161–170 of 933 posts
Youtube, the company that can't even be trusted to keep the scariest shit possible off Youtube Kids repeatedly to the point where I won't even let my kids watch it anymore, being in charge of filtering and categorizing videos? Nope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
But do you censor the people saying there is a better decision? And do you then censor the people that advocated for the former "better decision" at the time when it was 'current'.
That's not untested science like masks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But remember back in March? Our glorious leaders were urging us not to buy masks because they don’t work, and besides, doctors need them. I think this is a bit disingenuous. First of all, you're looking back with the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of the virus that we have today. Additionally, weren't most of the recommendations around mask wearing that people not gobble up PPE because there was such a shor…
No, it's not disingenuous. The surgeon general said in March that masks were not effective for the general public against Covid-19. The CDC said on March 13, 2020 that there is really no evidence that wearing a mask will reduce your risk for any respiratory infection. https://twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1238487810874789889
Of course they say there’s no evidence that a mask will protect YOU. Masks aren’t supposed to protect YOU. They prevent YOU transmitting the virus to OTHERS. So of course it doesn’t reduce YOUR risk of respiratory infection. That conclusion has not changed.
The guidance was pretty clear: they didn’t want people wearing masks because there was a PPE shortage. Now there isn’t a shortage, so they want people wearing masks.
Yay, this is great, and should be used for everything! /s If we used this for medical advice in my country, this would make it very funny... at the start of the epidemic, our government "experts" said: - "healthy people don't need masks" ...and youtube would censor all the "fearmongering paranoics" advocating for mask use. Then on some random spring day, our government makes a new rule: - "you need a mask and gloves…
And youtube would censor everybody saying that masks don't help healthy people. There's a mile-wide chasm between posting an opinion that differs from the official government line and posting something that's deliberate misinformation designed to harm people. YouTube are only removing the latter. The article actually quotes a YouTube spokesman saying as much " A YouTube spokesman told Reuters that general discussions…
This is true, but almost no content would fall under your definition of "deliberate misinformation designed to harm people". That phrasing might be said to be the standard, but it wouldn't be applied that way.
Also, the quote from the YouTube spokesperson pretty explicitly says that if something is wrong with the vaccine YouTube will not allow you to say that. That would be something specific, rather than broad. I doubt that they would actually silence someone that points a specific flaw in the vaccine, but that's what their spokesperson said (read: their words are unreliable).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dr Fauci publicly claimed masks were not effective as a means of protecting the supply of masks to healthcare workers, he knew his claims were false at the time he made them. So no, it wasn't "science", it was deliberately misleading public statements.
From the Swedish public health agency: "We do not currently recommend face masks in public settings since the scientific evidence around the effectiveness of face masks in combatting the spread of infection is unclear. However, there may be situations where face masks can be useful despite the uncertain state of knowledge about the effects. Face masks must always be seen as complementary to other recommendations: sta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
You're right. My issue is that why did US health officials say masks were not effective against respiratory infections, when health officials from Asian countries had deemed them effective. Why didn't we have the science? Respiratory infections aren't new. I remember debating people early in the outbreak about the use of masks and they were pointing out that there was little scientific evidence on the use of masks, e…
Because Asian countries were basing their advice on science and the US was basing the advice on what would poll well with Republican voters who believe individual freedom is more important than community welfare. The US absolutely did have access to all the science, and chose to (temporarily) ignore it in order to try to gain votes the presidential election.
If Asian countries had been going in to an election and courting votes from a strongly conservative base their advice would have been different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If these platforms don't do anything then everyone talks about how misinformation is rampant on these platforms, how dangerous it is and that nothings being done about it. If they do, then everyone's worried about censorship or blamed to be politically motivated. There could be simple legislation that defines what is and what isn't to be censored, then these platforms can adhere…
Misinformation coming from some random youtubers is not dangerous as nobody really cares what they say. The problem starts when you have a Yale educated doctor telling publicly that eggs (or butter, or fat) are unhealthy and then you have Harvard educated doctor who tells you the opposite. Same with wearing masks. We heard from the official sources (WHO, governments) that wearing mask by healthy people does not help,…
This is an actual thing that we can see happen in real time. It very, very obviously causes damage - and claiming it’s just “some random youtubers” is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent that.
If you disagree that this approach is wise, or effective, or morally correct, thats a totally fine argument to make. You don’t need to also lie about the impact in order to make it.
This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
Agree on this one - authoritative bodies can be wrong / misled as well, and shouldn't be the only arbiters of truth. Ex: The WHO made many mistakes during COVID, including faulty recommendations and (alleged) influence by a governing body to limit bad press. [1] (Before the ad hominem attacks come in, I'm obviously very pro vaccine...but against censorship and generally distrust authoritative bodies of most kinds.) […
Not recommending travel/border restrictions was a cached thought from a 1990s plague outbreak in India.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this how science works, you have new information and you use it to make a better decision.
This is how the politics of science can works. Masks may run out is the fear. Do not be honest and tell everyone they don't work. Masks are restocked, force everyone to wear a mask.
This is the slippery slope of censorship on display for everyone to see. What panel of certified physicians is YouTube using to identify what information is correct vs. incorrect? I'm pretty sure they don't have any doctors doing this. The ban is a political act and not a scientific one.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If these platforms don't do anything then everyone talks about how misinformation is rampant on these platforms, how dangerous it is and that nothings being done about it. If they do, then everyone's worried about censorship or blamed to be politically motivated. There could be simple legislation that defines what is and what isn't to be censored, then these platforms can adhere…
A lot of countries used to have censors around a few decades ago. Usually they regulated radio, TV broadcast, and cinema, and the popularity of such government regulation were at times pretty high, especially among parents and conservatives. In my nation it stopped dangerous information that taught children to kill other children, and also information that could harm national interests.
They were however removed on the principles of free speech concepts (not the US constitution specific version). It also happened that the amount of children that killed other children did not actually rise, so there were clearly a lack of any scientific method to determining how dangerous a piece of information really was.