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

281–290 of 596 posts

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

#281

Post by manfredo »

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.

> 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.

No, YouTube still is determining credibility. YouTube is still saying, "this video is misinformation and we are removing it." The fact that it's treating the WHO information as the baseline does not change the fact that YouTube is deciding credibility, and removing videos that do not meet it's criteria for credibility.

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

#282

Post by scottLobster »

xphilter wrote: post #174
_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…

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…

Walmart is not ubiquitous in terms of property the same way Youtube is in terms of streaming video. If you want to protest you can easily avoid Walmart. Likewise if you want to publish a book you can easily avoid Walmart.

If you want to communicate to a large audience with streaming video in the US (and many other nations), it's Youtube or nothing unless you have an already established audience (which you probably established on Youtube).

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

#283

Post by cfmcdonald »

I can't help but wonder if there is a generational divide occurring in these censorship debates. Some contributors to the discussion seem to believe that everyone has a natural right to post a video and have it available to (if not see by) a global audience. As someone who grew up in the 1980s this is a strange point-of-view to me, but I can see how it might feel more natural to someone who came of age in the 2010s.

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

#284

Post by coldtea »

scarface74 wrote: post #34
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 shouldn’t I as an advertiser not be allowed to choose which content I want my products to be associated with? It amazes me how willing HN posters are willing to give up power to the government.

>Why shouldn’t I as an advertiser not be allowed to choose which content I want my products to be associated with?

That's easy, because the law I propose will decree so.

As for the moral reasoning, because (a) advertisers are scum, and (b) they should not have powers over content publication. The same reason advertisers putting a billboard don't get to dictate what cars can and cannot pass by it.

>It amazes me how willing HN posters are willing to give up power to the government.

I'm all for giving power to the government, which people vote for, and have established mechanisms to control, instead of private interests that talk by throwing money.

If anything, my problem with government is that enough of it is dictated by those same interests (lobbys, private interests, advertisers, etc) as opposed by the voters directly. But that's another thing to solve, and giving more power to those interests is the opposite of the solution.

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

#285

Post by theandrewbailey »

exolymph wrote: post #206
dpeterson wrote: post #149

Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. Platforms like Youtube are beyond ubiquitous and we all depend on them. The companies behind them have more money than countries. That, combined with the tax free private foundations their founders nearly all have, is taking us down some very bad roads. Of course, those…

> Libertarian leaning myself, sad to say, this is the first time I am now in full realization that monopolies do in fact exist and are very dangerous. YouTube is not a monopoly. There are other websites where you can post or watch video. Not as many people choose to use them, but you're not entitled to their attention anyway.

Existence of competition doesn't stop courts from considering a company to be a monopoly. You could have used a Mac and Netscape in the 90s, but the US went after Microsoft anyway.

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

#286

Post by dagnabbit »

logicslave wrote: post #262
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…

You have to wonder if there are Chinese actors within Google influencing these censorships...

No, you really don' have to wonder that.

That's a deeply stupid and racist conspiracy theory that you're promoting with no evidence or logical reasoning at all.

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

#287

Post by wyck »

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.

So let me get this straight, you don't see how the largest most influential form of public communication( youtube) deciding to moderate the public interest via a 3rd partly that is governed more by politics than actual health is somehow not a problem. In your last sentence you said "I don't see", it's because you must be blind.

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

#289

Post by ggrrhh_ta »

root_axis wrote: post #109
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…

> 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…

Well, they roll out a platform where people can upload content. That is the one of the main services they offer, YT should be subject to the local regulations for uploaders and viewers, applying no other discretionary/arbitrary limits than those imposed by regulations or by technical reasons. Imagine a content platform would consider that videos created by do not align with their values.

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

#290

Post by Hoasi »

JohnBooty wrote: post #267
xhkkffbf wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me be contrary: who shut down millions of businesses and put millions out of work? Well, I'd blame the pandemic itself. Sweden provides an imperfect but interesting what-if scenario for countries wondering what would have happened if they'd imposed little to no lockdown restrictions. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-sweden-economy-t... Their economy is still taking a very severe hit despite retail busi…

> Well, I'd blame the pandemic itself.

Exactly.

In most countries, people are willingly staying mostly at home. More, they continue to restrain from shopping and eating out after the lockdown ended.

Post reply on HN