YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#901

Post by lr4444lr » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 12:48 PM UTC

owlbynight wrote: post #776

lr4444lr wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy functions with an educated electorate. If you're saying that YouTube has to act as gatekeeper ban non-libellous, legal misinformation, you're passing a grim judgment on your fellow citizens which implies that the battle for the country is already lost.

What are your opinions of fake Yelp! or Amazon reviews being removed?

If a review is found to state injurious lies or false statements about a business, that'd constitute removable libel or fraud. YouTube should similarly remove review videos from people whom they have string reason to believe never used a product or service.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#902

Post by antepodius » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 12:51 PM UTC

mikehodgson wrote: post #746

tomp wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we won’t know what it’s long term effects are for the next 70 years... hell we’re even now figuring out that Herpes virus might have something to do with dementia... And say we get a vaccine next year. Don’t you worry that if we relax lockdowns, we’re just gonna trigger the next devastating virus? Let’s face it, life is a risk, and we accept a certain amount of elevated risk in exchange for comfort/utility (e.g.…

You're perfectly fine with potentially killing family members? Do they know this?

He presumably lets them drive cars, and probably doesn't implore them to cut sugars out of their diet. So yes.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#903

Post by antepodius » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 12:54 PM UTC

scoutt wrote: post #467

tomp wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why do you want to curb the infection rate? What’s the end goal? To not saturate the healthcare system. > practically harmless We still don't know the long term effects of the disease, or please define the term "practically harmless" . > If immunity persists... If immunity fades So you want to expose an entire healthy population to a deadly virus and stop looking for a vaccine based on a couple of "if" ? > But hey,…

You could make a similar argument about destroying most small businesses and replacing them with amazon, permanently, for an 'if'.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#904

Post by antepodius » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 1:08 PM UTC

s8e4nrdghu wrote: post #711

Avamander wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the correct solution here, that I don't know. I know, ban what is fundamentally rooted in bullshit. Homeopathy, "all and every vaccine is bad", "these essential oils will cure your cancer", "5G causes corona", "earth is flat". Done, there's no collateral damage, but helluva lot less lying.

Do you think that 5G causes mass surveillance?

Well, it enables a greater proliferation of 'smart' devices with greater bandwidth, so yes.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#905

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 1:20 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #893

hef19898 wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, simply becasue they are publicly talking about it. Not much of a cover up, it seems. Especially since the government is headed by Johnson, who I would suspect to be first one to publish such things. But whatever.

The report still hasn't been published after months. Or how about MPs telling victims to keep their mouths shut for the sake of diversity. It certainly gives me the opinion that they are trying to cover it up. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4813870/MP-shares-T...

That is the same bahviour Trump shows when he retweets racist stuff. Both are unacceptable. The difference being, The MP you mentioned is part of the minority, and she deleted and the retweet and ecused herself. The article also discribes the original tweet coming from "a parody account" from a journalist.

So, you just confused the opposition, it is a Labour MP after all, with the government. And you totally ignored the origin of the retweet and the fact that the MP in question re-tweeted and did not write that tweet herself. Nice job, really.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#906

Post by collyw » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #905

collyw wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report still hasn't been published after months. Or how about MPs telling victims to keep their mouths shut for the sake of diversity. It certainly gives me the opinion that they are trying to cover it up. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4813870/MP-shares-T...

That is the same bahviour Trump shows when he retweets racist stuff. Both are unacceptable. The difference being, The MP you mentioned is part of the minority, and she deleted and the retweet and ecused herself. The article also discribes the original tweet coming from "a parody account" from a journalist. So, you just confused the opposition, it is a Labour MP after all, with the government. And you totally ignored…

"Trump", "racist" all the signs of a well thought through and convincing argument.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#907

Post by scoutt » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 1:41 PM UTC

antepodius wrote: post #903

scoutt wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you want to curb the infection rate? What’s the end goal? To not saturate the healthcare system. > practically harmless We still don't know the long term effects of the disease, or please define the term "practically harmless" . > If immunity persists... If immunity fades So you want to expose an entire healthy population to a deadly virus and stop looking for a vaccine based on a couple of "if" ? > But hey,…

You could make a similar argument about destroying most small businesses and replacing them with amazon, permanently, for an 'if'.

Yes, but no. This virus is insidious, so we have deal with it the way it is.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#908

Post by KirinDave » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

dgb23 wrote: post #452

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…

> things are going to need to be sacrificed I say this for emphasis, not to personally attack you: Whenever I read or hear this it makes me extremely suspicious, because it often doesn't come from those who will do the sacrifice themselves. Censorship and other forms of regulating free speech is simply never a good solution. Perpetrators of lies will even hide behind this, and create a false image of rebellious heroi…

> Talk is talk. Actions should have consequences, which is why we have rules and agreements in the real world.

But threats are talk, and threats often motivate action without undertaking it. So talk is, in a real sense, action. Many forms of speech can have profound effects.

For example, I say, "Pay me $400 more a month or I will evict you." If you believe I can evict you (even if I probably can't) then my talk has changed behavior. Can I then say, "I took no action?"

I think everyone would agree that's not so.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#909

Post by ksk » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

rptr4 wrote: post #461

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 do worry specifically about what defines “misinformation”—sure, let’s ban “the vaccine has a microchip programmed to kill you” or something, but would we ban a vaccine recipient reporting adverse reactions they experienced? This will probably be the most widely and rapidly deployed vaccine in the history of the world, and I think it’s important that any and all necessary information becomes widely available, and I…

Adverse reactions are not something to be taken lightly. A proper investigation is required to determine what the root cause is. One person making a youtube video would be extremely misleading. You have to look at what medications they're currently on, if they're fully healthy, etc, etc. information is neutral, but people can misapply what they think they know and project their ignorance in a way that will be amplified. I work in biotech (vaccines) and I see this kind of faulty thinking applied to vaccines quite often, so maybe I'm more sensitive than most.

Re: YouTube bans coronavirus vaccine misinformation

#910

Post by ksk » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #464

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…

"The video platform said it would now ban any content with claims about [planetary motion] that contradict consensus from local [priests] or the [Catholic Church]." __Any__ qualified individual/institution that deviates from the "authority" falls under this guidance. That means no dissent is tolerated, regardless of qualification of the source. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. > The ability for one person to amp…

>The problem is, actually, "gullible people who lack the capacity for critical thought". It doesn't really matter if it is "one person", or a tightly knit group, or even one's own government.

Since you can't wave a magic wand and expect people to get smarter in the matters of public health, you have to come up with a solution that works for todays populace. IMHO the only solution is to artificially amplify the voice of experts. Yes, some may call this "gatekeeping", but yeah we don't want to give equal time to crystals and homeopathy as we do to established accepted science.