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

401–410 of 803 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#401

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #121
jtbayly wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The inability of public dialog on this nuance is just a reflection of our poor scientific education. This is the only part of your comment I disagree with. “Science” has very little sway in cultural debates with either side.

Hmmm. maybe. I just wish CSPAN would show politicians showing histograms of effectiveness with various types of masks, show where covid is, show where aerosols fit, talk about viral load, talk about statistics per minute (e.g. don’t stay an hour indoors with someone with covid using a cloth mask, use an N95, 3 minutes might be okay).

I suspect they're afraid to, because someone will say "see, they said I could do this!" when what they actually said was that you are likely to get away with it for a short time.

Instead, they try to present absolute certainty that you have to do this in order to try to persuade those who aren't really listening and don't believe you. But those who aren't really listening and don't believe you are that way partly because they detect that you're talking way past your evidence.

("You" meaning politicians, not the parent, nor the reader.)

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#402

Post by nicetryguy »

rwcarlsen wrote: post #359
nicetryguy wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an awful argument. Your black and white thinking is unfathomably ignorant. I'll take a separated shoulder and a broken rib over death or a permanent head injury thank you.

I argued nothing black and white at all. I said that these things are tradeoffs . In this case - it is something along the lines of a freedom safety tradeoff. And why aren't people allowed to draw their own lines on that spectrum. I was just stating that I draw my line in a different place than some.

Why bother locking your doors if a criminal can just carry a crowbar and pry it open anyway? Gray areas exist.

If you decide to drive drunk and hit me while i am driving while i'm wearing a seatbelt you could kill me. If you decide not to wear a mask in public and are an asympomatic carrier of COVID and i am immunocompromised you could kill me. This has nothing to do with personal choice or liberty, it is a legitimate public health and safety concern. Your selfish tunnel vision is truly disgusting.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#404

Post by kypro »

Bud wrote: post #208
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…

This is unquestionably misinformation, and Rand Paul needs to have a permanent muzzle installed until covid is extinct. Masks DO WORK. Yes, N95s work better than cloth masks, usually, but cloth masks work very well for reducing the likelihood that a covid-positive person will transmit the virus. This isn't controversial. Rand Paul needs to stop spreading lies on purpose, and if he won't, I fully support YouTube telli…

There’s a lot of people agreeing and disagree with your perspective here. Individual opinions on what Rand Paul said are frankly irrelevant to the underlying discussion here. There are many intelligent people on both sides of this debate and for either side to preemptively conclude that they are right and the other side needs to be silenced (by private for-profit companies) is incredibly naive thinking.

If an issue is hotly debated among the public you have to allow open debate on it. I don’t care how right you believe you are or how important you believe it is for people to agree with you, this type of thinking paves a road to hell.

If you give private companies the ability to silence others I promise you at some point they’ll eventually silence you and that’s really all that matters to this discussion. Who cares about Rand Paul’s opinion, what I care about is why some people feel a private company who runs an essential 21st communications platform should have the power to abuse that power and silence others who disagree with them.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#405

Post by graderjs »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #229
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…

It is misinformation. Masks (cloth or otherwise) were meant to reduce infectiousness, not completely prevent the possibility of infection. Masks (cloth or otherwise) do in fact reduce infectiousness. The misinformation is the implication that masks are pointless because you can still get infected. The point of masks is to get the probability of spreading it down by some multiple, not to be a personal not-my-problem-a…

