YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#821

Post by BariumBlue » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #755

BariumBlue wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perpetrators of lies will even hide behind this, and create a false image of rebellious heroism, instead of facing public discourse and the consequences thereof. Unfortunately, I think it's a bit of a classical liberal ideal that "the truth will come through and those who were wrong will see the error of their ways". To some, the truth is a tool. If it's not a useful tool, it will be discarded. Probably a more usef…

I think it's naive to say that laissez faire speech is going to solve all issues The arguments for free speech are fundamentally the same arguments for democracy itself. If people can't decide the value of information, why again are we trusting in the decision-making value of each and every voter? If we filter speech, maybe we should just cut to the chase and filter out voters by testing of some sort?

Do you think we should filter out astroturfers and Russian bots? What about human written Russian propaganda crafted to harm our society? What about a US citizen who crafts propaganda to spread intentional misinformation and harm society but benefit themselves?

We don't let non-citizens vote. We don't allow free political speech nor the right to assembly at polling places. We have independent election observers. We have to ensure that the voting process is not polluted by actors who would wish to harm it.

Similarly, there are actors who want to harm the free and good faith discourse of our public forums, and acting to preserve those open forums is moral, though it will always be fuzzy.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#822

Post by nomdep » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:16 PM UTC

nomdep wrote: post #465

nl wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China and WHO confirmed human to human transmission on Jan 20, before any doctors died and before China closed Wuhan province. Anyone who says or implies otherwise are lying or misinformed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/20/coronavirus-sp...

And they were denying it a week earlier: https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152

I forgot that anything directly or indirectly critical to China is quickly downvoted here.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#823

Post by nradov » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:18 PM UTC

dnadler wrote: post #814

nradov wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't work. My kids are literally being assigned to watch specific YouTube videos on their Chromebooks and then answer questions as part of the ridiculous "distance learning" nonsense that the school district came up with. I can't review and approve each video. And downloaded videos won't be available on Chromebooks.

If you are up for it, you could host the videos on a computer on your network and serve them with Plex. Plex has a decent web-app for viewing your catalog. Chromebooks should have no problem with that setup provided they can get on the same network as the server.

No the links from school assignments would be broken.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#824

Post by minerjoe » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:22 PM UTC

greggman3 wrote: post #763

nineplay wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to watch a political video. I have crap popping up all the time, "Watch this professor get destroyed by !" I know youtube is a shithole and yet it still surprises me. My son's favorite kid's show is only on YouTube so I created a new account, subscribed just to their channel and still inappropriate content shows up. How hard is this? I also can't block it for my daughter because she has school ass…

There's a button, "not interested". Click it. My youtube is mostly pretty nice. I get recommendations for cooking videos because I subscribe to and watch a couple of channels. I get recommendations for GDC videos, various programming videos. I mark videos as not interest often. And if there is something It think might give it the wrong idea I often right click and view in an incognito window. Have had very few issues…

I think you're maybe missing the point, just a bit.

The problem isn't that tech savy people can protect themselves, it's that most people can't and won't.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#825

Post by jakeogh » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

Typical BS title. The modern "news" really cant help themselves. Youtube banned information that their censors disagree with. That's it. The rest is just labels that belie the fundamental truth: the MSM is a perception management platform, they see themselves not as providers but as deciders. Their consumers are really subjects, and they at every opportunity treat them as stupid.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#826

Post by scollet » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:38 PM UTC

minerjoe wrote: post #824

greggman3 wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a button, "not interested". Click it. My youtube is mostly pretty nice. I get recommendations for cooking videos because I subscribe to and watch a couple of channels. I get recommendations for GDC videos, various programming videos. I mark videos as not interest often. And if there is something It think might give it the wrong idea I often right click and view in an incognito window. Have had very few issues…

I think you're maybe missing the point, just a bit. The problem isn't that tech savy people can protect themselves, it's that most people can't and won't.

I think they were just offering advice to that particular person. I even forgot there was a 'not interested' option. I just keep good company on YT I guess.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#827

Post by nendroid » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:52 PM UTC

virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #817

lerptime wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You've never understood why parents protect children from things that they will eventually be exposed to as adults? If your goal is to give your children unfiltered access to "reality," parents are entirely unnecessary after birth. Hey I have a different opinion than you. I think you should respect that rather than say parents are unnecessary after birth. That's rude. First off think about it logically. Why indeed d…

A handy rule of thumb I employ is that any hot take that includes the phrase "kids today" can be immediately ignored. Any generalization of that scope is laughable.

Doesn't make sense because kids today are exactly the same as kids in the past.

This is science and its about research that the scientist did to prove something.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#828

Post by nendroid » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:55 PM UTC

soledades wrote: post #809

lerptime wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You've never understood why parents protect children from things that they will eventually be exposed to as adults? If your goal is to give your children unfiltered access to "reality," parents are entirely unnecessary after birth. Hey I have a different opinion than you. I think you should respect that rather than say parents are unnecessary after birth. That's rude. First off think about it logically. Why indeed d…

Wow, A real life libertarian true believer, look at that. I didn't know there was such a thing

Whatever works is what I believe. I feel lots of parents just don't have the balls to not coddle their children, and they justify this fear with rude comments like this.

FYI the two blind kids actually knew each other when they were kids, and I "kid" you not the kid that was the "libertarian" bullied and beat up the other one because he was thinking "wtf, why is this other kid helpless."

Listen to both podcasts. Worth it for any parent as it gives a true more "scientific" perspective on the coddling going on with kids today.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#829

Post by nendroid » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

nineplay wrote: post #810

lerptime wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would explain the content to them. Explain all the different sides and my personal views on it as well as direct him to content with opposing views. Then I would let him form his own opinion. My job as a parent is to help him understand. Not to build a bubble. As for violent content I would tell my kid to just watch out for that and that the content is unpleasant. It's his choice whether he wants to see it. Usually…

I will happily concede that your three year old is a more advanced thinker than mine is. As for violent content, with YouTube specifically it is easy to watch it without being forewarned. I don't know if you are aware of Elsagate but the whole goal is to get kids to watch horribly disturbing content without warning.

6 year old.

At 3, he just had a playstation.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#830

Post by nickff » Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

spuz wrote: post #418

nickff wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're now arguing that you also have a right to be heard? That's quite a right! I am not sure how you would define your 'undue influence' test, as it seems internally inconsistent: >"For example by asking his followers to reject the views of outsiders (a common tactic in many religions, cults and conspiracy groups) a terrorist could be argued to have taken the freedom to hear other viewpoints away from his followers…

> Do you see the inconsistency here?... From the other side, it would look like you're the one advocating in favor of an even more extreme 'undue influence'. I can see why you think there is an inconsistency here but I don't think there is. Most people would say that the right to free speech includes two parts. Firstly we have the right to say what we want, to express those ideas to others and to be able to reach oth…

I think that trying to develop your own ethical/moral reasoning on a subject this complex is quite haphazard; you seem to be trying to carve-out/describe a nuanced position, but there are a lot of problems with your reasoning. To be clear, this is a tough subject, and I am not trying to impugn your motives in any way.

My view is that government authority is at its perigee when it comes to free speech, and that any regulation is both problematic and suspect. This stems from Huemer's convincing arguments in "The Problem of Political Authority".