Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

reuters.com

331–340 of 933 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#331
post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 speech alone. Why do people think this? A few selected anecdotes and some tiny numbers (1000 people liking a post talking about covid causing 5G? Tiny numbers)? What is the end-game that is so feared? If the people as a whole can't be trusted to make sensible decisi…

45% of US adults think vaccines are unsafe. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/aoa-4oa06241...

Wildly misleading statement, especially given the tiny sample size versus hundreds of millions of adults in the US.

From that same link (demonstrating Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of vaccines; which is obvious given the high vaccination rates in the US):

"While the vast majority (82%) chose in favor of vaccines, 8% selected responses expressing serious doubt. An additional 9% said they were unsure."

Also:

"In a survey of 1,025 randomly sampled adults, 84% of respondents said they believed that it is extremely or very important that parents vaccinate their children"

"Additionally, 86% believed vaccines are not more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, whereas 89% said they are aware of the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines."

https://www.healio.com/news/pediatrics/20200116/faith-in-vac...

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The incentives here are not aligned with the survival of our species It's a pretty far leap from that to saying something should not exist. But I'll bite. How are they not aligned, and why does it not merit existence?

Happy to engage you in another forum, which would probably be more productive. Ping me if you'd like to video chat. But it's a good question and I'll try to reply in a brief and somewhat hand-wavy way (due to the medium, space, etc) Everything I'm going to say has caveats. And I can't cover them all. Meh. If you believe that the species as a whole has never been this unstable before, then the real question is this: w…

> If you believe that the species as a whole has never been this unstable before

What does this actually mean? The world is a very big place, covered by lots of political, economic, and power systems.

The West - primarily, but not exclusively, the English-speaking parts - has seen a big change in the way politics is conducted, with less dignity and more verbal viciousness, but this hasn't really been matched by physical or "kinetic" politics. The sibling comment that there are fewer bombs going off is correct. Even Islamic fundamentalism has got less dangerous in the west - while the great middle eastern war started in 2001 rages on, expanding upwards to Nagoro-Karabakh.

If we want to talk stability, perhaps we should return to control systems theory. The feedback loops of the world have got shorter and faster. This moves the poles of the system around - and, without damping, makes it less stable.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#333
People have stopped recognizing evil just because it suits their current myopic political agendas. Talk about lacking the power of critical thought, the problem for democracies are not the fringe loonies that believe in whatever the idiotic theory of the week is, but the majority that trades freedoms for momentary comfort. The argument for censorship always goes "I'm not really for censorship, but now we really have to thought police people who disagree with me, who am smart and correct, or the world will end" and it is invalid, evil and stupid in any context.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#334

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…

> 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 speech alone. Why do people think this? A few selected anecdotes and some tiny numbers (1000 people liking a post talking about covid causing 5G? Tiny numbers)? What is the end-game that is so feared? If the people as a whole can't be trusted to make sensible decisi…

I agree with the overall message, but I think we need to discuss this in the context of current reality, not pure theory.

First, neither copy the chinese system or vote by sortition are currently realistic alternatives.

Second, it's not like free speech exists in purely theoretical space. Free speech in an empty room is not interesting. Free speech before the press is not like free speech after. Free speech now is not like it was in the 90s. Youtube and fb genuinely created a lot more freedom of speech in practice. They also monopolize it.

Lets not pretend that there aren't costs, regardless of what way this happens.

That said, a world where the public, advertisers and politicians lobby a beseech youtube to restrict speech is a nasty one. This is going to be ugly.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#335
Oh no, so most big media channels need to be closed down. This will be a slaughterfest :) I rarely find a news channel with accurate COVID-19 information. The UK Telegraph being one of the rare good cases.

* Most e.g. present the latest positve PCR test numbers per day as "confirmed new infections", whilst they are not "new" and not "infections". They are just "confirmed positives".

They are not "new", because the statistics don't give away if they are old or new, they don't store old PCR or antibody tests results.

And they are certainly not "infections" just "positives", as old infections and therefore immune people will test positive with PCR. Given the 7 months timeframe and the immense high dark figure of asymptotic cases, and the upcoming cold season with many people getting suddenly symptomatic (getting the common cold) and therefore getting tested finally, the real infection rate could be 20% less than the reported one. Those people did not get tested before, will be tested now, will be positive but not infected.

* Previously they reported for months the mortality rate as CFR, not IFR. The CFR is only relevant for healthcare providers ("how many people die in hospitals"), but not for policies ("how many people die after being infected"). The CFR just looked much better being 10-30x higher (citing Ionnadis latest stats here), so policies looked much better. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13423

* They continue to mixup HCQ prevention with treatment, for pure political gain.

And many more such lies and inaccuracies, mostly by intent, not by mistake.

But not even news and politics are guilty, even scientific research: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847v1....

Getting rid of all the misinformation would be a godsend, but we certainly don't need even more censorship, as already done under the conspiracy label.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#336
And who is to decide what is information and what is misinformation? Google? US government? Sergej? Google Shareholders? Youtube users by voting? Pope? Churches? Some poor employee tasked of tagging content? AI algorithm? A man pretending to be an AI?

