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

591–600 of 933 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#591

Post by marbletiles »

leetcrew wrote: post #588
marbletiles wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to preserve free speech (really "free promotion" or "free publishing" in this case, as there are other avenues for these videos) is exactly what you say — consequences. Newspapers have free speech, but are subject to libel laws, for instance. There's no real mechanism to hold YouTube to account for promoting and spreading this stuff, and they are naturally incentivised for that mechanism never to come about.…

youtubers are also subject to libel (or slander?) laws. the ones with a large audience also make enough money to be worth pursuing in court. newspapers are no more liable than youtubers for merely being incorrect.

well consider the laws mandating equality of coverage in broadcasting in some jurisdictions if you like — those apply directly to the publishers, not the content creators.

The core point is the same: the platforms want to avoid enforced regulation, so they're self-regulating in ways that free-speech proponents don't like

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#593

Post by tonyarkles »

sp332 wrote: post #510
gitrog wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just mean that they should have their work peer reviewed first.

How are they going to get the research done if they can't present the hypothesis and supporting observations? How will they get the results peer reviewed if they can't present them because they're not peer-reviewed yet?

Generally speaking by attempting to publish the result in a journal or conference proceedings. There’s a process in place where your unreleased manuscript is sent to other researchers in your field for review. After making corrections based on their feedback, you can be approved for publication, at which point the general public gets a chance to evaluate it.

Having done it, I don’t necessarily love the process and would love for the process to be more open and accessible, but it generally works ok.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#594

Post by read_if_gay_ »

51Cards wrote: post #565
johnminter wrote: post #523

One nice feature on many social media platforms is that one can unfollow or block people who seem to generate more heat than light in their posts. I am willing to read and interact with someone with whom I disagree as long as the discussion remains civil and productive. Trolls have been around from the early days of the internet. I remember one student from Dartmouth that posted on many of the science newsgroups unde…

But you're counting on your intelligence to act as a filter. It has become very clear in the last many years that a non-insignificant percentage of the populace doesn't possess the knowledge or level of rational thought to properly evaluate what they are being fed en-mass. It's increasingly easy to exploit some people's herd mentality and lack of education to rise movements that can have significant impact. I often t…

> It's increasingly easy to exploit some people's herd mentality and lack of education to rise movements that can have significant impact.

Everybody always says this about everyone else.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#595

Post by blhack »

There was a period of time when mask wearing was considered misinformation: https://youtu.be/RxbDhECanU8

There was a time when vitamin D correlation was also considered misinformation.

Maybe we shouldnt be looking to a group at YouTube to tell us what is true and what isn’t.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#596

Post by hartator »

leetcrew wrote: post #502
Aeolun wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. The almost free speech on the other side of the ocean seems to be working pretty well. You get to say anything that isn’t actively harmful to others, but you won’t be able to advertise bleach as a way to get Corona out of your system.

> you won’t be able to advertise bleach as a way to get Corona out of your system. you can't do this in the US either if you're actually selling bleach. are you saying in europe ordinary people aren't allowed to publicly speculate about cures for the virus?

Specially that no one died from it. The story that got famous of the couple who did it was actually a murder. The wife never took the bleach, knew it was going to kill her husband, and hated Trump. She confessed to the police and now he is prison. But of course the media stopped talking about that story as soon as she confessed. Leaving people believing that a couple did try bleach to cure covid.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#597

Post by infamy_gyms_stu »

j8hn wrote: post #210
nso95 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They lied because they didn't want medical professionals to run out of masks

For a while I assumed they lied as well. Now, looking back I'm not so sure. There really wasn't much scientific evidence of masks being effective for respiratory diseases.

Dr Fauci has said their initial stance on masks was to ensure that masks were available for health care workers[0]. He did not say their stance changed due to new evidence.

[0] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/06/17/fauci...

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#598

Post by TeaDrunk »

desipis wrote: post #512
TeMPOraL wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it follows that 10% or so of the population are, well, nuts. Another 10% are so are willing to do anything to become famous. It has always been this way. Not sure that's true, though. Here's a cloud to cover your sunshine: what if the very concept that beliefs have to correspond to observable reality is a relatively new one, or a relatively unpopular one (with a 10% of the population subscribing to it)? What if it'…

This is my line of thinking. Which is why I see professions that deal with the real world (engineers, doctors, lawyers to some extent) remaining more grounded in their thinking when compared to those that focus on people's opinions (politicians, media, academics, professional moralisers). The former are regularly conditioned to think in terms of unavoidable realities, while the later are repeatedly conditioned to dri…

I don’t actually know if this is true. Do you have studies to back this claim up? I don’t trust that the medical system is more grounded in their thinking- the Public Health Service purposefully withheld medical treatment for syphilis for hundreds of black men for over 40 years. They willfully decided to target black men with this disease and then refused to treat them when a cure became available, going so far as to prevent the military from informing or treating these men during war time. Even at the time the experiment began, the ethical guidelines recommended syphilis be treated with what they had at the time, and the doctors knowing ignored this ethical recommendation, and continued on passing through the hands of multiple doctors working on preventing healthcare from being issued to black men for over 40 years. The medical community promoted people participating in this act and it was only after repeated whistleblower attempts was the extent of this horrific behavior uncovered. Indeed it was only when the media started to cover it that the full extent of the inhumane, unjustifiable behavior at the hands of doctors came to light.

To this day we know that the medical field is systematically unable to accurately treat black and female patients equivalently to white and male patients. (Unable for example to realize heart attacks in female patients represent differently for decades).

I don’t buy without formal study that the average deviation from basic opinions of reality deviate more in certain fields of study than others. Claiming it without any evidence is itself a form of deviating from observed reality.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#599

Post by DanBC »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #407
DanBC wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to the studies that you think existed in March / April 2020 that showed that masks worked?

Here you go. This guy had some trouble just after posting it btw. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...

I don't think this says what you think it says.

> The meta-analysis itself avoided drawing any conclusions at all, and would not even admit that N95 respirators worked.

I mean, either you believe the science or you don't. You don't get to complain that it didn't support your preconception.

> According to intention-to-treat, the studies unanimously found masks to be useless. But there were a lot of signs that intention-to-treat wasn’t the right choice here.

Not a great sign.

> In other words, respirators are better than masks are better than nothing. It would be wrong to genuinely conclude this, because it’s not statistically significant. But it would also be wrong to conclude the studies show masks don’t work, because they mostly show respirators don’t work, and we (hopefully) know they do.

He's a fucking idiot.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#600

Post by tossAfterUsing »

TeaDrunk wrote: post #574
LocalH wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with “hate speech” is that increasingly more things are being added to that umbrella. It’s kind of similar to the way that “think of the children” is often abused to cover all sorts of things.

Could you indicate some cases where the precedence of hate speech law has been expanded? Thank you!

Canada has some good examples of this.
Post reply on HN