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

41–48 of 48 posts

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

#41

Post by m-p-3 »

nradov wrote: post #16

For those interested in the clinical details the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has extensive information about ivermectin including links to the the latest research. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ It's bizarre and horrifying that YouTube is censoring legitimate scientific debate. Sure it's their platform and they can do what they want, but in this case YouTube is put…

> but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk

Are there many MDs keeping themselves up-to-date on COVID-19 latest recommendations through YouTube though?

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

#42

Post by m-p-3 »

bargl wrote: post #31

OK So I cannot find the videos in question I have no clue if they were or were not flagged by algorithm and that mistake was fixed or if they were flagged on purpose. I also believe this article is click bait as heck. I want to discuss what I've found out about ivermectin and why videos about it should not be flagged by an algorithm. Ivermectin is being proposed by Dr. Kory as a preventative drug which reduces (in tr…

> So, to treat the discussion of Ivermectin as if it were some fringe group's conspiracy science, is ridiculous.

To be honest, I've been following some discussions and there is so much disinformation out there, that at first I though someone was just spewing bullshit about it.

Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that there are people out there working on some treatments to save lives until everyone is vaccinated (which is another fight..), but with the amount of people shouting their own uneducated opinion as fact out there, it's hard to pick up the real info from the noise.

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

#43

Post by cudgy »

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.

But it’s Google making this determination. A software company that is all-knowing and looking out for your interests. Their filtering process is healthy for society, because society is full of imbeciles that are incapable of processing information properly. Also, it’s a private company so they are allowed to do whatever they want to do so take your complaints to another platform.

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

#44

Post by ceilingcorner »

cudgy wrote: post #43
ceilingcorner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it’s Google making this determination. A software company that is all-knowing and looking out for your interests. Their filtering process is healthy for society, because society is full of imbeciles that are incapable of processing information properly. Also, it’s a private company so they are allowed to do whatever they want to do so take your complaints to another platform.

I’d rather trust the imbeciles than a bunch of unelected technocrats in Mountain View.

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

#45

Post by cudgy »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #44
cudgy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it’s Google making this determination. A software company that is all-knowing and looking out for your interests. Their filtering process is healthy for society, because society is full of imbeciles that are incapable of processing information properly. Also, it’s a private company so they are allowed to do whatever they want to do so take your complaints to another platform.

I’d rather trust the imbeciles than a bunch of unelected technocrats in Mountain View.

Fully agree. I was being sarcastic.

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

#46

Post by gltchkrft »

m-p-3 wrote: post #40
gltchkrft wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... Last Updated: August 27, 2020 The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-... Last Updated: January 14, 2021 > The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. And I agree, we need more data before moving forward.

Yes. That was after the senate testimony session, that youtube removed. At the time of that senate testimony, this was the recommendation.

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

#47

Post by berryjerry »

mshook wrote: post #30
bargl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Hi…

YouTube moderators are obviously the highest experts in the field of medicine and usually every field. They should be deciding what get seen, promoted, or blocked because they have done the hard research and I have no doubt they have read at least one Snopes article on a subject written by someone who is also clearly an expert in the medicine, not a journalist that may or may not have visited the CDC website for guidance.

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

#48

Post by Fnoord »

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #38
Fnoord wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is not consistent with definitions or popular understandings of the verb "censor".

In US, true. Rest of world it varies.
Post reply on HN