201–210 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only someone that doesn’t understand what censorship is would say this. You’re arguing for government compelled speech.
What do you think censorship actually means? Private and Public organizations engage in censorship all the time. Youtube doesn't have to host these videos but it is still censorship. The word is morally neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, but I think at this point the US government is too drunk on power that it'll never give up the control it has on its citizens through Youtube. And people say the US is the land of the "free." What a joke.
Youtube is owned by a private entity that regularly exerts influence on the government, but it is not the government itself. The favoritism afforded to companies like Youtube is due to changing antitrust laws, and the rise of free market fundamentalism in the US, more than anything else. The notion that the state is is favorable to Youtube because it wants exert some kind of control over people is true; the nature of…
If McDonald's mistreats me, I can go to Wendy's or Burger King and get a similar meal for a similar price. When Youtube mistreats me, where am I supposed to go? BitChute? Vimeo? Neither of those have even half the creators as Youtube. And if creators want to migrate off Youtube, how are they supposed to do that when they'll get less than 10% of the audience on the other sites? Youtube's moat way is too deep to be thr…
This is silly. You have alternatives, but you still are dismissing them. You could similarly say that if "McDonald mistreats me, where I'm going to go? Wendy? or Burger King? no one is going there" Also your argument with electric company doesn't make sense, in this you could maybe compare it to an ISP, which I agree should be treated as an utility. YouTube is just one of many services available. Your only argument a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it, why would Merck leave money on the table. Merck has and will develop many more Covid drugs. It does not make sense to bet everything on one horse where there is a lot of uncertainty and risk that any drug will see the light of day. I get that it makes sense as a narrative device to discredit Merck ("big pharma has acted against our interest in the past, so they are acting against our interest here"),…
> In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_(marketing)
I'm no proponent of big pharma, and it's possible executives at Merck convened and decided to bet it all on drug X and at the same time not to profit from ivermectin. I think it's very unlikely, because it doesn't make sense.
It only makes sense in a comic world where everything is black and white and the motive of the bad guy solves the mystery.
I'm very confused that Bret, who I respect, is falling for this simplistic ad-hominem argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, you can define standard however you want and then the conversation is meaningless. But according to the standard definition of standard, which makes it synonymous with "average" or "norm", then my point very much stands.
Right. Well, in that case I disagree with your assertion that scientists who put out publications of average-in-that-field’s quality are “worse than useless”. Not how science works!
> if an individual is in question for taking non-standard stances in an academic field
If you meant to say "low quality" then say that, but that is not what anyone takes to mean from "non-standard", as non-standard can equally mean exceptional if you are talking about quality.
What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Bret (Eric's brother, biology PhD) had a 2h long conversation with Pierre Kory (MD) and it was taken down by YT. One of the things they talked was the recommendations of WHO and other organisations to focus on supportive care only (supporting the patient while their organism fights the disease by itself). They insist on not using other treatments outside…
> What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Sure, and I rather suspect there are all sorts of venues that scientists could use to communicate scientific reasons challenging the status quo, ones in which there'd be a process of discourse with other domain experts capable of independently evaluating claims. YouTube is significant mass media. But the idea that it's a crucial early stage link in the…
Why? Is the implicit assumption here that people are too stupid or irresponsible to handle hearing information & coming to their own conclusion on it?
This seems like a distressingly common viewpoint nowadays...
What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Bret (Eric's brother, biology PhD) had a 2h long conversation with Pierre Kory (MD) and it was taken down by YT. One of the things they talked was the recommendations of WHO and other organisations to focus on supportive care only (supporting the patient while their organism fights the disease by itself). They insist on not using other treatments outside…
> What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Sure, and I rather suspect there are all sorts of venues that scientists could use to communicate scientific reasons challenging the status quo, ones in which there'd be a process of discourse with other domain experts capable of independently evaluating claims. YouTube is significant mass media. But the idea that it's a crucial early stage link in the…
I’m not familiar with the current story nor the work of those involved, but academics and researchers can and do use YouTube to share information between themselves - *if* this was, say, a highly technical or academic video with a specialised intended audience and YouTube took that down then that’s different compared to a heterodox (read: quack) researcher putting out a video intending to make their argument directly to laypersons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Sure, and I rather suspect there are all sorts of venues that scientists could use to communicate scientific reasons challenging the status quo, ones in which there'd be a process of discourse with other domain experts capable of independently evaluating claims. YouTube is significant mass media. But the idea that it's a crucial early stage link in the…
> When you deal in mass distribution, the dynamics and responsibilities are different than when you're in conversation/process with other domain experts. Why? Is the implicit assumption here that people are too stupid or irresponsible to handle hearing information & coming to their own conclusion on it? This seems like a distressingly common viewpoint nowadays...
At risk of being flippant, have you been on Facebook lately at all in the past 5-6 years?
Everyone that study the subject will see that the evidence for Ivermectin is overwhelming. https://c19ivermectin.com/ The suppression of a cheap & effective C19 drug is a crime against humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, what exactly do you think is wrong with shutting down cranks and conspiracy theorists? You may hope we live in a happy world where everyone can evaluate information fairly and detect nonsense perfectly but I'm afraid we don't. Go and have a conversation with my aunt who thinks that the government (there's only one I guess) created Covid in order to kill all the old people and save money on state pensions. Gues…
If it's a crank conspiracy theory it should be easy to disprove. If it's more complicated then that, then you shouldn't be so confident you're the smart guy in the room.