Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 933 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#251

Post by throwaway1582 »

owlbynight wrote: post #174

I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…

If democracy requires free speech to be sacrificed, why do you think keeping democracy is a worthwhile endeavor? Perhaps you should be questioning the validity of universal suffrage.

If your mode of government can't withstand fake twitter bots, you should probably just toss it and start over with something else.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#252

Post by jonathanstrange »

owlbynight wrote: post #174

I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…

I understand the position but let me argue for the other side a little bit. The problem with companies like Youtube, Google, Amazon, and Facebook is that they do everything algorithmically, since anything else wouldn't scale. Meanwhile, they have no incentives to care about false positives and the power relation between them and their customers is extremely asymmetric - basically, it's a system of oppression. To the false positive victims of algorithmic censorship, this can become a Dystopian nightmare of bureaucracy. Like in the movie "Brazil" or a Kafka story, only much worse because everything is automated and biased against them.

You can see that with Youtube content policing, Facebook and Google ads accounts, etc. Anyone whose livelihood depends on their services can lose their income at any time for no reason whatsoever. Even spreading the risk will not help much, it still means you might loose 30% or 40% of your income over night at any time thanks to a change of the algorithms. None of this is transparent and the companies will not explain anything, so you will not even know why or how to avoid this. You might claim it's anyone's own fault to depend on such companies, but there are many types of businesses where the dependence is unavoidable. These companies have quasi-monopolies in some areas.

AFAIK, the only remedy is to regulate algorithmic control of people and their content by laws more tightly. At least the appeals process needs to be more transparent and there need to be way more humans in the loop.

In this case it's the same, by the way. I guarantee you that many videos will be flagged falsely and many reputable Youtube content creators will be demonetized once again for nothing. This might be tolerable here and there, but the algorithmic oppression of people accumulates across all domains and also has a strong chilling effect.

In the long run, algorithmic oppression of people by a faceless company bureaucracy may turn out to be a bigger problem for society than what these moderation efforts are trying to solve. It creates strong and effective power structures that govern our lives, work in parallel to democratic power structures, and are not democratically legitimized at all. What's worse, the people who create them sometimes don't even seem to understand what they are creating, which is basically a recipe for creating systemic evil.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#253

Post by owlbynight »

tomp wrote: post #239
owlbynight wrote: post #174

I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…

What are you talking about?! Don’t blame social media, the biggest and loudest source of COVID-related misinformation have been institutions like the WHO. There is very little science (we don’t yet have enough data, and not enough time has passed), so all we have to go on is “broscience” (smartly connecting anecdotal facts and whatever little data we have, and drawing sensible conclusions). By designating one opinion…

COVID-19 is a novel virus. All information is misinformation until it isn't. I could say that the reason that some people are asymptomatic is that the virus is lying dormant in them like herpes. Can anyone credibly refute that?

Logic would dictate that a novel virus -- novel in that we don't know everything about it -- is a threat to the survival of our species as a whole until disproven otherwise and that we should collectively do everything that we can to minimize its spread.

What I know to be true is that to curb the infection rate, we should stop spitting in each other's mouths. Yes, there is science at the base of that assertion, but mostly it's just common fucking sense.

If you can tell me how basic common sense is being subverted on a massive scale without the use of a platform of social manipulation, I'm willing to hear you out.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#254

Post by hef19898 »

tomp wrote: post #239
owlbynight wrote: post #174

I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…

What are you talking about?! Don’t blame social media, the biggest and loudest source of COVID-related misinformation have been institutions like the WHO. There is very little science (we don’t yet have enough data, and not enough time has passed), so all we have to go on is “broscience” (smartly connecting anecdotal facts and whatever little data we have, and drawing sensible conclusions). By designating one opinion…

The WHO, and all other western CDC-like orgs, made one mistake regarding masks early on during the pandemic. One. A mistake they corrected since. And because of that, you and other see them as totally discredited.

On the other hand, the "alternative" sources suggest bleach, un-proofed and not working medication, global conspiracies involving chips and 5G and what not.

Seriously, get a grip.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#255

Post by garbagetime »

refurb wrote: post #113
garbagetime wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science doesn't work by consensus, anyway.

Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not. Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's…

>Yes it does in some cases. Take Alzheimer's disease for example. What is the mechanism for the disease? We don't know. But the consensus is it's not amyloid plaques, based on the most recent data. Some scientists think it still is, but the consensus is it's not.

The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus.

>Scientific truth is not black and white but rather shades of gray. Yes, some things we know the absolute truth (or rather there is so much evidence that it's unlikely it's wrong), but there is plenty that we're just "pretty sure" and that's typically based on consensus.

