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

YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#211

Post by greedo »

Covzire wrote: post #177
rsba wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read one study that indicated an N95/KN95 mask was 10 times more effective than the regular (non) medical masks. I always thought it was unusual that the US government just didn’t mail KN95 masks to people, or widely distribute them at cost. And encourage their use. If something is 10 times less effective, it’s basically not even effective in comparison to what’s possible.

N95's for daily long-term use just isn't feasible. I've had a bunch of them from long before COVID19 for working with some auto detailing chemicals and I can't wear one for more than 10 minutes. Breathing becomes extremely difficult, maybe it would get better with time but it gets to a point where I constantly feel like I'm about to pass out.

Isn't it amazing that medical professionals can work 12 hour shifts in N95s without having difficulty breathing and don't feel like they're going to pass out?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#212

Post by whiddershins »

What's really funny is nobody knows if cloth masks work, but lots of people are commenting here as if this is the debate.

The best I can steelman YouTube's position would be: "Yes we need free speech in order to debate all the things and get ever closer to truth. YouTube does not want to host this debate. Please find an alternate venue, and if the consensus changes, we will dutifully update our policies to reflect that."

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#213

Post by mbesto »

xanaxagoras wrote: post #181
kube-system wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough " he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

> If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor. > But he's a senator. He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't. > His statement was a dog whistle to his base. Maybe it was. So what? > They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking.…

> He's a physician and an elected member of the United States Senate.

He's non-practicing physician, but a practicing legislator. His job is to legislate, which includes determining the budget and operating model for the CDC.

Why does a legislator feel the need to circumvent his duty regardless of his prior private area of expertise? If he truly has physician expertise that is somehow superior to that of the CDC why isn't he working to convince his legislator colleagues to direct the budget and operating model of the CDC, as opposed to trying to circumvent due process and rile up his base.

I think you know the reason why.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#214

Post by zR0x »

corndoge wrote: post #3

> YouTube indicated that examples of the offending content in the video included the line: “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” > It also included the quote: “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” Regardless of what you think about YouTube's misinformation policy, I don't think this i…

He’s just polluting the airwaves to keep his voters wound up.

A single layer of cloth doesn’t stop it. There’s a reason why those scarfs aren’t allowed in airplanes (well they say that, still see them in use). But it can help reduce the distance it travels.

It’s semantic wank, which is all politicians are good at.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#215

Post by cogman10 »

xanaxagoras wrote: post #181
kube-system wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough " he could have said that. But he's a senator. His statement was a dog whistle to his base. They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking. The word "prevent" is a red herring -- nothing is 100% -- the goal is to decrease infection, not prevent it.

> If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor. > But he's a senator. He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't. > His statement was a dog whistle to his base. Maybe it was. So what? > They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking.…

> He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor.

You're right, in a separate video [1] he said "We will not wear masks!". He isn't saying "cloth masks suck, I'd be ok if we did better masks" He's saying "cloth masks suck, we should not wear any masks". Directly. No editorializing needed.

> He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't.

Dr Oz is also a physician. He constantly tells people to buy dumb shit like green coffee to cure cancer.

The fact of the matter is, Paul was an Ophthalmologist. Do you take infectious disease advice from your dentist? The fact that he can say he's a medical doctor is true, but his field is completely unrelated to the field of infectious disease.

The actual experts in the field are telling us to social distance and wear masks. Paul is telling people to rise up, take off their masks, and ignore these plain sense precautions [1].

> I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made.

Hear what he has to say, but frankly, he's as big a hack as Dr Oz.

[1] https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1424399282447298563

Edit: Phil->Oz

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#216

Post by tomohawk »

patmcc wrote: post #196
xanaxagoras wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If he meant that "cloth masks aren't good enough" he could have said that. He could have, but he didn't. You're not his editor. > But he's a senator. He's also a physician. He might know something about infectious diseases that you don't. > His statement was a dog whistle to his base. Maybe it was. So what? > They're not looking for an argument that people should be wearing N95s, they want to discredit all masking.…

>>I for one want to hear his expertise, even if it disagrees with the conclusions you've already made. That's fine. YouTube doesn't want to host it, because in their view it's harmful. What's the problem?

Youtube is a monopoly. Monopolies must not be allowed to infringe on our rights.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#217

Post by throwaway0a5e »

kube-system wrote: post #158
chlodwig wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements. Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simpli…

"deliberately" is the key word. Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.

>Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.

How are you supposed to tell which is which without reading minds?

This simply moves the argument from "accurate vs concise" to "concise for good reasons vs concise for bad reasons"

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#218

Post by Bud »

chlodwig wrote: post #93
swashboon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they are effective. They are not as effective as a N95 mask but all scientific data shows they are still effective and reducing transmission rate in a population.

Cloth masks are effective in preventing covid in the same way that "the rhythm method is effective at preventing pregnancy." Which is to say it reduces the probability a small amount, but not nearly enough to justify a person treating it as an effective prophylactic. So it depends on what your definition of "effective" is, but it seems to me more like disinformation to call cloth masks or rhythm method "effective" th…

You're leaving out over half of the truth, here. The idea behind universal masking is that EVERYONE is wearing the masks. In other words, the person who might infect you is masked (and cloth masks DO work very well to prevent that person from spewing droplets everywhere), and also, you are wearing a mask too. You are leaving out that first part of the equation, which is the most important part.

It's also the part that "Rand" Paul is undermining.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#220

Post by shadowgovt »

mimixco wrote: post #92
dantheman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no right to use someone else's printing press. The government can easily create their own video hosting platform. Just like the NYTimes doesn't need to allow any politician to submit an oped.

We've lost the essence of journalism. Instead of a venue where multiple options are presented for review by the reader (along with editorial comment, of course), we now have platforms which are nothing but editorial. Not only individual people but individual comments are called out for censorship. This is not how news reporting was done in the past. It's sad because today, there isn't a single website where a curious…

In my lifetime, we never had the essence of journalism as you're describing it. Even before the internet, my hometown had the left-leaning and right-leaning newspaper (and I was lucky enough to live in a town that offered both!).
Post reply on HN