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

271–280 of 596 posts

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

#271

Post by istjohn »

drunkpotato wrote: post #182
ksk wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An advertising company deciding what is credible or not is scary.

But YouTube is not deciding on the credibility of the video. They are simply saying that in this emergency, in the interests of public safety, they will not allow videos that contradict World Health Organization information and policy guidelines. And they removed a video that violated that policy. It's a very narrowly defined exception to their normally open platform. I don't see what is scary or sinister about that.

Who decided this at YouTube? What's their name? They weren't elected and they have no accountability to society for making decisions in our best interest. The WHO states that healthy people should "only wear a mask if [they] are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection."[1] This is contrary to current guidance in the US. In a democracy, as in science, no one gets to say what is true and what is false. We have allowed Alphabet to grow into a sprawling corporation that pervades our everyday lives. We cannot now allow them to dictate what is good and bad, true and false, venerable and deplorable. This is dystopic.

1. https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coro...

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

#272

Post by scottLobster »

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…

And just because your house is already hooked up to your electric utility doesn't mean you can't build your own generator and and source your own fuel! Clearly the utility should have near complete immunity and let an automated algorithm cut off your power indefinitely for vague, unspecified reasons.

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

#273

Post by gknoy »

unethical_ban wrote: post #256
majormajor wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Youtube Vimeo Name the next five that are discoverable, host your videos for free, and can stream that to millions of people in a single day.

As a contrarian view, do our rights require it to be _cheap_? AWS + a domain name (`www.the-moon-really-is-made-of-cheese.com`) seems like something that is available to everyone.

- It's not cheap - It's not easy

However, it's a platform of speech that is available to everyone, and if you want to scale to millions, one can add the same caching layers etc that FAANG can. We've seen this kind of thing when people were banned from twitter or whatever, and ended up migrating to other twitter-competitors. Newspapers are not required to post our opinions, and I don't think youtube is either.

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

#274

Post by throw7 »

If that video was "banned" on youtube, how am I able to view it on youtube?

The first few statements he makes are bit eye-raising and I didn't continue listening but:

"many of the people who died would've died at the exact same time anyway"

I wonder the source or how he knows. He says it so matter of factly that I'm sceptical.

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

#275

Post by the_af »

cfmcdonald wrote: post #258
the_af wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

YouTube is perceived as a family-friendly, PG to PG-13 brand. It would be a very different, and much more niche, environment if it were a free-for-all of pornography, obscene language and graphic violence.

I agree, but notice that except for pornography, which I forgot to include, I covered all of the others (sort of) with "hate speech". Banning violence/insults/pornography/harassment is an obviously useful filter for a PG-13 site, but I don't think it qualifies as curation. To me curation implies something related to the selection of quality.

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

#276

Post by bilekas »

This is where it doesn't matter. YouTube does not have an obligation to leave everything up there at all.

Given that this interview is misleading at best, and dangerous at worst. It's up to YouTube to decide if it wants to be used as a vehicle.

Personally I'm glad they took it down. I want to get out and would love to go back to old normal. We all would. But I don't want to get sic before a vaccine is ready, and I don't want people I know and love to get sick either.

If you're getting upset about the actions of youtube, the fact is they are full within their rights to do whatever they like with their platform.

As for the free speech argument : Companies are not required to give space to ideas or viewpoints they do not wish to be associated with.

https://pacificlegal.org/a-first-amendment-win-supreme-court...

https://casetext.com/case/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-...

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

#277

Post by throwaway52120 »

Total censorship doesn't happen overnight. The gates slowly close little by little.

Let no good catastrophe go to waste. With each, we lose a little freedom and the populace resounds in joy. Not because they want less freedom, no, it's because they think they've triumphed over a common evil: the dissenters. These cycles always include labeling the enemy, and it's usually the ones who disagree or challenge the state.

The common man isn't an expert in virology, world politics, or terrorism. Yet, if you look at the ones upholding and defending the position of the state, they're just laymen. Their opinions are fiercely held without question and expertise.

All you have to do is label the enemy, make that label an adjective that the average-person would reject at first glance (conspiracy theorist, extremist, etc.), then assign that label to anyone who dissents from the state's position. After that, it's just policymaking for the "greater good".

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

#278

Post by bilekas »

chrischen wrote: post #238

These types of censorship patterns are identical to that employed by China in intent . The practical consequences are the same as well. In China information censorship is due to the government trying to promote peace and harmony. Aka, the government thinks it knows what’s best for people and forces it on people. Facebook et al also encounter these same problems, where they see people spreading “misinformation.” It’s…

> These types of censorship patterns are identical to that employed by China in intent. The practical consequences are the same as well.

They're not identical, the state doesn't determine YouTubes actions.

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

#279

Post by coldtea »

belltaco wrote: post #180
coldtea wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Why should ad companies be forced to subsidize the spread of bullshit and hateful content?

They are not forced to do anything. They can always NOT advertise.

What I propose is not forcing them to subsidise anything, it is about taking away from them the power to dictate terms to platforms.

Moreover, the "bullshit and hate" is your strawman.

Traditionally, and I'm not some Gen Z to not remember this, it has been the right that was pushing advertisers and platforms to assist in censoring tv shows, music videos, records, etc with non-approved messages (pro-gay, anti-religion, pro-choice, etc).

That the tables have turned for a while doesn't mean the tables will always be this way (we're already 4 years into Trump for one), and I don't even believe the tables have turned as in "it's just bullshit and hateful stuff that's demonetized". I think that all kinds of good content is demonetized all the time, both left and right wing.

Any cause you personally might like can easily be labeled "bullshit" and or "hateful".

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

#280

Post by hartator »

root_axis wrote: post #241
hartator wrote: post #166

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. There is a difference between morality and legality. It might be legal for ATT to cut your Internet because they don't like you but it will be immoral for sure.

Having your video removed from someone's website isn't the same thing as having your internet cut off.

How so? Both are private properties.
Post reply on HN