YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by sneak » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

_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.

Censorship isn’t the answer to the things you fear. YouTube banning these things won’t stop them from spreading. YouTube not banning these things won’t cause people to commit violence.

Try replacing “being indoctrinated” with “reading” or “being prompted to” with “watching crazies talk about how you should”, and try your sentence again without the biased framing.

You misattribute the agency of the viewer. Video games don’t make kids shoot up schools, and stupid videos don’t make people light cell towers on fire.

Even the entirety of Pizzagate led to exactly one guy out of hundreds of millions picking up a gun, and even then no one was hurt.

Meanwhile, YouTube is taking down videos of ACTUAL war crimes in the Syrian civil war, which is destruction of evidence and is hindering prosecutorial efforts.

Censorship is not the solution.

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

#382

Post by joefourier » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #308

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…

> As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same. Very few people even within this peer group have the capability of hosting videos on their own website unless the video is intended for a very small audience (say, less than 1000 viewers per day). If you want to reach any significant number of people, you absolutely need to go through one of the major video hosters or pay for a CDN. And th…

Video hosting scalability is not the problem it was if you use a technology like Webtorrent, allowing peer-to-peer distribution of your video files. See PeerTube for a relatively easy platform for your private video hosting.

Even putting Webtorrent aside, a simple server with a gigabit connection allows you to handle a hundred simultaneous viewers at once with a reasonable bitrate, all day long. If you're constantly getting more than that, you can surely afford a CDN or a proper infrastructure.

I do agree that the network effects of YouTube are very hard to compete with, however.

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

#383

Post by pertymcpert » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #308

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…

> As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same. Very few people even within this peer group have the capability of hosting videos on their own website unless the video is intended for a very small audience (say, less than 1000 viewers per day). If you want to reach any significant number of people, you absolutely need to go through one of the major video hosters or pay for a CDN. And th…

Then they don't need to use video, they can use written words.

There's no reason why they should be able to use the infrastructure of private companies to scale their message as much as they want.

Or they can just pay for a CDN as you say. This just highlights the differences between the West and China even more. In the west, harmful messages need to stand on their own two feet. If they don't have support, then they can be kicked off private platforms. No need for the government to intervene.

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

#384

Post by busymom0 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

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.

The case of the baker refusing to decorate cake for the gay couple comes to mind. He's in court for the third time. Same people who talk about "private company can do whatever they like" attack the baker.

Soon this will evolve into letting private companies being able to censor minority opinions. Don't forget, just few decades ago, LGBT rights opinions weren't mainstream and would therefore have been banned from private companies.

EDIT: Please explain the downvote.

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

#385

Post by golemiprague » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #12

mchusma wrote: post #5

I don't really care the content at all, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. In the US, I don't know an obvious issue besides legislative change to enforce this. However, once they consider themselves as "curators" of information with near-monopoly status, I hope they are litigated against successfully.

>, but I really wish these platforms took the "phone company" approach, in which they considered themselves neutral carriers of information. 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 . See "advertiser friendly content"[1] an…

Why not? Even today an advertiser can choose where and in which type of videos to put their advertising, they can keep doing it and just stop their ads appearing in content they don't like.

Also, if they do curate they need to have the same implications as any other publisher which they don't.

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

#386

Post by chrononaut » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #308

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…

> As long as you can host your video on your own website, that's not the same. Very few people even within this peer group have the capability of hosting videos on their own website unless the video is intended for a very small audience (say, less than 1000 viewers per day). If you want to reach any significant number of people, you absolutely need to go through one of the major video hosters or pay for a CDN. And th…

I have to a pay a lot of money to put some words up in Times Square, versus posting a paper sign on my local telephone poll. Is this different?

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

#387

Post by pertymcpert » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

revnode wrote: post #368

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…

> 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.

Why not? Should revnode-videos.net not be able to decide which videos it hosts, pays for in storage and bandwidth?

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

#388

Post by pacala » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

pornel wrote: post #336

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…

> The practical consequences are the same as well. Is YouTube sending people to "re-education camps" now? If a private platform kicks you out, you can host your stuff elsewhere. If a state censors you, it can use lethal force to silence you. Pretty big difference.

In the good old times of Soviet power, there were other oppression mechanisms besides lethal force. In fact lethal force was only rarely used, especially after Stalin. A couple of examples:

* Send dissenters to perform menial jobs in some remote small city with little impact on the national scale. Technically, the Gulag itself was an application of this strategy, with a particularly harsh destination and a particularly dangerous occupation.

* House arrest. Keep dissenters in their homes, and carefully control whom they get into contact.

The end effect is the same: drastically limit the platform available to dissenters, without outright murdering them.

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

#389

Post by Apaec » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

Gravyness wrote: post #31

This isn't the first time it happened nor will it be the last. Here in my country (Brazil) they invited an actual toxicologist, professor and ambassador of medical facility in São Paulo (since 2009) to speak live at CNN but when he mentioned that there's an over-exageration in terms of deadlyness and started putting actual data, studies and past examples in his speech, he was promptly and unapologetically interupted,…

Do you have a link for further reading?

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

#390

Post by pertymcpert » Thu, May 21, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

madengr wrote: post #363

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…

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.

Everyone uses public right of ways to communicate. There's nothing stopping someone from setting up their own site using the same public infrastructure.