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

551–560 of 596 posts

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

#551

Post by _v7gu »

darkwater wrote: post #304
lopmotr wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That a huge part of the population choose unwisely and footgun themselves and the rest it's quite obvious. But the real, longterm solution is education, not censorship. But we have to admit that we are in an ultra-connected world like never before and fake, easy news are even more easily spread. So, critical thinking is a necessary skill to be taught.

Maybe they shouldn't have been forced to choose between Hillary/Biden or Trump if you wanted them to choose "wisely". The responsibility for losing to Trump falls solely on the Democratic Party, and the talk of footguns and education comes off as extremely snobbish. Stop blaming others for your failures.

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

#552

Post by naasking »

michaelmrose wrote: post #352
naasking wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where YouTube doesn't benefit from the "censorship" Of course they do. You think they're spending all that money out of the kindness of their hearts? Way to dodge actually engaging with the principles at play here. You can certainly assert your consequentialist/utilitarian arguments, but not everyone agrees with that ethical framework.

What ethical framework yields non insane results that isn't consequentialist/utilitarian?

Consequentialism also yields insane results. Look up "the repugnant conclusion". If ethics were settled, it would no longer be a philosophy but a science.

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

#553

Post by naasking »

minhazm wrote: post #312
naasking wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It sure can be given other means of combatting misinformation. But sure, let's just go with the sledgehammer every time.

What are the other means?

Active information campaigns. Deprioritizing in search/related results rather than banning. Partitioning verified from unverified information and always showing a minimum number of factual content when showing unverified content.

That's just off the top of my head. There are dozens of possible strategies, but companies will always do the cheap and easy thing that will stop the bad PR quickest, even if it hurts some people. We should demand better.

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

#554

Post by wrsh07 »

coldtea wrote: post #441
wrsh07 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bad idea. Also, you seemed to miss my points about why advertisers pull ads. It's actually a good thing if advertisers don't sponsor something because their customers don't like that thing. Those customers are voting with their money, and those customers -- the democratic electorate -- those are the people we want making censorship decisions This bizarre notion that more regulation (advertisers can't c…

> It's actually a good thing if advertisers don't sponsor something because their customers don't like that thing. Those customers are voting with their money, and those customers -- the democratic electorate -- those are the people we want making censorship decisions For one, I don't want anybody "making censorship decisions". We're not that far from the time the majority would like pro-integration/black, gay friend…

Advertisers will always have power, and platforms will always decide to publish different types of content.

If an advertiser today wants to advertise with pornhub, that is a different editorial decision than choosing to advertise on YouTube

I shouldn't have to spell this out because it seems pretty obvious.

One can imagine a world where YouTube complies with your regulation by providing YouTube, YouTube for kids, and maybe a couple political niches that capture their most popular creators

Now advertisers are effectively still making the same decisions that they were, YouTube is still the preferred advertising backend, and nothing changed except that you made it harder for smaller sites like Vimeo to attract advertisers

Your regulation idea is reckless because you haven't thought it through

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

#555

Post by RandomTisk »

ifjdndixi wrote: post #543
RandomTisk wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My bad, here's a better link. It's hard to find a "mainstream" source because most of the old media is ignoring a lot of newsworthy items these days. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/13/rand-paul-blasts-y... It's widely known that Google/Youtube took down any videos where the name of the supposed whistleblower were being mentioned, at least according to a lot of regular content creators who had videos deleted o…

Breitbart Fuck you asshole.

Killing the messenger doesn't change the message.

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

#556

Post by jobsmusk »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #550
pacala wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? There is only the simple observation that there is a spectrum: free speech -> deplatforming [ban from youtube & co] -> deinfrastructuring [ban from paypal / aws & co] -> depersoning [physical exile to periphery] -> lethal force. I seem to remember a time of nuanced conversations. But perhaps online discourse was always an adversarial contest between two strident extremes. Enjoy.

No, you are just playing word games. "Free speech" does not and has never meant "the right to get any letter to the editor published in the New York Times" and therefore does not mean "the right to get any video I want on YouTube." So it is not a "simple observation" that deinfrastructring -> depersoning is a spectrum. There is no such spectrum. There is an enormous gap between "society thinks you're icky and big cor…

[flagged]

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

#557

Post by [deleted] »

root_axis wrote: post #229
Vysero wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#558

Post by DiffEq »

takeda wrote: post #177
DiffEq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like we don't need to worry about that...government does all on its own... https://nypost.com/2020/04/28/more-blood-on-gov-cuomos-hands...

So this is your source? An opinion piece in a right leaning columnist in a biased NY Post, where author couldn't even help himself but include other unrelated tidbits, like how is Joe Biden and Tara Reade related to corona virus? There's nothing there to verify that even the characters in the story are real not to mention the story.

This is just the first article I found at of many from many sources - I heard about it on MSNBC or somewhere like that when a reporter was asking him about it. This happened - it is a fact; the same thing occurred in Britain resulting in the same high death toll of elderly people. But bury your head - fine with me.

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

#559

Post by DiffEq »

chess_buster wrote: post #342
DiffEq wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is not how the timeline went. As to who created the panic - it was Neil, Fauci and their ilk along with the media. The media, instead of reporting that the data shows old and sick people are the ones dying chose to hide that relevant fact and just report the death toll ad nauseam with no context - as a matter of fact they are still doing it.

Yeah. Lets just throw all the elderly and weak and people with pre-existing conditions under the bus and be done with it. Compassion is overrated.

Nobody is advocating to throw them under the bus. But the fact is since the virus is essentially unstoppable in its transmission rate everyone will be exposed to it...and what will be of those people will be of them. Their best hope is hospital care if they need it; our hospitals are not overwhelmed and neither are Sweden's...so these quarantine measures are an unnecessary burden.

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

#560

Post by opnitro »

jexah wrote: post #539
iso947 wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about why the only sources you can find are those which Wikipedia says “The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.”

Remembering that Wikipedia is also heavily biased.

Yes, however Brietbart used to have a section called "Black Crime"
Post reply on HN