Live data from Hacker News

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

unherd.com

221–230 of 596 posts

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

#221
Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. Social media has made it too easy to spread dangerous levels of misinformation and hate online. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to YouTube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, adversarial nations were spreading fake news to influence who gets elected, and others were even live-streaming mass murders.

This has caused an upheaval in societal mores as regards free speech. Enough is enough! There needs to be limits. Communities started imposing limits to free speech. For example, UC Berkeley, renowned for giving birth to the Free Speech Movement, made news for banning harmful speech, such as that by Ann Coulter. This is a natural evolution of societal mores. This particular evolution was a reaction to the excesses and abuses seen in social media. This type of censorship, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal. We live in a new world. Malicious individuals and groups now have the power to reach hundreds of millions instantly, at no cost to themselves. The old rules no longer apply.

Some say if you disagree with someone else's speech you should not just ban them, you should defeat them by arguing against their ideas. But when state-sponsored actors spread fake news and divisive ads at a massive scale on social media you can’t simply defeat them by arguing against their ideas. How do you counter it? By buying opposing ads on Facebook? Even if you have pockets as deep as Putin’s, what a waste of money that would be! This is a new world and the old methods are no longer applicable. Communities and social media companies will need to engage in some censorship.

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

#222
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…

> They don’t have in-house experts on these domains, they don’t have a magic epistemology machine that spits out the “facts”.

What are the other options? Is there any good_or_not(url) API youtube service can call? They are forced to moderate content.

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

#223
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Be skeptical of the actions of the state, regardless of the action"

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

#224
There are several points that contradict the consensus opinion, at this time. Such as the statement "More schools should reopen in June as ‘children are not the transmitters of this virus’" is totally refuted at this point. There is plenty of evidence that children transmit the disease like any other human.

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

#225
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Thanks! That’s what I was trying to refer to. But that seems different in a few ways. First, there’s actually physical open spaces in malls where the public is invited—you don’t have to shop. Second, the protest in a mall is ephemeral. Youtube is like a store in the mall, not the open forum (I don’t think Macy’s would be required to have a protest in its store); the internet is like that open space. Second, extending this to YouTube would require YouTube to proactively host a video on its servers, pay for costs to play it, and host it forever (until the protestor takes it down).

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

#226
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A Qanon guy brought a gun into a pizza place and one tried to mail bombs to politicians.

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

#227

I think that we often get hung up on the what-ifs of censorship while misinformation is doing damage right this second. The problem is that people don't evaluate 2 narratives equally based on the information in them. If that was the case, you would just have to make sure that for every bogus report there is a reliable report, but once misinformation takes hold it takes a lot more than that to dislodge. The analogy I…

And THAT is exactly the issue. "Misinformation" uses the prefix "Mis", which is "...a prefix applied to various parts of speech, meaning “ill,” “mistaken,” “wrong,” “wrongly,” “incorrectly,” or simply negating: mistrial; misprint; mistrust." As the Covid-19 situation, prognoses, diagnoses, testing procedures, and far more are PUBLICLY ADMITTED to be flawed, it is RIDICULOUS to silence ANYONE, let alone legitimate exp…

Yeah see, people don't think, deeply, about anything.

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

#228
Youtube can do what they want but let's not forget that they use WHO as a guideline for what is considered within the Overton window. WHO has repeatedly been wrong on a number of occasions not the least mask, travel bans, and very slow to call this a pandemic.

The is btw zero evidence that having fake prophets on youtube is endangering public health and this is unfortunately an excuse for people who like to tell others what to do, to pretend they are doing it for the public good.

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

#229
post #205

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…

There's only one grocery store in town and I need to buy food, but their prices are too high!! Oh well, guess I will just have to drive to this other town to buy food where the prices aren't so high. ..walks outside to car ..sees local grocery store owner has flattened his tire

This is such a deeply flawed and disingenuous analogy that I find it difficult to imagine you're commenting in good faith.

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

#230

YouTube consistently followed their policy of removing videos which promote misinformation, disinformation, and policy proposals that contradict the World Health Organization's official guidelines during an emergency pandemic. I have my problems with YouTube, but this isn't censorship, and it isn't a conspiracy to silence anyone. It's an effort to be responsible to public health and safety. The hysteria I see here is…

This is most definitely censorship, regardless of whether or not it is in the public good
Post reply on HN