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

361–370 of 596 posts

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

#361

Post by sneak »

ankushnarula wrote: post #335
vbezhenar wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same. If you own website, you have all rights to do any censorship you want. Now if your government will try to fine or arrest you because you hosted some video on your website, that's censorship. You can avoid youtube, but you can't avoid your government. That said, I agree that huge websites like youtube, facebook, instagram are something more t…

Did everyone forget what happened to these unsavory characters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer#Site_hosting...

Someone I know rather well is their sysadmin, and their site is still up: https://dailystormer.su/

Admittedly, they’ve had a hell of a time, but the hard data is that it continues to run. I don’t condone domain names or hosting accounts getting shut down based on content (ANY content) but it appears that it is still at least a little bit possible to host the most extreme of incorrect/offensive content, it’s just not convenient.

I imagine they might even still be on Cloudflare if they hadn’t promoted the (incorrect) theory that Cloudflare not canceling them was actually a dogwhistle endorsement of their content. Cloudflare cited this incorrect claim as the reason for their termination.

That said, large hosting platforms used by majorities of the population (eg YouTube, Facebook, Instagram) should absolutely have to carry data uncritically, just like the phone company, or at least as long as they are actively trying to kill the federated open web with things like censored native app stores, censored browser extension indices, censored and surveilled messaging platforms, and AMP. Things would be quite a bit different if our hardware didn’t forcibly opt us in to dictatorial censorship of native apps.

It also grinds my gears that they call it “community standards”, which are weasel words to pretend that their userbase likes being forced to watch only what their dictator approves of. They’re unilateral, and invoking the term “community” is a dishonest, unprofessional move.

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

#362

Post by chvid »

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…

Why on earth does this have to be compared to China? And Falun Gong?!

This is long form journalism with establishment figures such as university professors.

YouTube censors clearly overstepped their "mandate" here. And Unherd has other ways of publicising this particular interview and drawing attention to YouTube's censorship.

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

#363

Post by madengr »

vbezhenar wrote: post #301
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…

As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same. If you own website, you have all rights to do any censorship you want. Now if your government will try to fine or arrest you because you hosted some video on your website, that's censorship. You can avoid youtube, but you can't avoid your government. That said, I agree that huge websites like youtube, facebook, instagram are something more t…

These huge web sites are using public right-of-ways and wireless spectrum to transmit their data. It'd be like the phone company censoring your speech. The 1st amendment ought to apply to them unless they are using a fully private means of distributing their information.

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

#365

Post by GVIrish »

lopmotr wrote: post #298
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…

Yep. It seems to have started with the 2016 election which left popular opinion being that there's a huge part of the population who are too stupid to think for themselves and must be shielded from bad ideas in case they believe them and harm the rest of us with them. Now that such an idea is readily accepted, censorship is easily seen as the morally right thing to do in lots of cases. The feeling is that we're prote…

Consider that it is far easier to spread misinformation/disinformation than it is to educate, and that over time there are going to be even more powerful forms of disinformation in the form of deep fakes. People have a hard time distinguishing real from fake now, it's only going to get worse from here.

On one hand you can say that nothing should be censored and the onus is on the viewer to critically evaluate information. But the reality is that misinformation/disinformation is causing real harm to people, populations, and civilization itself.

For example, propaganda on Facebook in Myanmar has fueled mass killings against the Rohingya. Anti-vax misinformation is lowering vaccination rates and causing a resurgence of diseases that were almost eradicated. Should companies like Google and Facebook just turn a blind eye to all of that and watch brutality and backwardness thrive and tear down progress? At what point should the line be drawn?

Make no mistake, there are malign actors out there who are weaponizing misinformation as we speak. If we choose not to do anything about it, they will have an out-sized role in shaping the future to their ends.

It certainly is a very difficult question to figure out where the line should be drawn, and even then it's a moving target. But it's a question worth wrangling over, and ultimately if mankind is going to meet the challenges of now and the future, the threat of disinformation has to be met one way or another.

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

#366

Post by ilikehurdles »

adarioble wrote: post #297
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense does YT have a monopoly?

In a sense that is a default go to platform for many people when searching for (video) content.

Being the most popular platform doesn’t make something a monopoly.

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

#368

Post by revnode »

vbezhenar wrote: post #301
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…

As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same. If you own website, you have all rights to do any censorship you want. Now if your government will try to fine or arrest you because you hosted some video on your website, that's censorship. You can avoid youtube, but you can't avoid your government. That said, I agree that huge websites like youtube, facebook, instagram are something more t…

> If you own website, you have all rights to do any censorship you want.

There is a difference between can and should. They can, but should not.

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

#369

Post by ponker »

vbezhenar wrote: post #301
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…

As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same. If you own website, you have all rights to do any censorship you want. Now if your government will try to fine or arrest you because you hosted some video on your website, that's censorship. You can avoid youtube, but you can't avoid your government. That said, I agree that huge websites like youtube, facebook, instagram are something more t…

The power of the modern internet companies to control the Overton window makes them peer institutions of the government in terms of their soft power. At least Chinese dissidents can covertly use Youtube... if you get on the wrong side of the internet giants, you can be suppressed at an arbitrary level. You can get kicked off YouTube and flee to your own site, but once CloudFlare and GoDaddy and NameCheap decide you are persona non grata, you've been digitally un-personed.

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

#370

Post by akerro »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #334
SeanLuke wrote: post #14

> professor of medicine According to this guy's Wikipedia page, he has claimed many times to be a professor of oncology at Imperial College: but he is not, and Imperial College has sought legal options to stop him from making this claim. The page is full of other fairly astonishing stuff, not the least of which is apparent fraud connected with the Lockerbie Bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora I get th…

So he is a paid shill. At least he does not promote drinking bleach.

yet
Post reply on HN