Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#21

Post by ceilingcorner »

Hadrianus wrote: post #5

Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? If so, it is a bit of bait-and-switch to defend the portion of the presentation that wasn’t grounds for the removal. Seeing as this is a persuasive argument I would be more persuaded had the author been transparent about YouTube’s reason…

I don’t particularly care what their reasoning is. A private corporation censoring elected officials should not be acceptable or encouraged. It is extremely anti-democratic and for them to quibble over a highly specific issue like this just shows YouTube’s bias.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#22

Post by nradov »

Hadrianus wrote: post #5

Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? If so, it is a bit of bait-and-switch to defend the portion of the presentation that wasn’t grounds for the removal. Seeing as this is a persuasive argument I would be more persuaded had the author been transparent about YouTube’s reason…

How could Senator Johnson be "transparent" about YouTube's reasoning? YouTube keeps their reasons secret. That's the problem.

Fortunately the video and testimony is available directly from the Senate so everyone can make up their own mind.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/early-outpatient-treatment-an-e...

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#23

Post by underseacables »

I don’t agree with this at all. Now YouTube is not only removing questionable content, it’s stepping into the public square, our very government, to decide which debate views you hear. Not a good sign and a terrible precedent. Congressional committees are by their very makeup, a farce intended to create sound bites for the media, but if we can’t have a space for open, unobstructed or uncensored debate in a government hearing, we must question if YouTube is doing more harm than good.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#24

Post by polka_haunts_us »

Animats wrote: post #10

Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.

Youtube should remove whatever they want because they're a private company and it's not like they're the sole archiver of these videos. I've attached the committee hearing in question below [0].

What removing the video does do is make me not want to use YouTube for any serious kind of deep dive research, which frankly is not what I use it for anyways. I'm not really sure what the goal of YouTube is supposed to be actually, not really sure what the goal of most of FAANG is supposed to be, other than print maximal amounts of money. I think people might be a little less angry at them if they actually some stated mission to evaluate against.

[0] - https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covi...

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#25

Post by underseacables »

blacktriangle wrote: post #7
vfclists wrote: post #3

I guess they believe the doctors that contributed to the article below don't know what they going on about. Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432... FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.

So Trump was right about Ivermectin and Hydroxy...huh.

I don’t think it’s about whether or not Trump is right or wrong about anything, but I think we are starting to see that when career politicians, Wall Street, and corporations disagree with someone, perhaps that is someone the citizenry should listen to and consider.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#26

Post by sxp »

polka_haunts_us wrote: post #24
Animats wrote: post #10

Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.

Youtube should remove whatever they want because they're a private company and it's not like they're the sole archiver of these videos. I've attached the committee hearing in question below [0]. What removing the video does do is make me not want to use YouTube for any serious kind of deep dive research, which frankly is not what I use it for anyways. I'm not really sure what the goal of YouTube is supposed to be act…

> ...YouTube should not be removing...

> Youtube can remove...

You're arguing against a strawman. "can" and "should" are different things.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#27

Post by Fnoord »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #21
Hadrianus wrote: post #5

Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? If so, it is a bit of bait-and-switch to defend the portion of the presentation that wasn’t grounds for the removal. Seeing as this is a persuasive argument I would be more persuaded had the author been transparent about YouTube’s reason…

I don’t particularly care what their reasoning is. A private corporation censoring elected officials should not be acceptable or encouraged. It is extremely anti-democratic and for them to quibble over a highly specific issue like this just shows YouTube’s bias.

Only a government can censor. A company is free to host whatever they like. You can host it elsewhere if you want. Sometimes elected officials say incredibly dangerous stuff. You remember Trump in start of COVID-19 crisis?

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#28

Post by polka_haunts_us »

sxp wrote: post #26
polka_haunts_us wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube should remove whatever they want because they're a private company and it's not like they're the sole archiver of these videos. I've attached the committee hearing in question below [0]. What removing the video does do is make me not want to use YouTube for any serious kind of deep dive research, which frankly is not what I use it for anyways. I'm not really sure what the goal of YouTube is supposed to be act…

> ...YouTube should not be removing... > Youtube can remove... You're arguing against a strawman. "can" and "should" are different things.

I replaced "can" with "should", and the rest of my post didn't change at all. It doesn't change the point at all. It's a meaningless semantic objection.

I am not convinced whatsoever that YouTube "should" be mandated to carry congressional testimony, presidential communication, or anything else they don't want to carry. Removing it is not deplatforming it because as stated, Congress already has a platform. It's easily accessible. It's free.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#29

Post by cbradford »

Hadrianus wrote: post #5

Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? If so, it is a bit of bait-and-switch to defend the portion of the presentation that wasn’t grounds for the removal. Seeing as this is a persuasive argument I would be more persuaded had the author been transparent about YouTube’s reason…

"debunked conspiracy theories". Debunked by whom? Sadly the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is now just code for "facts I don't like". Given the scientific facts on the ground and the last year of data, we now know that all recommendations from the experts from masks to distancing have been failures, because the COVID infection rate is higher than ever since their introduction. So they are now "debunked conspiracy theories"

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#30

Post by mshook »

bargl wrote: post #13
randcraw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[I just edited this post for accuracy, correcting my error describing ivermectin is a steroid. It is in fact an anti-parasitic. The gist of my post remains largely intact, however.] The op-ed is from a US senator who has partnered with Dr Kory to actively promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, as a treatment for COVID. The NIH is assessing the drug clinically. The FDA has not recommended it for COVID, though a Januar…

So YouTube is canceling a video about a Dr. who is an expert in the field, attempting to get more of a spotlight on a potential treatment of COVID that is not being used and widely shared. You actually got part of your summary wrong, he's saying it can prevent the disease from infecting individuals . So it's a preventative drug not an early treatment drug. He was also saying it's not popular because it's a COTS drug…

If instead he's completely bunk, I'd love to see an analysis of further research proving him wrong.

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on him:

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.

That's from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Post reply on HN