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

“YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 329 posts

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#291

Post by thu2111 »

wwweston wrote: post #275
philwelch wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are implicitly proposing is that whenever there is disagreement within the scientific community, that disagreement should be kept behind closed doors and hidden from the public until some Institution (CDC/WHO/etc) decides on a Consensus of Truth, and that this Consensus of Truth is the only narrative that can be communicated to the public. This raises a lot of questions. For instance, what happens when the C…

> until some Institution (CDC/WHO/etc) decides on a Consensus of Truth, and that this Consensus of Truth No need to draw unfounded "implicit" proposals. I explicitly invoked a body of everyone with domain expertise to evaluate claims, not a singular institution. Those people often do connect via institution S created to support and benefit from their work and its utility, like professional associations, journals and…

Your argument would be more compelling if it were really specific to YouTube but guess what, all kinds of institutions have been suppressing all kinds of topics, including journals, arXiv sites, ResearchGate and so on. The problem here is not scientific debate happening with the "wrong" technologies (lol) but rather than some ideas are simply being suppressed by certain factions within society for their own ends, in ways that are both:

a. Illegitimate

b. Foolish

If collective expertise itself sounds oppressive to you, wait until you try the oppression from giving authority to collective ignorance.

That's exactly what has happened here. The actual expertise is being oppressed by YouTube moderators, who are themselves responding to instructions decided by Susan Wojcicki, a woman with no scientific or medical expertise whatsoever, who isn't even a software engineer, in fact a woman who is famous primarily for losing against YouTube in the market when she had to compete against them. An outcome that occurred largely because YouTube bet on user generated content, whilst Wojcicki became obsessed with professionally produced movies and TV shows.

Now, in a display of extraordinary hubris, arrogance and a mind-blowing inability to learn from mistakes, she has again decided that the whole user-generated content thing isn't the right way to go and that the only content allowed on the platform should be whatever institutions with "World" in their title approve of. She does this despite the fact that she lost the video war last time because of the same elitist views, despite that the WHO is not run by a doctor or medical specialist of any kind, despite that the WHO constantly changes its mind and is by now totally discredited, and despite many other factors that should have led to this policy being scrapped within minutes of being proposed.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#292

Post by thu2111 »

wwweston wrote: post #276
squidlogic wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strange take on how issues should be discussed in a free society. Rather than have ideological gate keeping at every level, I believe we in tech should advocate for a plurality of viewpoints discussed in the open. Probing, reasonable discourse is the best antidote to propaganda and confusion.

> Rather than have ideological gate keeping at every level Are you taking the position that all gatekeeping is ideological? Because otherwise, bringing it up when the topic seems to be gatekeeping of factual understanding seems off topic.

It clearly is in this case. Nothing YouTube is doing is anything to do with factual understanding - Google's understanding of the topics in question is extremely poor and certainly not justified with any medical evidence. Their FAQ on the topics simply says they'll block "medical misinformation" which they define as anything the WHO disagrees with. As the WHO has repeatedly disagreed with itself there's no way to be consistent with that standard, at least not without erasing all material from the WHO and its supporters too, but they don't do that. Of course they don't because in the end, this is pure authoritarianism. No fact-finding has gone into this decision.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#293

Post by thu2111 »

manwe150 wrote: post #286
the_third_wave wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...compared to a heterodox (read: quack) researcher You do realise that it often takes heterodoxy - i.e. going against the orthodoxy in a field - to achieve a breakthrough? You also realise that the people Brett Weinstein is talking to are anything but quacks? Why, then, this cheap shot of implying that what they are discussing is quackery? What is to be gained by such behaviour? It is not as if the orthodox approa…

You seem to be getting reflexive downvotes, but let's stop for a minute and see what you are actually proposing according to the rules you mentioned: If something else gets an EUA at this point, it would have to have nothing comparable and solve a critical issue in the US. We have now considerable evidence that multiple different vaccines are highly effective at training your body to defend itself against COVID. Ther…

It's actually not a new wonder drug. It's an old generic drug that doctors have been experimenting with for COVID treatment for quite some time now, which has passed all safety trials a long time ago, and which is cheap and widely available.