On the one hand you speak of scientific truth, on the other hand you speak of what we say we know. It's important to consider these things separately. While what we say we know is often based on what we perceive as a consensus view, scientific truth is not. Yes, a person might be pretty sure that the speed of light is three hundred million meters per second because that is what he perceives to be the consensus among physicists. But the "scientific truth", to whatever extent it is an actual thing, is determined by other factors.

Of course, consensus plays a part in the scientific process. When doing research scientists take into consideration scientific consensus. But when it comes to the strength of a scientific theory, consensus is irrelevant. That is determined by things like how much empirical evidence is there that the theory is correct? Are there simpler explanations? etc.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#256

Post by lemming »

gitrog wrote: post #238
crististm wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that youtube is not an absolute authority and truth reference. So when they decide what is misinformation they position themselves above public scrutiny. It's not that the masses are dumb or smart. The few deciders from Youtube are not truth dispensers that we should all trust above all else.

> So when they decide what is misinformation they position themselves above public scrutiny. But aren't Youtube doing this specifically because of pressure from government?

In the US? I doubt it. The US is currently pushing COVID-19 misinformation from the very top.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#257

Post by CyanBird »

rightbyte wrote: post #219
belorn wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is a nice touch of doublethink for Youtube to be able to ban different mutually exclusive "misinformation" depending on region.

I mean that assumes they care, they don't really, they are merely minimizing brand risks and therefore maximizing profits

They will say wherever they have to say to maximize profits and reduce losses

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#258

Post by hef19898 »

gitrog wrote: post #238
crististm wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that youtube is not an absolute authority and truth reference. So when they decide what is misinformation they position themselves above public scrutiny. It's not that the masses are dumb or smart. The few deciders from Youtube are not truth dispensers that we should all trust above all else.

> So when they decide what is misinformation they position themselves above public scrutiny. But aren't Youtube doing this specifically because of pressure from government?

Which one? The current US admin? The EU, and if so which country? China? The UN? Just asking, you know.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#259

Post by theaeolist »

throwaway1582 wrote: post #251
owlbynight wrote: post #174

I'll preface this by stating that I hate the idea of censorship and I always have. However, were I to happen across someone motionless on the floor with a needle in their arm, I would give them NARCAN instead of a ride to a rehab center. I'm from the United States. Social media is currently poisoning our country to a degree that I think it may be too late to try and draw out the fight for free speech by using free sp…

If democracy requires free speech to be sacrificed, why do you think keeping democracy is a worthwhile endeavor? Perhaps you should be questioning the validity of universal suffrage. If your mode of government can't withstand fake twitter bots, you should probably just toss it and start over with something else.

Fake Twitter bots are also a form of censorship. Censorship does not work just by imposing silence, but also by overwhelming with noise. Free speech is valuable because it leads to a contest of ideas. If it degenerates into a contest of who has the resources to scream louder the battle for free speech has been lost already.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#260

Post by brigandish »

zaarn wrote: post #203
brigandish wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube already had plenty of free speech where everyone can say anything unhindered and is rewarded if they generate attention. Hard to separate that out from the algorithms that promote videos. Would it be as bad, in your eyes, if discovery was "flattened", so to speak? i.e. no recommends, no shaping of the feed, no shadowbans or hidden videos

No because bullshit is easier to make than truth. There is dozens of bot channels that have nothing better to do at the moment but post videos that look like news channel broadcasts with a semi-convincing TTS reads various news regarding conspiracy theories (ie, "Bill Gates about to be arrested over 5G-Corona"). They post videos at almost hourly pace, distributed over several channels and each video has a unique imag…

> bullshit is easier to make than truth

Of course, but truth wins out over the long run.

> If normal well researched content had to compete with that, it would loose by being buried under the sheer mass of bot generated bullshit.

How do you stay above it all? It's not censored now but you seem able to detect it and protect yourself.

> A lot of conspiracy theorists aren't above threatening violence

That is censorship, I'm not sure how that supports an argument for more free speech? We have laws against assault already.

> and law suits (usually libel) against those exposing them or simply posting the truth

How could they win? Defamation laws, at least in the US, value truth above other considerations.

> it's one side being violent

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with a free speech argument?

> and disrespectful to the other

I'm also not sure why this is relevant - it's not nice but so what?

> Sometimes violence comes from both sides of the debate too (ie, US politics) but that doesn't make the amount of disrespect by people purposefully lying or spreading lies any better.

Violence and disrespect really are completely different ball games, I don't see how conflating them clarifies things.

> Free speech, as I see it, means that you can express your opinion freely without repercussions unless it's advocating for violence against people or groups of people.

I agree, that's a very good starting point.

> If you're talking about facts, those should not fall under free speech under the simple premise that facts are either provable or you should say that you have no proof or you should expose them as the opinions they are.

If you could find someone who can judge such things infallibly then perhaps I would agree.

Post reply on HN