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

YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#71

Post by colejohnson66 »

nwienert wrote: post #35
ve55 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is common for political content (often that leans in any direction) due to user flagging.

How is this political?

Like it or not, COVID is a politically charged topic (in the US). One side of the political spectrum vehemently opposed mask mandates, while the other said we should wear them. If the two major political parties can’t agree on something, it’s a political topic.

It’s sad that as millions of people were dying, the two parties couldn’t agree on the simplest of things, but it is what it is.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#72

Post by abystander »

threatofrain wrote: post #24
Jimmc414 wrote: post #20

This should not be flagged. Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. This is science not politics.

Scientific conversation happens between people who are actually practicing in the field. Scientists on social media are just engaged in promotion. When Neil Degrasse Tyson talks on YT, I consider that a combination of promotion and pedagogy. But that's not science. He's not engaging in scientific conversation with fellow colleagues. This is not an indictment on Dr. Tyson's expertise, but it is a criticism on confusin…

> Scientific conversation happens between people who are actually practicing in the field. Scientists on social media are just engaged in promotion.

Science is a process that begins with discovery, and even people who do not actively “practice” science, never mind hold degrees, are involved with the “recon” work to encounter things worth studying.

Science is not a priesthood.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#73

Post by coolgeek »

0-_-0 wrote: post #64
coolgeek wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> random blog Let's put it this way - more people on this site know who Derek Lowe is (and respect his opinions) than every person combined that was involved in those 31 studies.

Same is true of Bret Weinstein

Whether or not that is strictly true, there's an enormous gulf between the renown and respect for Lowe versus that for Weinstein.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#74

Post by mikewarot »

blooalien wrote: post #63
mikewarot wrote: post #51

There are certain topics which Youtube will not allow, they have various soft means of enforcing boundaries around those edges. One of those topics is analysis and discussion of Covid 19. They (Bret and Heather) have been very careful to stay within the stated rules, yet this still happened. At some point, enough of us viewers will decide that it is worth overcoming the network effects, and get used to some new platf…

> Our ability to discuss things like adults is under threat. Our ability to discuss things like adults has been under threat for a shockingly long while now, and only been getting worse. This is partly due to such a large portion of society being unable to discuss things like adults without lapsing into political "Us vs Them"-ism nearly instantly. On a related note; Why exactly is it that such a large portion of the…

>Why exactly is it that such a large portion of the discussion here tends toward actual adult conversation?

I attribute it to a few things that work in synergy

1. The voting model, and structure of the site work well for the crowd that gathers here. Keeping spam away is automated enough to keep the signal to noise high.

2. Dang keeps us from doing stupid things consistently enough that we collectively have learned good manners.

3. We've all seen how quickly things can get swamped, to make us really appreciative of what we've got here, and more careful about doing stupid things.

4. Upvoting, etc. are paced such that you don't get access to a bit of power until you understand it. It's subtle enough but very effective.

5. The management is not driven to push "engagement" or "stickiness" by the need to sell advertising.

If you took the codebase and started again, I'm not sure it would work more than 5% of the time.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#75

Post by tacitusarc »

LatteLazy wrote: post #68
ALittleLight wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird rabbit-hole"). You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic). You say he fails to admit any possibility of error whereas I know that he readily admits the possibility of error. There are also a few cases where your comment is…

Thanks for replying. I don't think we'll "agree" but I appreciate being heard out at least. The most glaring example of his circular logic starts around 29min mark in the podcast I linked to (#83). He is discussing lab leak hypothesis and the logic is this: * if we assume there was a lab leak, then that's good news: the means novel viruses in nature are much rarer than expected. * based on that we should stop gain of…

Two thoughts:

First, and most importantly, it seems that sometime over the past decade we transitioned from the belief that free and open discussion is more important than winning the argument. We now appear to rely on an entirely unnuanced framing where all discussions have maximum certainty, all harms are equal, and therefore silencing disagreement is always a valid and righteous (and even preferred) tactic.

