YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#541

Post by Loveaway » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

johncessna wrote: post #369

csomar wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's exactly wrong with mass civil disobedience? If anything, it shows that you have problems with your political system; and that the current ruler has lost the narrative.

Are we still supposed to be 'Resisting' or is that over with now?

Yes resist! Do you want wear a mask for the rest of your life? Do you want annual mandatory injections of pathogens into your body? Do you want to check-in/check-out with your QR code ID wherever you go, that comes with an expiration date, enables mass surveillance, and can be disabled at a whim? A dictated narrative, censorship of opposition, rationality forbidden? Or do you think you are fine with this and want to live in permanent cognitive dissonance?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#542

Post by quantumBerry » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

nicetryguy wrote: post #493

quantumBerry wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which are you arguing against, public healthcare or the mandates that hospitals admit emergency patients regardless of ability to pay?

Neither. You should consider other people for a change.

> Neither. You should consider other people for a change.

And your hypocritical argument is on the selfish belief that you believe society owes you something (supporting your healthcare) when you make a mistake.

That is your argument not mine. I believe liberty means you can choose not to wear a seatbelt, and society can choose not to support your mistake. Personally I do not wear a seatbelt while riding a motorcycle, and if I am permanently disfigured or mentally damaged I hope that If I'm unable to on my own that my wife would help me put a swift and terminal end to my misery, but I don't believe I am owed that luxury by her or anyone else. Rather any support should be voluntary (through trade or voluntary charity).

Your argument is rooted in a belief that people are owed something (either public healthcare, or at a bare minimum mandatory admission by hospital even if they cannot pay.) Because of that belief you seek to modify the behavior of others because of your selfish desire to minimize the cost of supporting them in the event of accident. The simple solution is to simply remove the support of society to remove that cost. You cannot possibly legislate the risk out of life.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#543

Post by omgitsabird » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

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.

If YouTube users were moderating YouTube and the reason that a video was flagged was because a non-paid member of the community initiated the action, would that still make YouTube in the wrong? Would the "mod" be to blame?

What if it was a up/down-voting system, and the community just down-voted a video to the point where it was "dead" for normal people? Would YouTube be in the wrong?

It seems strange that there is no expectation of these companies to moderate content that they are hosting, if they perceive it as being bad for their user base.

When I was much younger, I used to get upset when I was banned or squelched from IRC channels for saying things, and I would berate the moderators for being overzealous. In reality, I was just saying things that were perceived as not being conducive to the discussion in these channels, and I was not aware enough to understand that what I was saying was not welcome in that setting.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#544

Post by leereeves » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #498

ipspam wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me up until the word "multiple". A more appropriate word would be percentage. I'm willing to cede ground that masks may reduce infections 5-20%. If it were more, there would be correlates in the real world. As it is, it's a statistical shit show to even show that masks have any effect at all, much less how much.

> it's a statistical shit show to even show that masks have any effect at all It's also a statistical shit show to show that condoms have any effect (against unwanted pregnancies, or sexually transmitted diseases), in studies using RCT settings: https://jech.bmj.com/content/65/2/100 Do you think this should make us conclude, that condoms may reduce STDs or unwanted pregnancies at max 5-20%?

That paper isn't about the effectiveness of condoms; it's about "Interventions to increase effective condom use...condom design, access to condoms, condom use behaviours and condom-related legislation."

In other words, it's a study about the effectiveness of policies, not the condoms themselves.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#545

Post by OrvalWintermute » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #233

ryandrake wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrases "doesn't work" and "doesn't prevent" have become staples of the COVID disinformation toolkit. Anything that is not exactly 100% effective transforms into "doesn't work" in the narrative. Educated experts will never say something is 100% effective, so this is always an easy way for detractors to "prove" that the experts agree XYZ doesn't work. EDIT: Other examples: Some people have gotten pregnant while on…

I hate the word "dog whistle" because they let people sub in what they think the person said for what they actually said. I have seen otherwise intelligent people who could not even come up with a convincing straw man of what the other side believes for longstanding debates like abortion due to their bubbles. > Some people have gotten pregnant while on birth control, therefore birth control "doesn't work". Some peopl…

The term dog whistle is regularly used as a covert form of Ad Hominem that I find logically annoying, basically "ignore everything this person said because" insert assumption of what was meant and derogatory term about political affiliation. We see this lots in our media and it seems they are trying to do our thinking for us, rather than letting us draw our own conclusions.

Face to Face, and in the past, we were much more civil to one another.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#546

Post by Valectar » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #423

srinivgp wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty conclusive. It's been conclusive for years and years, before COVID-19. There's no question at all that masks reduce infectiousness through the extremely obvious method of preventing some virus particles from going from one person to another, and also no question at all that probability of infection depends on number of virus particles around, and that viruses in general produce worse symptoms when the ini…

> It's been conclusive for years and years, before COVID-19 What? The overwhelming literature showed the exact opposite! That cloth masks did not prevent Influenza whatsoever. I'd start with https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/ as a great review, and then take a look at some specific studies like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ > The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cl…

Where did your conclusion of "masks definitely don't work for SARS-2" come from? Just in your quote it stated that the control that cloth mask use was compared to was a population with a high proportion of mask wearing. The study does not compare cloth mask usage to no mask usage, and only says that it is possible that cloth masks are harmful.

Also if you would like some more up to date information, as well as a larger number of studied, which are specific to COVID, the CDC website has a lot of information here:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#547

Post by ravenstine » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:50 PM UTC

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…

Should I be suspended from HN if I say I don't believe in seat belts?

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#548

Post by xanaxagoras » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:50 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #524

xanaxagoras wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm done with COVID. I'm immune to it. By this point everyone has had the chance to become immune to it. I'm not worried about the delta variant. I don't think mass death is on the table here.

No your not, re infection is happening. At our current rate maybe we'll reach immunity about the time Zeta rolls around.

Well, that's how I'm thinking about it and that's how I'm acting. I'd rather die from a severe breakthrough case than go through another last year.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#549

Post by patmcc » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:51 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #230

patmcc wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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?

This just seems very dismissive. Maybe you're right that Youtube's speech policies aren't an issue of earth-shattering importance, but that wouldn't mean it's somehow impossible to say that I don't like them and wish they would change.

Partially I'm serious, but I'm also channeling the politics of Rand Paul - a libertarian who doesn't believe in "rights based on your behavior" - which to him I suppose means the "behavior" of being gay or trans, rather than the behavior of saying idiotic things about covid.

Re: YouTube suspends Rand Paul for seven days

#550

Post by fitzie » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 11:53 PM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #390

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 is that you still need someone to evaluate the research. I can find a citation that says thing X, and then a different citation that says !X. This is twice as much of a problem when public health authorities like the CDC will issue statements or guidance that is directly contrary to the clinical research, as has been done repeatedly in claiming that masks work to slow community transmission of SARS-2 desp…

I disagree. for example, a journalist could simply ask the CDC about page 20, in this leaked presentation here:. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infe...

where it uses metrics of ~20% effective in protecting masks wearers from catching the disease in a model.

instead, we have the media saying that rand is wrong, and CNN chasing doctors that dare say that masks don't prevent all spread.

the media has long decided that some facts are best not shared, but now they are complicit with a censorship regime where we all know that masks don't work 100%, but we also know that we will get punished for saying it out loud.

things that were called misinformation from CNN:

- masks don't always work - vaccines sometimes have side effects - you will most likely survive covid - vitamin c and d will help you fight covid.