You aren't aware of these things because Ivermectin has been the target of a massive campaign of information suppression, exactly of the type that is being reported on here. In contrast vaccines have been given emergency approval without finishing their trials, despite being based on entirely new technology, despite absolute risk reductions of less than 1% and despite that giving any medical treatment to an entire population including healthy people must always raise the question of side effects vs disease severity - questions that are also being suppressed.

For example, here is an open letter written by some doctors who have run out of patience with medical authorities and their refusal to talk about early drug-based treatment:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#294

Post by drawfloat »

loceng wrote: post #263
lupire wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does Dr Malone say about ivermectin?

Best to actually listen to the 3 hours to hear everything he says and its nuance, no?

My next paper is also just a bibliography with zero engagement on my part provided.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#295

Post by manwe150 »

thu2111 wrote: post #293
manwe150 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be getting reflexive downvotes, but let's stop for a minute and see what you are actually proposing according to the rules you mentioned: If something else gets an EUA at this point, it would have to have nothing comparable and solve a critical issue in the US. We have now considerable evidence that multiple different vaccines are highly effective at training your body to defend itself against COVID. Ther…

It's actually not a new wonder drug. It's an old generic drug that doctors have been experimenting with for COVID treatment for quite some time now, which has passed all safety trials a long time ago, and which is cheap and widely available. You aren't aware of these things because Ivermectin has been the target of a massive campaign of information suppression, exactly of the type that is being reported on here. In c…

I am aware of Ivermectin. It is hard not to be, given how often people talk about it being censured.

The site you link seems to be asking for a EUA for giving it to the entire population, despite being less effective and higher side effects than vaccines. That does not meet the criteria for a hypothetical wonder drug.

Looking somewhat briefly, I will note that site you link even states that the current vaccines are preferable, but that Ivermectin should have been considered as an interim measure.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#296

Post by varispeed »

marcinzm wrote: post #63
varispeed wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you say about doctors prescribing e.g. random SSRI?

Prescribing for what? Prozac, for example, is on-label approved for depression, ocd, panic disorder, bulimia and bipolar. I do believe doctors use too many medications off-label although I acknowledge that FDA on-label approval can be a large barrier.

SSRI off-label for chronic pain. Many drugs routinely prescribed have or had unknown mechanism of action (prime example Acetaminophen (Tylenol)). Here we have no double blind trials for vaccines, no long term effect studies and every doctor is happy to jab everyone including kids.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#297

Post by natural219 »

wwweston wrote: post #277
natural219 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

You seem to have chosen "too stupid or irresponsible" when I chose my words to focus on "lacking education and domain expertise." Perhaps you were just helping my case out by demonstrating how easily people sometimes confuse even relatively accessible topics like the difference between stupidity and ignorance?

Restricting access to information because you feel that its potential audience is too ignorant seems a little counter-productive to me :/. Wouldn't the idea be to provide them with more information?

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#298

Post by koheripbal »

hervature wrote: post #179
whatshisface wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what's the BurgerKing of YouTube? I don't think there is one. At best Google has Bing, but I think the performance gap is a lot bigger than the gap between chains.

I think people expect the competition to be too perfect of a substitute when it comes to the internet. You are picking the most competitive market - burger joints - in an industry that everyone is forced to partake in: food. On a calorie basis, McDonald's and Burger King actually have some of the most cost effective foods. To me, it is like asking "who is the competitor to Costco? A membership bulk-only retailer, onl…

All you are doing there is broadening the content definition to encompass more players.

The fact that YouTube is a many billion dollar business, and has no DIRECT competition should make it a target for anti-trust action.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#299

Post by koheripbal »

davidwu91 wrote: post #115
yhoneycomb wrote: post #75

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…

There is a clear blurring of gov't / Google.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#300

Post by koheripbal »

callesgg wrote: post #13

While ridiculous, Eric Weinstein is a bit over the top with his accusations from time to time. For example Blaming the physics community for not looking in to his personal “unity” theories more.

I don't know him or his other theories. ...but we should focus the conversation on his assertions HERE TODAY.

...not attack him based on some past efforts.

Post reply on HN