As much as I hate misinformation, I hate censorship even more because it's easy to misuse. None should have a power to decide on one and only ultimate source of truth.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to engage you in another forum, which would probably be more productive. Ping me if you'd like to video chat. But it's a good question and I'll try to reply in a brief and somewhat hand-wavy way (due to the medium, space, etc) Everything I'm going to say has caveats. And I can't cover them all. Meh. If you believe that the species as a whole has never been this unstable before, then the real question is this: w…

Your thesis is based on the notion that “society is unstable” more than ever before. How are you measuring that? Despite tons of noise in social media, real life up has been incredibly stable for the last couple of decades in the west. The least amount of violence, lowest extreme poverty, highest disposable income, etc etc. In the 70s (before social media), there were multiple bombings every year in the US. That is c…

the US life expectancy is falling largely due to suicide, drug overdoses, and obesity.

the richest city on earth has a sizable, entrenched homeless population that openly do drugs on the street. Are we not in the midst of the opioid epidemic? Can what happens in Chicago be characterized as a war?

There is deep dysfunction and societal numbness to not see these realities; despite the riches accrued and the definitive technological advance, these problems are apparently unable to be solved.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#338
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate it as well, and if I could come up with some new way of advancing our species aside from free speech I would. I cannot and cannot see how such a thing would ever be possible. Here's a bit of sunshine: the human species has not changed in thousands of years. We're still the same hairless monkeys we were back when people were thinking up all kinds of cool shit. Knowing this, it follows that 10% or so of the popu…

> we've solved over and over again the problem of what it takes to have a peaceful and progressive society ... have we? Much of the 20th century was spent at war, with a death total somewhere in the region of a hundred million. As were most of the previous centuries. There have been isolated pockets where one might have a lifetime of stability over a wide area, but few of those were also "free". > The problem we have…

Actually, if we could snap our fingers and wish social media out of existence tomorrow nothing really bad would happen, besides some influencers becoming poorer.

The opposite of social media today (election manipulation, divided societies, ethnic cleansing) is the state of affairs before social media, which wasn't bad at all. I'm struggling to think of large-scale benefits social media has brought us, because the individual ones like talking more to grandma and getting more dates are clear enough. But come on, people should just pick up that phone and go out more.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#339

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…

Along with what I suspect is a large number of HN people, I also feel the same way. The high ideal is for people to say what they want, and we'll all think and decide what we think the facts are, and what decisions should be made.

Now, it seems to not work. It is patently the case that a lot of people simply cannot think.

One issue is that there's too much noise, as you mention. Money comes into it as well.

But underlying that is a lack of education. Western European constitutions tended to be written just about during the early industrial age, with updates up to about the mid 20th century.

That world is gone, but it left a lot of baggage for the world we live in today. In the old world, you had one chance to be educated, and it tended to be for a short period. Let's not forget that this was also a highly polarized world, where kids needed to be told which side of the great struggle between ideologies they were meant to support. So it's not as if we had a world of free thinking before the current abyss was reached. But importantly this world, especially in the West, also pretended that everyone was free to speak as they liked. We did educate a few people in how to think critically, but most people just got told what to think. If you ever heard your gran spewing out some pnemonic like ROYGBIV or the times tables, you know what I mean. As soon as you ask a question that is slightly inquisitive, there's no answer.

We had authorities back then too, and the system kept them on a pedestal, to make it easy for everyone to think as they were supposed to. The authorities got all the air/paper time, but also they made sure that the Overton window was kept a certain size.

Now there is so much airtime that everyone can have a say, and it turns out a large number of people simply can't think for themselves, because school is still pretty parochial. "Learn your times tables, here's your new opinion about helping the planet". (I don't hate the planet, and I agree with some of the things they tell the kids, but the way I see schools talk about it... it isn't thinking, it's indoctrination.) For an example, when I'm on FB looking at the US system, some older person will inevitably say "You kids don't know anything, we have a Republic not a Democracy, each state gets 2 senators". Which completely misses the point of discussing whether that's a good idea.

School never taught people how to think critically. The closest we came to it (I did the IB Diploma) was a bit of math and science, and only the fortunate ones figured out that it's not about learning a bunch of facts, it's about how humanity came to learn those facts, and how we could potentially learn more. Nobody examines you on "how would you find this out" because it's hard to fit into the industrial school system. I'm good friends with a statistician, and he says even phd folks have problems in this area.

What I see online is this world where a lot of people are simply trying their way at thinking critically. A lot of stuff reminds me of high schoolers at debate club. There's this void into which you put conspiracy theories, and people try their way at arguing one way or the other. Only thing is, they are adults with the right to vote, and with little guidance. In a way it's funny, like that flat earth documentary where the people actually buy a gyroscope and actually try to measure the flatness of a canal.

So what should we do? There's no satisfying answer. Democracy was thought up by some men-of-letters who didn't think most people should have a say. I'm not an expert but it sounds they only thought smart people should have a say. It would be sad if the only way to move forward is to beat it into people what they are supposed to think, or who the authorities are, because ultimately we want reason to be the authority, not specific people.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#340
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why do you want to curb the infection rate? What’s the end goal? I’m strongly on the Swedish/Trump side here. We know that the virus is practically harmless for youth and young adults. If immunity persists, we should let them get infected ASAP while protecting the old/vulnerable. If immunity fades, then waiting for the vaccine is pointless anyways. As a young person, I won’t be taking the vaccine anytime soon anyways…

How do we know it's harmless for youth and young adults? You know what you've seen. Again, this is a novel virus. It's new. It could be setting up shop in your brain, heart, kidney, liver, semen -- wherever.

It could be invisibly weakening your lungs just enough that a flu can come through and kill you.

I would suggest a deep dive on mercury poisoning, radiation poisoning, lead poisoning, asbestos, and whatever other reminders you may find throughout history that assuming you know what nature is up to without the benefit of lengthy scientific review never turns out well for the cocksure.

Post reply on HN