Second, I listened to the first 10 minutes past the recommended point in the podcast, and heard the first two points made, but not the circular logic of the third point. It’s possible that occurs later, and I just haven’t listened far enough. As they have moved on to the “rot” portion, it seems that I should’ve heard the third point, but perhaps I’m just interpreting what they say more literally.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#76

Post by perl4ever »

LatteLazy wrote: post #70
ALittleLight wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the subject under discussion. I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be. There is insufficient evidence at this point to say definitively how useful Ivermectin is or isn't.

Isn't this exactly the point? There are millions of substances that haven't been disproven to work in some niche way against some disease. No one should recommend them or claim there is a conspiracy against them when they recommend them and get laughed at, demonitised etc. Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.

>Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure

Is that just random, or are you specifically alluding to laetrile?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#77

Post by pwinnski »

COGlory wrote: post #50
pwinnski wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals. Again, this is not a decision I've made, but the actual definition of the things. I can't call a lollipop a frog and then get mad when it doesn't jump, or someone licks it. It is what it is.

>Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals. As a scientist, I can definitively say this is false. Both these things happen over beers quite frequently. To further If science only happened in labs and journals, how did we ever get to the poin…

A hypotheses formed over beers but never tested outside the bar is like most other beer-centered conversation: of limited value.

Science communication, similarly, can start anywhere, but what you're describing has a very tenuous relationship with people talking on YouTube.

I'm all for people doing science having as much flexibility as they want, up to the point where what they're doing is no longer science. People forming ex post facto hypotheses based on carefully-chosen data, or bypassing any peer-review in favor of YouTube communication, that should raise serious alarms bells for anyone in the sciences.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#78

Post by pwinnski »

Teever wrote: post #55
pwinnski wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement, "You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens," is anti-scientific. I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's description in _The Demon-Haunted World_ of people who make profoundly unscientific statements using the words of science, because they want the authority and respect accorded those words, not realizing that the authority and respect comes from the methods of science, not just the wo…

I'm curious if you believe that only scientists can practice science.

Of course not! I would hope every student practices science as part of a general childhood education.

But when it comes to potentially life-saving medicines or therapies, the standard should be a bit more rigorous than sixth-grade classroom experiments.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#79

Post by ALittleLight »

LatteLazy wrote: post #70
ALittleLight wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the subject under discussion. I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be. There is insufficient evidence at this point to say definitively how useful Ivermectin is or isn't.

Isn't this exactly the point? There are millions of substances that haven't been disproven to work in some niche way against some disease. No one should recommend them or claim there is a conspiracy against them when they recommend them and get laughed at, demonitised etc. Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.

Ivermectin is not simply one of an innumerable number of things without evidence of efficacy against covid. There is evidence, including a number of published studies which have already been linked in this thread. The evidence is disputed in that some studies find smaller or no beneficial effects - but it is not correct to say that the use of Ivermectin is without supporting evidence.

Describing the function of Ivermectin as a prophylactic as working in some "niche way" is also incorrect. A prophylactic is the opposite of a niche - it would be broadly useful to pretty much everyone. Describing Ivermectin in this way continues a pattern in your comments of being misleading and unfair towards the claims which you are discussing.

This unfair pattern is continued when you suggest the use of Ivermectin is being "laughed at". Some researchers don't think Ivermectin is promising, but nobody who is actually reading the research thinks the claims are laughable. As I mentioned before, throughout large parts of the world Ivermectin is in use and there are a number of scholarly articles supporting its use.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#80

Post by LatteLazy »

perl4ever wrote: post #76
LatteLazy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this exactly the point? There are millions of substances that haven't been disproven to work in some niche way against some disease. No one should recommend them or claim there is a conspiracy against them when they recommend them and get laughed at, demonitised etc. Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.

>Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure Is that just random, or are you specifically alluding to laetrile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin

Just random but that's a very interesting link, thanks!
Post reply on HN