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

831–840 of 933 posts

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#831

Post by nickff »

gitrog wrote: post #318
nickff wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think the non-aggression principle applies without reference to the 'justice system'. That is to say, whether or not someone has committed a crime, for which they may or may not have been convicted, they have a moral obligation not to perpetrate violence against you. Post-hoc detention or punishment does not 'correct' or remediate aggression, and I am not aware of any right to prevent hypothetical aggression.

I guess we're going off on a tangent here, but then I'm not sure what a person's right to freedom from violent crime actually provides them, if not a systematic process by which they can get justice.

I don't think there is a real "right to freedom from violent crime", at least not in the enforceable sense.

I would say there is a moral duty not to commit violence against others, and there is a moral right to defend one's self, but I don't see how you really guarantee "right to freedom from violent crime", so it really seems more like a dubious promise. This may be a consequence of my general skepticism of positive rights.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#832

Post by nineplay »

nendroid wrote: post #827
virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

( Edited after being fairly criticized for not contributing to the conversation )

It's problematic to say that scientists have 'proved' anything. Scientist's conclusions are always based on the available data, and at any point new data may come along that disproves their conclusion. Scientists know this of course, which is why reputable ones are never going to step forward and announce "I have proved..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

> evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#833

Post by nendroid »

nineplay wrote: post #832
nendroid wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

( Edited after being fairly criticized for not contributing to the conversation ) It's problematic to say that scientists have 'proved' anything. Scientist's conclusions are always based on the available data, and at any point new data may come along that disproves their conclusion. Scientists know this of course, which is why reputable ones are never going to step forward and announce "I have proved..." https://en.w…

Scientists can't prove anything. They can only make statistical correlations and establish causation to a degree.

When I use the word "prove" i don't mean like proving things in math. Nobody means this, it's obvious to everyone what they mean. Prove in this context means well established. For example if I say scientists have proved the theory of gravity.

What's going on here is extreme pedantry. Prove has meaning in different contexts, you have chosen the most technical pedantic context to suit some misguided purpose rather than the most obvious context. There's no point in taking this further.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#834

Post by nineplay »

nendroid wrote: post #829
nineplay wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When he was 3, were you protecting him from the reality of the real world?

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#835

Post by nendroid »

nineplay wrote: post #834
nendroid wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 year old. At 3, he just had a playstation.

When he was 3, were you protecting him from the reality of the real world?

A baby can crawl in random directions. Of course I'll protect him from crawling off a ledge. But when he has the capacity to understand and judge I coddle as little as possible and expose as much possible. 5-6 is around the right time.

At 3 I don't let him run across the street. At 5 I tell him to look both ways and I tell him what happens to someone who doesn't, then I let him play outside.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#836

Post by cwhiz »

beervirus wrote: post #734
cwhiz wrote: post #631

The YouTube suggestion algorithm is the problem! Create a new account, watch any political video, and then click through the suggestions. Keep clicking through the suggestions and in hour you will be on some extremist nonsense. YouTube is the source of this problem, and their solution is censorship? It's ridiculous. Show people the videos they have subscribed or searched for, and that's it. The majority of people don…

> Show people the videos they have subscribed or searched for, and that's it. I dunno, there's value in suggesting related content. If I subscribe to a woodworking channel, and Youtube suggests other woodworking content... that doesn't seem like a problem.

I think the suggestions are insidious and lead to binge viewing by design. However, adults are adults, and they can make their own decisions. I am okay with suggestions in general but maybe they should be completely removed for news or political content. And they should be removed for kids accounts.

It should not be possible to search for a Biden or Trump speech and half an hour later, through suggestion surfing alone, you are viewing alt-right or antifa extremist content.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#837

Post by minerjoe »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #530
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.

> almost free The land of the almost free just doesn’t have quite the same ring to it

My dad, rest his soul, would tell me when I was young:

"The land of the free, only if you are brave enough to live free."

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#838

Post by nineplay »

nendroid wrote: post #833
nineplay wrote: post #832

Earlier quoted context omitted.

( Edited after being fairly criticized for not contributing to the conversation ) It's problematic to say that scientists have 'proved' anything. Scientist's conclusions are always based on the available data, and at any point new data may come along that disproves their conclusion. Scientists know this of course, which is why reputable ones are never going to step forward and announce "I have proved..." https://en.w…

Scientists can't prove anything. They can only make statistical correlations and establish causation to a degree. When I use the word "prove" i don't mean like proving things in math. Nobody means this, it's obvious to everyone what they mean. Prove in this context means well established. For example if I say scientists have proved the theory of gravity. What's going on here is extreme pedantry. Prove has meaning in…

I am not trying to be pedantic. There are many contexts in which 'prove' might be a reasonable term colloquially.

However you are referring to a social science when you talk about differences between kids of different generations. I think using 'proved' in that context puts you on pretty shakey ground.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#839

Post by anigbrowl »

brigandish wrote: post #72
anigbrowl wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zzzz. Yeah that's a problem, but come back with a proposal about how to deal with the existing misinformation and bad faith problem.

More freedom of speech is the answer to misinformation because then it can be challenged. Censorship allows convenient mistruths to spread unchallenged.

Signs point to no: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146

It's not that I like censorship, in fact I'm adamantly opposed to it. But saying 'boo censorship, yay free speech' is ducking the real and measurable problem of false content spread by a mix of ignorance and dishonesty.

I support calls for more education and critical thinking, but that takes years to pay off; the answer to high levels of fraud or corruption is not as simple as 'let's just create a culture of honesty', which substitutes the desired outcome for the solution.

Consider also specific examples of disinformation campaigns. It's easy to create the appearance of controversy by attacking the formation of social consensus, and then to point to point to that appearance of controversy as pseudo-evidence that the prevailing public consensus is a deception carried out by The Powers That Be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/ - trolling behavior in anti-vaccination forums

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ - tobacco industry disinformation strategies

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#840

Post by Barrin92 »

brigandish wrote: post #185
Barrin92 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's literally no reason to believe that this is correct and anything else other than dogma. There's quite a lot of psychological evidence suggesting that first impressions stick stronger than corrections (which everyone knows who has ever accidentally believed something just because they heard it quickly), that only people who are predisposed to corrections actually believe them, and that in others corrections ev…

> There's literally no reason to believe that this is correct and anything else other than dogma. Christianity, for example, was supported by blasphemy laws. Once those laws were undermined or removed its doctrines and practices were able to be challenged, and now we see greater numbers of non-believers in formerly Christian countries as a result. There's certainly dogma in that example but not the sort you were posi…

>Once those laws were undermined or removed its doctrines and practices were able to be challenged

This is alt history. Religious rule in the Western World came to an end through revolution. The French revolution in particular. Religious power was ousted out of systems of governance by force, civic codes were established and that was that. In the communist world, the other large sphere that is now irreligious, force was used even more explicitly. Nothing had anything to do with peasants having a discussion about religion over a cup of coffee after blasphemy laws were lifted. Secularism as well as religion were imposed by elites and institutions, blasphemy laws were lifted afterwards.

Post reply on HN