It doesn't matter. It's about air quotes dangerous information that differs from the orthodoxy. It's a tale as old as time itself. It's about control. It's about trying to dictate to you what you can think. We really expect that these internet mega corporations are going to be better than that? They make that money from programming you with advertisements you really think they're not going to try to continue that practice of programming you and every other way they can? And why be surprised that it occurs at all the only reason I think is that people have experienced a respite from this activity occurring overtly because it has been perfectly implemented covertly using television for the last for 60 years, because there was no "random citizen with megaphone broadcasting channel" the censorship and thought control was covert: panels of editors and programmers and executives. But now you all of you have a megaphone that reaches out and touches the entire world if you wanted to. So of course your expression must be controlled by the same people I've been doing it for 70 years. It's just now, to get the legions of airports woke on board, they cynically deploy the mere color of ideological purity through fake leftism, as instruments to provide fake pretexts for the thoughts they seek to permit or disallow--the couch their age old bag in the garb of justice and politics--why? Because they actually give a shit about those things? No of course not. They do it because they need to do this in the open now so they need a fake pretext to pretend that it's all okay and they're doing it for some reason it's making the world better somehow. they do it because they need cover for the thing they've always been trying to do, groups with power that is, they're trying to hold on to it by one of the oldest ways known: they're trying to control you in the bud at your thought your beliefs your emotions. but they're just more effective and larger scale than anyone who's done this before because they span the entire globe and they make their money out of this very control. So who's really surprised if when they wield this massive power it also gets a bit corrupt? If they end up using it not just for advertising but for other things? I mean why wouldn't they who surprised at a bit of overreach when you hold something so powerful when when you have so much to lose and maybe even more to gain?

Orthodoxy and heresy is a tool of control as old as time itself. Why did you think you wouldn't see the same thing on the internet? Well, I can relate: I used to think the internet was awesome based on it's optimistic potential. It is that--but perhaps it's also terrifying--depending on how you position yourself.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#406

Post by nielsbot »

suyash wrote: post #340
bcrosby95 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So 'real free speech' is about requiring private companies to carry the message of a politically powerful agent of the government?

that's your definition, for me it is allowing anyone to speak their views without putting a "extreme left" sensor and calling it fake.

view ≠ facts. "extreme left" ≠ untrue.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#407

Post by nomel »

merpnderp wrote: post #256
IIAOPSW wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is misinformation. Masks (cloth or otherwise) were meant to reduce infectiousness, not completely prevent the possibility of infection. Masks (cloth or otherwise) do in fact reduce infectiousness. The misinformation is the implication that masks are pointless because you can still get infected. The point of masks is to get the probability of spreading it down by some multiple, not to be a personal not-my-problem-a…

Saying cloth masks are effective in the context of (K)N95 masks is even worse misinformation. Even the CDC's website on masks points out you should really be using (K)N95's, and that cloth masks are completely ineffective when wet, which they get after 15 minutes or so of breathing through them. The science on cloth masks says they work, but only shortly and just barely. Rand Paul is closer to the truth by saying the…

I bought a washable cloth mask. It claimed to be fancy, with "three layers!". Unfortunately, those three layers are polyester, and are impenetrable to air, so all of my breath in and out is through the gaps in the nose area/bottom. I went back to cheap medical masks. At least I know air is passing through it, so there must be some filtering.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#408

Post by djrogers »

rglover wrote: post #377

Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to back up their point of view with real data/research. If there is a conflict, put one of those warning banners beneath the video and link to the cited resource. Done. Otherwise, these companies look like oligarchs participating in low-key fascism.

Did you read the article or watch the offending video? Because he did cite research. Now you start requiring YouTube to decide what research is ok and which isn’t.

[1] “YouTube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work”

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#409

Post by robbrown451 »

suyash wrote: post #279
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…

Totally agree, YouTube is in the wrong here. They are no arbitrator of truth or facts, leave that to the courts and allow 'real free speech' in online platforms.

Is there any "real free speech" that you think YouTube should be allowed to block?

People advocating for shooting the president?

People describing how to make a nuclear bomb?

People advocating for killing cops?

People sharing people's social security numbers?

People explaining the best suicide methods?

People trying to organize terrorist attacks?

People threatening violence on other people?

Anything?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#410

Post by rglover »

aeternum wrote: post #395
rglover wrote: post #377

Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to back up their point of view with real data/research. If there is a conflict, put one of those warning banners beneath the video and link to the cited resource. Done. Otherwise, these companies look like oligarchs participating in low-key fascism.

The problem with this is there often is some shred of truth in any extreme claim that is pulled far out of context. A better approach might be to leave it up but flag it and link to a page that explains what parts of the claim are true and which are misconstrued or embellished. Social media excels at optimizing that one more engagement , leverage it here to lead people closer to the truth.

> A better approach might be to leave it up but flag it and link to a page that explains what parts of the claim are true and which are misconstrued or embellished.

No. That leads to potential for editorializing and taking us right back to square one. Treat people like sensible, intelligent adults.

Post reply on HN