, those decisions are not a reflection of credibility. YouTube is a corporate product This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting, which today comprises a large proportion of all information transfer between humans. Companies like…
According to what though? Walmart is ubiquitous; do they have to let people protest inside stores? No. Do they have to sell antivax books? No. You could maybe argue youtube is closer to a pseudo public place like a mall, but even there you couldn’t force a mall to protest on behalf of someone else or sell something. What exactly is your end game? Create a new type of forum (like physical forum) where private companie…
By the way, you might know that in California, shopping centers may have to allow people to engage in some expressive activity on their private property, even when they don't endorse the speakers' message:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
(I don't mean to suggest that this provides some kind of obvious solution to Internet content moderation disputes.)
Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
>, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. This suggestion (and the comparison to phone companies) comes up repeatedly but Youtube can't _be_ a neutral carrier if they are funded by advertising . That's because the businesses' choice to pay for advertising is not a neutral choice . See "advertiser friendly content"[1] an…
> This suggestion (and the comparison to phone companies) comes up repeatedly but Youtube can't _be_ a neutral carrier if they are funded by advertising. That's because the businesses' choice to pay for advertising is not a neutral choice. It should be as well. Disallow advertising companies from paying for ads on specific content only. They should have a blanket agreement to show N ads, to user demographics, interes…
Why should ad companies be forced to subsidize the spread of bullshit and hateful content?
If someone wants to spread bullshit and hate, let them do it on their own dime, or find someone wanting to do spread it.