Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 596 posts

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#211

Post by joshuamorton »

aianus wrote: post #167
joshuamorton wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So here's what she said: - Prioritizing supply to healthcare workers is of the utmost priority - Current evidence supports wearing a mask if you're sick to prevent spreading droplets, also wearing a mask if you're in close contact with a symptomatic person - Masks can provide a false sense of security. Her final statement is "if people try to use these measures, they have to be really, really careful and wash their h…

"Putting a mask on an asymptomatic person is not beneficial", followed by a list of dangers posed by masks. It was a statement that masks are a placebo for the general public and actually require one to take extra precautions so that they don't make things worse. It couldn't have been more discouraging towards people on the fence about wearing a mask in late March.

> Putting a mask on an asymptomatic person is not beneficial

Since then, the understanding about asymptomatic carriers has changed. And in response, the government updated it's suggestion.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#212

Post by istjohn »

60secz wrote: post #139
_vertigo wrote: post #131

Earlier 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…

> The fact that it is so widely used and owns such a significant share of the "ways to spread information" market outweighs the fact that the company is private. That argument seems a slippery slope towards reverse privitization. Who determines what companies are allowed to censor? Who censors the censors? Companies censor content because they are primarily afraid of liability (legal, political, cultural). There are…

We could have antitrust enforcement that prevents companies like Alphabet and Facebook from becoming so dominant in our society, but if we are going to have such dominant corporations, we cannot allow unbridled censorship of speach on their platforms without undermining a pillar of societal strength, prosperity, and happiness: the marketplace of ideas.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#214

Post by mirimir »

mullingitover wrote: post #140
_vertigo wrote: post #131

Earlier 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…

> This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting Far from it. You can host your video anywhere you like, but you get the most eyeballs and revenue from YouTube, and that's based on user preference and not on some nefarious activity on their part. A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that peo…

> You can host your video anywhere you like, but you get the most eyeballs and revenue from YouTube, and that's based on user preference and not on some nefarious activity on their part.

Maybe not "nefarious" exactly. But YouTube does have a virtual monopoly. And that's arguably illegal in the US. Or at least, it exposes them to additional government oversight.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#215

Post by xhkkffbf »

_bxg1 wrote: post #207
acituan wrote: post #51

I 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…

And on the other end of the spectrum we have people being indoctrinated into violent conspiracy groups like QAnon, or being prompted to set fire to cell towers, or bringing measles back from the dead, because of YouTube videos. There's a line to be drawn here - and it's a tricky line, to be sure - but "YouTube should be totally neutral and not pull anything" is not a viable answer.

Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out of work? It wasn't QAnon. It was the state -- and it looks like YouTube is aligned with the pro-shutdown folks who don't want their wisdom questioned.

Now I'm a big believer in keeping things shut. I thing prudence is super-important. But QAnon's actions are mainly talk. The state's, however, are different.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#216

Post by [deleted] »

_vertigo wrote: post #131
root_axis wrote: post #109

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#217

Post by majormajor »

_vertigo wrote: post #131
root_axis wrote: post #109

Earlier 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…

There are a million options for video hosting.

You are performing some sleight of hand here - claiming they are the only way to share your view - when what you are really referring to is that they have the most viewers, and that they have tools for promoting content in front of that audience.

"I deserve access to an audience on their system" is a very weak claim compared to the (untrue) "they are the only place I can share my views."

Personally, I say kill the era of algorithmic search and recommendation. Then you'd have to convince people with compelling content to link out to you, not just be clickbait that plays well in the naive algorithmic feedback loops. Good luck!

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#218

Post by restingrobot »

takeda wrote: post #209
restingrobot wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL this is the first I've ever heard of a "right leaning columnist" at the NY Post, opinion or not.

So what you are saying that a tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch is not biased to the right?

It was sarcasm, but on second read I can see it didn't come off as such.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#219

Post by root_axis »

_vertigo wrote: post #131
root_axis wrote: post #109

Earlier 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…

> it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform

This is very obviously false based on countless examples, but you're baking in the assertion that exposure to the YouTube audience is a necessary criteria to be considered a video platform, yet you haven't justified that belief. YouTube's ubiquity is an accolade afforded to it by the public on a completely voluntarily basis that can be effortlessly revoked at any time. The reason it is not revoked is because it costs users nothing to use YouTube and for the overwhelming majority of its users YouTube is just a small and generally unimportant slice of their day akin to watching netflix or playing video games.

> The fact that it is so widely used and owns such a significant share of the "ways to spread information" market outweighs the fact that the company is private.

Why? I don't see the connection between the quantity of eyeballs freely gazing and the need for the owner to abdicate their editorial prerogatives. What is your justification for this? If the eyeballs have a problem with how those prerogatives are expressed they can look away to another website and they actually do that quite frequently.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#220

Post by krapp »

the_af wrote: post #201
mullingitover wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting Far from it. You can host your video anywhere you like, but you get the most eyeballs and revenue from YouTube, and that's based on user preference and not on some nefarious activity on their part. A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that peo…

> A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that people like to complain about. I'm not sure about this. Besides removing obvious hate speech, which sort of content curation do you mean? I thought its success was due to everyone being able to upload and share video clips. I don't think curation was an important feature.

>I don't think curation was an important feature.

Maybe it wasn't in the beginning, but Youtube is a Google company now, and their entire business model is based on (mostly) algorithmic curation. The business model of every content creator depends upon catering to the preferences of that algorithm, and their success at doing so determines their value to advertisers. Entire genres of content have come into being and have been destroyed overnight because of the algorithm.

Youtube's success mostly comes from driving discovery of new content through recommended channels and videos.

Post reply on HN